Книга одиннадцатая

The second part of the essay on the City of God begins, which talks about the beginning, spread and destined end of two cities, heavenly and earthly. In this book, bl. Augustine first of all indicates the initial beginnings of these two cities in the distinction that preceded them between good and evil angels, and on this occasion he speaks of the creation of the world, which is described in St. Scripture at the beginning of Genesis. Chapter I. About this part of the work, in which begins the exposition of the beginning and end of two cities, heavenly and earthly We call the city of God the city to which the very Scripture testifies, which, by the will of the highest providence, rising above all without exception the scriptures of all peoples by divine authority, and not by an accidental impression on human souls, has conquered all kinds of human minds. This Scripture says, “Glorious things are proclaimed about you, O city of God!” (Ps. 87:3). And in another psalm we read: “Great is the Lord and highly praised in the city of our God, on His holy mountain” (Ps. 47:2). In the same psalm, a little lower: “As we heard, so we saw in the city of the Lord of hosts, in the city of our God; God will establish it forever” (Ps. 47:9). And in another psalm: “River streams make glad the city of God, the holy dwelling of the Most High, God is in the midst of it; he will not be shaken" (Ps. 45:5-6) From these and other evidence of the same kind, which would take too long to give everything, we know that there is a certain city of God, of which we passionately desire to be citizens because of the love that its Founder breathed into us. The citizens of the earthly city prefer their gods to this Founder of the holy city, not knowing that He is the God of gods - not false gods, that is, wicked and proud, who, having been deprived of His unchangeable and common light to all and limited to pitiful power, create for themselves in some way private possessions and from seduced subjects demand divine honors, and the gods of the pious and holy, who find more pleasure in in order to submit ourselves to one God rather than many to ourselves, and to honor God ourselves rather than to be worshiped instead of God. But we responded to the enemies of this holy city with the help of our Lord and King as best we could in the previous ten books. Now, knowing what is expected of me, and not forgetting my duty, I will begin to speak with ever-present hope for the help of the same Lord and our King about the beginning, spread and destined end of both cities, earthly and heavenly, about which I said that in the present century they are in some way intertwined and mixed with each other; and first of all I will say about the original foundations of these two cities in the division of angels that preceded them. Chapter II. About the knowledge of God, the concept of Whom people acquire only through the Mediator between God and people - the man Jesus Christ It is a great and extremely difficult task, having understood and learned from experience the variability of all creation in general, corporeal and incorporeal, to abstract from it by the effort of the mind and rise to the unchangeable essence of God, and there to learn from God himself that all nature, which is not what He is, was created by Him. In this case, God does not speak to man through any corporeal creature, making a noise in the bodily ears by shaking the air space located between the speaker and the listener, and not through anything sensible that would take a form similar to bodies, as in dreams, or in any other similar way; for even in this case He speaks as if to bodily ears, because He speaks as if through the body and as if there were gaps between the places of the bodies, since visions of this kind are in many ways similar to bodies. But He speaks with the truth itself, if anyone is able to listen with the mind and not with the body. In this case, He speaks to that part of man that is better in man than the rest, of which, as we know, man consists, and better than which is only God himself. For if there is a direct conviction, and if it is impossible, then at least faith, that man is created in the image of God, then the part by which he comes closest to the supreme God will, of course, be that part of him by which he rises above his lower parts, which he has in common even with animals. But since the mind itself, which is naturally endowed with reason and understanding, is weakened by certain darkening and inveterate vices, not only in order for this unchanging light to attract it, giving it pleasure, but even so that it can simply endure it, the mind must first of all be watered and purified by faith, until, day by day renewed and healed, it becomes capable of perceiving such great happiness. But so that in this faith a person would more reliably move towards the truth, the Truth itself - God, the Son of God, having assumed humanity and without losing the Divinity, strengthened and established this very faith, so that it would be the path to the God of man through the God-Man. He is the Mediator between God and man – the man Jesus Christ. This is why He is the mediator, why He is the man, and why He is the way. If there is a path between the one who strives to achieve something and the goal towards which he strives, then there is hope of achieving the goal. And if there is no way or the path that should be taken is unknown, then what is the use of knowing where to go? The only completely reliable path is that He is both God and man: as God, He is the goal towards which they go, as man, He is the path along which they walk. Chapter III. On the importance of canonical Scripture, the work of the Holy Spirit He, who spoke as far as he considered sufficient, first through the prophets, then personally, and then through the apostles, also produced Scripture, which is called canonical and has great authority. We trust this Scripture in those things, ignorance of which is harmful, but also the knowledge of which we are not able to achieve on our own. For if, on the basis of our own testimony, we can know that which is not removed from our senses, internal or even external, and which is therefore called subject to the senses (praesentia) in the same sense as that which is before the eyes is called subject to vision; then in relation to that which is removed from our senses, since we cannot know it by means of our own testimony, we certainly require extraneous evidence and believe those about whom we do not doubt that it is not removed or has not been removed from their senses. So, just as in relation to visible objects that we do not see ourselves, we trust those who have seen them and do the same in relation to other things that are subject to one or another bodily sense, so also in relation to what is felt by the soul or mind (for this is quite rightly called sense (sensus); from where the word sententia itself comes), i.e. in relation to those invisible things that are removed from our inner sense, we must believe those who have cognized what is stated in this incorporeal light and contemplate what exists in it. Chapter IV. About the world, that it is a temporary world and at the same time was not created according to a newly adopted divine decision, since God would later desire what he did not desire before Of all visible things, the greatest is the world; Of all the invisible things, the greatest is God. That the world exists, we see, that there is God, we believe. And that God created the world, here we cannot believe anyone except God himself. But where did they hear Him? So far, nowhere better than in the Holy Scriptures, in which His prophet said: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). But was the prophet present when God created heaven and earth? At the same time, there was no prophet, but there was the Wisdom of God, through which everything was created, which then dwells in holy souls, instructs the friends of God and the prophets, and in an internal way, wordlessly tells them about His deeds. The angels of God also speak to them, who “always see the face of the Father” (Matthew XVIII: 10) and proclaim to whom it belongs the will of the Father. Among them was the prophet who said and wrote: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This prophet was such a reliable witness that we could believe God through him, that by the same Spirit of God, from Whom by revelation he learned what was mentioned, he long ago predicted our future faith itself. But why did the eternal God at some time come up with the idea of ​​creating heaven and earth, which He had not created before? If those who say this wish to present the world as eternal, without any beginning, and not created by God, then they have strayed far from the truth and are going mad in the mortal disease of atheism. For, in addition to the prophetic words, the world itself, in some way, silently, with its highly harmonious mobility and changeability and the most beautiful appearance of everything visible, broadcasts both that it was created and that it could be created only by the ineffably and invisibly great and ineffably and invisibly beautiful God. Those who, although they recognize that the world was created by God, do not want to imagine it as temporary, but only as having a beginning that produced it; so that he was created in some barely understandable way from eternity, - although they express something with which they supposedly think to protect God from the reproach of random chance, so that, they say, who would not think that it suddenly occurred to Him to create a world about which He had not thought before, and that He made a new decision, while He Himself does not change in anything; How such can justify their basic position when applied to other things, I do not understand. If they claim that the soul is co-eternal with God, then they in no way can explain where this new misfortune came from, which it had never known from eternity. If they say that her happiness and unhappiness have alternated from eternity, then they must inevitably say that she herself has been subject to change from eternity. From this follows the absurdity that the soul, even when it is called blessed, is not at all blessed if it foresees the misfortune and shame that awaits it; and if she does not foresee that she will be subject to shame and unhappy, and believes that she will be eternally blessed, then she is blessed due to a false idea. Nothing more stupid can be said than this. But if they believe that although the misfortune of the soul, together with its bliss, alternated during the previous boundless centuries, but that now, having once been liberated, the soul is no longer subject to misfortune: in this case, they must agree that before it was never truly blessed, but now began to be blessed with some new, unfalse bliss and, therefore, admit that something new has happened to it, and, moreover, something greatest and most beautiful, which has never before been achieved since eternity. she wasn't there. If at the same time they begin to deny that this new state of the soul has its basis in the eternal council of God, then they will at the same time deny that He is the author of its bliss; which is characteristic of godless wickedness. If they say that God made a new decision so that the soul would be eternally blessed in the future, then how will they prove that He is alien to change, which they also do not want to allow? Further, if they admit that although the soul was created in time, it will not cease to exist at any point in time, just as a number has a beginning, but has no end; and that as a result of this, having once experienced misfortune, she, being freed from it, will never be unhappy; then they, of course, will not doubt that this is possible only with the immutability of God’s advice. In this case, let them believe that the world could have been created in time, but that God, while creating the world, nevertheless did not change His eternal advice and will because of this. Chapter V. One should not imagine an infinite space of time before the world, just as one should not imagine an infinite space of place outside the world. Further, those who agree that God is the Creator of the world, but ask what we can answer regarding the time of creation of the world, should think that they themselves will answer regarding the space occupied by the world. For just as the question is possible about why the world was created precisely then, and not before, so the question is also possible about why the world is here, and not somewhere else. If they imagine limitless spaces of time before the world, in which, as it seems to them, God could not remain inactive, then in the same way they can imagine limitless spaces of place; and if anyone says that the Almighty could not be inactive in them, will they not be forced, along with Epicurus, to rave about countless worlds? The only difference will be that Epicurus claims that worlds are born and destroyed as a result of the random movement of atoms; and they, if they do not want God to remain idle in the boundless immeasurability of spaces stretched outside and around the world, will argue that these worlds were created by the action of God and, just like, in their opinion, the real world, cannot be destroyed for any reason. For we are speaking with those who think with us that God is incorporeal and is the Creator of all creatures that are not what He himself is. It is absolutely not worthwhile to enter into such discussions about religion with others, especially in view of the fact that among those who consider it necessary to worship many gods, the first surpass other philosophers in fame and authority for no other reason than because they, although very far from the truth, are still closer to it than the rest. Will they not say that the essence of God, which they do not contain, do not limit, does not extend in space, but which they recognize, as is proper to think about God, is indivisibly present everywhere in the incorporeal presence - will they not say that this essence is not present in such great spaces outside the world, but occupies only one, in comparison with its own infinity, too insignificant space in which the world exists? But I don’t think they would go as far as such idle talk. So, if they say that one world was created, although in terms of its bodily mass it is extremely huge, but the world is finite, limited by its space, and created by the action of God, then what will they answer about the boundless spaces outside the world, in order to explain why God ceased to act in them, let them answer the same about the endless times before the world, in order to explain why God at these times remained without action. From the fact that from the endless and open spaces in all directions there was no reason to prefer this rather than another, it does not necessarily follow that God created the world by chance, and not by divine consideration, in any other place, namely in the one in which it exists, although the divine reason for which this was done cannot be understood by any human mind. It is also true that from the fact that the times preceding the world flowed equally into the boundless spaces of the past and there was no difference that would give reason to prefer one time to another, it does not follow that something unexpected happened to God, that He created the world precisely at this time, and not at the previous time. If they say that people puzzle over trifles when they imagine infinite spaces, since there is no space outside the world, then we will answer them that in the same way people imagine nonsense when they imagine past times in which God remained without action: because before the world there was no time. Chapter VI. The beginning of the creation of the world is at the same time the beginning of time, and one did not precede the other. Indeed, if it is true that eternity and time differ in that time does not exist without some moving variability, and in eternity there is no change, then who will not understand that time would not exist if there were no creation that changed something by some movement? The moments of this movement and change, since they cannot coincide, ending and being replaced by other shorter or longer intervals, form time. So, if God, in Whose eternity there is no change, is the Creator and Organizer of time, then I do not understand how it can be argued that He created the world after a certain amount of time. Is it possible to say that before the world there was a certain creation, the movement of which gave rise to the passage of time? But if the sacred and eminently reliable Scriptures say: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. I, 1), to make it clear that before He did not create anything, because if He created something before all that He created, then it would be said that He created exactly this something in the beginning, then there is no doubt that the world was created not in time, but along with time. For what happens in time happens after one time and before another - after that which has passed, and before that which is about to come; but there could be no past time, because there was no creature whose movement and change would determine time. But it is certain that the world was created along with time, if at its creation there was a changing movement, as is represented by the order of the first six or seven days, in which morning and evening are mentioned, until everything that God created in these six days was completed on the seventh day, and until on the seventh day, with an indication of the great mystery, the rest of God is mentioned. What kind of days these are - it is either extremely difficult for us to imagine, or even completely impossible, and even more so it is impossible to talk about it. Chapter VII. About the property of the first days of creation, which are said to have had evening and morning before the sun was created We see that our ordinary days have evening due to sunset, and morning due to sunrise; but the first three of those days passed without the sun, the creation of which is spoken of on the fourth day. It is true that from the very first, light was created by the word of God, and that God separated light from darkness and called this light day and darkness night. But what kind of property this light was, what kind of movement it was and what kind of evening and morning it produced - this is inaccessible to our understanding and cannot be understood by us according to how it is; although we must believe it without hesitation. Perhaps this is some corporeal light located in the higher parts of the world far from our sight, or the one with which the sun was subsequently burned; or maybe the name of light denotes the holy city, consisting of holy angels and blessed spirits, about which the apostle says: “Jerusalem which is on high is free: she is the mother of us all” (Gal. 4:26). For in another place he says: “You are all sons of light and sons of day: we are not sons of night nor of darkness” (1 Thess. V, 5). We can, perhaps to a certain extent, correctly mean by this the morning and evening of the last day. For the knowledge of the creature, in comparison with the knowledge of the Creator, is a kind of twilight, which then brightens and turns into morning, when this knowledge turns to the glorification and love of the Creator; and there is no night where the Creator is not abandoned by the love of the creature. By the way, Scripture never uses the word night when listing the days of creation in order. It nowhere says that it was night, but “there was evening, and there was morning: one day” (Gen. I, 5). Such is the second day, such are the other days. The knowledge of creation in itself is much, so to speak, dimmer than when it is acquired in the light of the Wisdom of God - with the help, as it were, of the very art by which it was created. That is why it can more decently be called evening than night; although, as I said, it passes into the morning, when it refers to the glorification and love of the Creator. And when it appears as consciousness of itself, then it is day one; when he proceeds to the knowledge of the firmament, which is called heaven, between the higher and lower waters - the second day; when he moves on to the knowledge of the earth, the sea and everything that is born, connected with the earth by roots - the third day; when to the knowledge of the luminaries, the greater and the lesser, and all the stars - the fourth day; when to the knowledge of all animals that come from water and animals that fly - the fifth day; and when to the knowledge of all the animals of the earth and man himself - the sixth day. Chapter VIII. What and how should be understood by the rest of God, which He rested on the seventh day after the six days of creation When God rested on the seventh day from all His works and sanctified it, then this rest should not be understood in a childish way, as if God, who “commanded, and it was done” (Ps. 149:5), was tired of creating, commanded with an intelligent and eternal Word, and not sounding and temporary. The rest of God means the rest of those who rest in God. So the joy of the house means the joy of those having fun in the house, even if it was not the house itself that made them happy, but something else. If the house itself cheers the inhabitants with its beauty, then it is called cheerful not only by the use of words by which we designate the contents through the content, as, for example, when we say: theaters applaud, meadows roar, while in theaters people applaud, and bulls roar in the meadows; but also according to the (word usage) by which an action is denoted through a cause, as, for example, we call a letter joyful to denote the joy of those whom it pleases when reading it. So, the prophet uses a completely appropriate expression when he narrates that God rested, denoting by this the peace of those who rest in Him and whom He Himself calms. Prophecy promises the people to whom it is addressed and for whose sake it is written that after they have completed the good works that God does in them and through them, they will have eternal rest in God if first, in this present life, they draw closer to Him in some way through faith. This very thing among the ancient people of God was typified according to the commandment of God by the rest of the Sabbath day; which I consider necessary to talk about in more detail in its own place. Chapter IX. What should one think about the creation of angels in accordance with the testimony of the saints? Scriptures Since I have proposed to talk about the origin of the holy city and have previously considered it necessary to say what relates to the holy angels, who make up the largest and most blessed part of this city because it never wandered in a foreign land, now, with the help of God, I will try to explain, as far as it seems necessary, the available divine evidence on this subject. When the Holy Scripture speaks of the creation of the world, it does not speak in an obvious way either whether angels were created, or in what order they were created. But if they are not completely omitted, then they are understood either under the name of heaven, when it is said: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”; or rather under the name of that light which I have mentioned. And I believe that they are not omitted on the basis that it is written that on the seventh day God rested from all His works that He had done; while the book begins with the words: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth,” to make it clear that before heaven and earth nothing else was created. So, if God began with heaven and earth, and this earth, created by Him in the beginning, as Scripture subsequently tells, was formless and empty, and there was darkness over the abyss, that is, over some indistinguishable mixture of earth and water; because light had not yet been created, and where there is no light, there must be darkness; and if further creation later ordered everything that, as it is related, was accomplished in six days, then how could the angels be omitted, as if they were not among the works of God, from whom He rested on the seventh day? And that angels are the creations of God, although in this place, without being completely bypassed, this is expressed unclearly, but in other places the Holy Scripture is expressed unambiguously. Thus, (in the book of Daniel) in the song of the three youths in the fiery furnace, when listing the works of God, angels are also mentioned. And the psalm says: “Praise the Lord from heaven, praise Him in the highest. Praise Him, all His Angels; praise Him, all His army. Praise Him, sun and moon, praise Him, all stars of light. Praise Him, heavens of heavens and waters that are above the heavens. Let them praise the name of the Lord, for He spoke, and they commanded, and it was done” (Ps. 149:1-5). And here, by revelation from above, it is said very clearly that angels were created by God, because they are mentioned among the heavenly creatures and the words apply to all: “He commanded, and it was created.” Who dares to think that angels were created after all that is listed in the six-day creation? And if anyone is crazy in this way, then his vanity is refuted by another Scripture that has the same authority, in which God says: “When the stars were created, all My angels praised Me with a great voice” (Job 38:7). Therefore, there were already angels when the stars were created. They (the stars) were created when it was the fourth day. So, shall we say that they (the angels) were created on the third day? No! For before our eyes is what was created on this day. Then the earth was separated from the water, these two elements took on various forms characteristic of them, and the earth produced everything that was connected with its roots. But were they not created on the second day? And this could not have happened: for then, between the lower and higher waters, a firmament was created, called heaven; on which the stars were created on the fourth day. So, if angels belong to the creations of God created in those days, then they are undoubtedly the light that received the name of day, but a day that, to designate its unity, was not called “the first day,” but “one day,” and not any other day, whether the second, or the third, or others, but the same day is repeated, one to replenish the sixfold and sevenfold number, for the sake of the sixfold and septenary knowledge: sixfold - in relation to the creations created by God, sevenfold - in relation to the peace of God. For when God said: “Let there be light, and there was light,” then if by this light the creation of angels is rightly meant, they were undoubtedly created participants in the eternal Light, which is the unchangeable Wisdom of God itself, who created all things and is called by us the only begotten Son of God; so that, enlightened by the Light by which they were created, they became light and were called day by participation in the unchangeable Light and Day, which is the Word of God, by which they themselves were created. For that “true Light, which enlightens every man who comes into the world” (John 1:9), also enlightens every pure angel; so that the latter is light not in itself, but in God. But if an angel turns away from Him, then he becomes unclean, like all those called unclean spirits, who are no longer light in the Lord, but darkness in themselves, as deprived of participation in the eternal Light. For evil is not any essence; but the loss of good is called evil. Chapter X. About the simple and unchangeable Trinity of the one God - the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, who has no other property and no other essence There is only one simple and therefore the only unchangeable Good - God. By this Good all goods were created, but not simple ones, and therefore changeable. I say created, that is, made, and not begotten. For what is born from a simple good is equally simple and is the same as that from which it is born. We call these two Father and Son, and these two, together with the Holy Spirit, are one God. This Spirit of the Father and the Son in the Holy Scriptures is called the Holy Spirit in some special sense of the word. And He is other than the Father and the Son, because He is neither the Father nor the Son; but I say – another, and not another, because this Good is equally simple, unchangeable and co-eternal. And this Trinity is one God and does not lose its simplicity because it is a Trinity. For we call this nature of the Good simple not because in it there is either one Father, or one Son, or one Holy Spirit; and not because this Trinity exists only in name without the independence of persons, as the Sabellian heretics thought. But She is called simple for the reason that what she has is She herself, except for what is said about each person in relation to another. For although the Father has a Son, yet He is not the Son; and the Son has the Father, and yet He is not the Father. So, as far as any of them is spoken of in relation to Him, He is what He has; for example, He himself is called alive, as having life, and this life is He himself. Therefore, simple is that nature that is not in the nature of having anything that it could lose; or in which something containing and something else is content: such as, for example, a vessel and some liquid, or body and color, or air and light, or warmth, or soul and wisdom. For none of these things is what it has or contains. Neither the vessel is liquid, nor the body is color, nor the air is light or warmth, nor the soul is wisdom. Therefore, they can lose these things that they have, go into other states or change properties: a vessel, for example, can be freed from the liquid with which it is filled; the body may lose color; the air may become dark or cool; the soul - to become unreasonable. But if the body is incorruptible, as is promised to the saints in the resurrection, then although it will have the incorruptible property of incorruptibility itself, however, since the bodily substance remains, there will not be incorruption itself. For incorruption in each separate part of the body will be whole and will not be greater there, but less here: because no part will be more incorruptible than the other; but the body itself as a whole will be larger than in part; however, although one part of it will be larger, the other smaller, the larger part will not be more incorruptible than the smaller one. So, one thing is a body, which is not in every part a whole body; and the other is incorruptibility, which in each part is a whole: because each part of the incorruptible body, although it is not equal to the other parts, is equally incorruptible. For example: due to the fact that the finger is smaller than the whole hand, the hand will not be more incorruptible than the finger. So, although the hand and the finger are not equal, the incorruptibility of the hand and the finger are the same. Therefore, although incorruptibility is inseparable from the incorruptible body, the substance called body is one thing, and its property called incorruptibility is another. And, therefore, she herself is not what she has. Likewise, the soul, when it is liberated forever, will nevertheless be wise through communication with unchangeable wisdom, which is not the same as the soul itself. For even the air, if it had never been left behind by the light poured into it, would not have ceased to be different in relation to the light with which it is illuminated. I do not mean by this that the soul is air; This is what some thought, unable to imagine an incorporeal entity. But the soul and the air, despite the great difference between them, have some similarities, so it would not be incongruous to say that the incorporeal soul is illuminated by the incorporeal light of the simple Wisdom of God, just as the corporeal air is illuminated by the corporeal light; and just as the air left by this light becomes darkened (for the so-called darkness of any bodily place is nothing more than air that does not have light), so the soul, deprived of the light of Wisdom, becomes darkened. So, according to this, the truly divine is called simple because in it there is not one matter of property, and something completely different - substance; and that it is not by communication with another that it is divine, wise and blessed. However, in the Holy Scriptures the Spirit of wisdom is called many-parted (Wis. VII, 22), because He has many things in himself; but what He has is also the Father, and it is all one. For there are not many, but one Wisdom, which contains within Herself certain immeasurable and endless treasures of rational things, including all the invisible and unchangeable foundations of things, visible and invisible, created through Her. For God did not create anything without knowing, just as, strictly speaking, even any human artist does not create; if He created everything knowing, then, without a doubt, He created what He knew. From this follows something surprising, but nevertheless true, namely: that this world could not be known to us if it did not exist; but if he were not known to God, he could not exist. Chapter XI. Should we think that those spirits who did not stand in the truth were also participants in the bliss that the holy angels always enjoyed from the beginning? If this is so, then those spirits whom we call angels were in no way originally, at a certain period of time, spirits of darkness; but at the same time as they were created, they were created by light. For they were created not only so that they could somehow exist and somehow live, but at the same time they were enlightened so that they could live wisely and blissfully. Turning away from this enlightenment, some of the angels did not retain the benefits of a rational and blessed life, which, without any doubt, due to the fact that it is eternal, is carefree and calm regarding its eternity; but they also have a smart, albeit unreasonable life, in such a way that they cannot lose it even if they wanted to. To what extent were they participants in the above-mentioned wisdom before they sinned? Can anyone determine this? How could we say that in terms of participation in this wisdom they were equal to those angels who are truly and completely blessed because they are not mistaken in the eternity of their bliss? If they were equal in it with Those, they would also equally remain blessed for the eternity of this bliss; because they would be equally confident in her. One could call this life life while it lasted, but one could not call it eternal life if it had to end. After all, (eternal) life is called life because a being lives, and eternal because it has no end. Therefore, although not everything that is eternal is necessarily and blessed (for the fire appointed for punishment is also called eternal), nevertheless, if a truly and completely blessed life is only eternal life, then such a life was not the life of these spirits: because it ceased and, therefore, was not eternal, whether they knew about it, or, not knowing, imagined something else. If they knew, fear would not allow them to be blessed, and if they did not know, the delusion that they are blessed would not allow them. If their ignorance was of such a kind that they did not believe the false and untrue, but did not have an accurate idea either of whether their bliss would last forever, or that it would ever have its end; that very doubt in such great happiness excluded that fullness of blissful life, which, as we believe, is characteristic of the holy angels. For we do not attach such an extremely narrow meaning to the word blessed life as to call God alone blessed, Who, of course, is truly so blessed that there cannot be greater blessedness. What compared to Him is the bliss of the angels, blessed in their kind with the highest bliss that is possible for angels? Chapter XII. Comparison of the bliss of the righteous, who do not yet possess the reward of the divine promise, with the bliss of the first people in paradise before the fall As for rational and intelligent creatures, we believe that not only angels should be called blessed. For who dares to deny that the first people were blessed in paradise before sin, although they were not sure whether their bliss would last or whether it would be eternal (and it would have been eternal if they had not sinned); when, even now, without any thought of exaltation, we call blessed those about whom we know that, in the hope of future immortality, they spend their earthly life righteously and piously, without crime burdening their conscience, and easily incline God’s mercy to the sins of their weakness? Although they are convinced of the reward for their constancy, they are not sure about constancy itself. For who among people can know that he will remain unshakable to the end in strengthening and progressing in justice, if through some revelation he is not reassured by Him who, regarding this with His righteous and mysterious judgment, although He does not forewarn everyone, nevertheless does not deceive anyone? So, as for the enjoyment of real good, the first man in paradise was more blessed than every righteous man in real mortal weakness; but as far as the hope of the future is concerned, anyone who knows, not presumably, but with certain truth, that he will dwell in the society of angels, alien to any sorrow, without end, enjoying at the same time communication with the highest God - everyone, no matter what bodily suffering, will be more blessed than that first man was, not confident in the great happiness of paradise. Chapter XIII. Were all angels created equally blessed, but in such a way that the fallen could not know that they would fall, and those who survived received foreknowledge of their permanence only after the fall of the fallen? From this it is already clear to everyone that the bliss to which rational nature strives as its true goal is determined by the union of both, namely: it must blithely enjoy the unchangeable Good, which is God, and at the same time must neither be subjected to any doubt, nor deceived by any delusion regarding what will eternally abide in Him. With pious faith we think that the angels of light have this blessedness; but it naturally follows that the angels who sinned, deprived of this light due to their depravity, did not possess it even before they fell; although it must be assumed that they possessed some, although unknown regarding future fate, bliss if they lived for some time before the fall. And if it seems incongruous that when the angels were created, some of them were created in such a way that they did not receive foreknowledge regarding their permanence or fall, and others in such a way that they knew with the most positive certainty the eternity of their bliss, and yet all from the beginning were created with equal bliss and remained such, until those angels who are now evil fell of their own free will from this light of mental and moral purity, then, of course, it is even more incongruous to think that the holy angels are not confident in their eternal bliss and do not know about themselves what we were able to learn about them with the help of the Holy Scriptures. For who among the Orthodox Christians does not know that there will no longer be any new devil among the good angels, as well as the fact that the devil will no longer return to the community of good angels? In the Gospel, truth promises the saints and the faithful that they will be equal to the angels of God (Matt. XXII, 30); they are also promised that they will enter eternal life (Matt. XXII, 46). Thus, if we are sure that we will never fall away from this immortal happiness, but they are not sure, then we will already have an advantage over them, and will not be equal to them. But since the truth never deceives and we will be equal to them, then, undoubtedly, they are confident in the eternity of their happiness. Because those others (fallen spirits) did not have accurate knowledge about this; for their happiness, in which they were confident, was not eternal, since it had to have an end, then it remains to assume that the angels were unequal among themselves, or, if equal, then the good angels only after the fall of the evil ones achieved a certain knowledge regarding their eternal happiness. Is it possible that someone will say that what the Lord said about the devil in the Gospel: “He was a murderer from the beginning and did not stand in the truth” (John VIII, 44) should be understood not only in the sense that he was a murderer from the beginning, that is, from the beginning of the human race, from the moment when man was created, whom he could kill through deception. But he did not stand in the truth from the beginning of his creation, and therefore was never blessed along with the holy angels; since he refused to be in submission to his Creator, he found proud pleasure, as it were, in his special personal power, and through this he was hypocritical and deceitful, because he could never escape the power of the Almighty and did not want to preserve in pious submission what really exists, intensifying through proud arrogance to falsely portray what did not exist. In this sense, what the blessed Apostle John said should be understood: “First the devil sinned” (1 John III, 8), i.e. that from the moment he was created, he renounced the truth, which only a pious and devoted will can possess. Whoever is satisfied with such an opinion is not yet of the same mind with the well-known heretics, i.e., the Manichaeans. However, some other harmful heresies also adhere to the way of thinking that the devil, as if from some opposite principle (to God), received his own, in a certain way, evil nature. In their vanity, they reach such madness that, although they respect the above-mentioned gospel words equally with us, they do not pay attention to the fact that the Lord did not say: “The devil was a stranger to the truth,” but said: “He did not stand in the truth.” By this He wanted to make it clear that the devil had fallen away from the truth; and if he had remained in it, then, having become a participant in it, he would have remained blessed along with the holy angels. Chapter XIV. About that turn of phrase that was used about the devil, that he does not stand in the truth, because the truth is not in him Then, as if answering our question: where is it clear that the devil did not stand in the truth, the Lord shows where it comes from and says: “For the truth is not in him” (John VIII, 44). She would have been in him if he had remained in her. The turn of phrase is quite rare. The words that he did not stand in the truth, because there was no truth in him, seem to convey the idea that he did not stand in the truth because there was no truth in him; while the main reason that there is no truth in him is that he did not stand in the truth. A similar phrase is used in the psalm: “I cry to You, for You will hear me” (Ps. XVI, 6). Apparently, one should say: “Hear me, for I cry to You.” But he said: “I cry to You, for You will hear me”; and then, as if answering the question: how will he prove that he called, he points to the effect produced by his appeal to God - to the fact that God heard him. He seems to say this: I show here that I called because You heard me. Chapter XV. What to think about the expression of Scripture: “First the devil sinned” Likewise, regarding the well-known words of John about the devil: “First the devil sinned,” they do not understand that if this is a natural thing, then it in no way constitutes sin. And in this case, what can be said regarding the prophetic testimonies - what does Isaiah say, bringing out the devil under the image of the prince of Babylon: “How you fell from heaven, Lucifer, son of the morning!” (Isa. XIV, 12); or what Ezekiel says: “Thou wast in Eden, in the garden of God; were your garments adorned with all kinds of precious stones” (Ezek. XXVIII, 13)? From these words it is clear that he was once without sin. For a little further! It is said to him with greater emphasis: “You have been perfect in your ways from the day you were created” (Ezek. XXVIII, 15). If these words cannot have another, more precise meaning, then we must understand “he did not remain in the truth” in the sense that he was in the truth, but did not remain in it. And on the basis of this, the expression “First the devil sinned” should be understood to mean that he sins not from the beginning when he was created, but from the beginning of sin, because sin received its beginning from his pride. In the same way, what is written in the book of Job, when it comes to the devil: “This is the beginning of the creation of the Lord: his angels were made to be mocked” (Job 40:14), according to which, apparently, the psalm says, in which we read: “This serpent, whom you created, you should mock him” (Ps. 104:26), should not be understood by us in the sense that he from the very beginning he was created so that the angels would mock him, but the fact is that he fell under this punishment after sin. So, in his beginning he is the creation of the Lord; for even among the last and lowest animals there is no nature that He did not create: from Him is every measure, every form, every order, without which it is impossible to indicate or imagine a single thing, and even more so - an angelic creature, which in the dignity of its nature surpasses everything else created by God. Chapter XVI. On the degrees and differences of creatures, defined differently from the point of view of utility, and differently from the point of view of rational order. For in the series of things that exist in some way, but which are not God by whom they were created, the living is placed above the non-living, just as what has the power to give birth and even to desire is placed above that which does not have such an impulse. And among living beings, sentient beings are placed above non-sentient ones, just as animals, for example, are placed above trees. And among sentient beings the rational are placed above the unreasonable, just as people, for example, are superior to animals. And among the rational, immortals are placed above mortals, just as angels are above people. All this is placed one above the other due to the order of nature. But there are other standards for evaluating things by the personal benefit they bring to one or another. It so happens that we prefer other insensitive things to others that have feelings, and to such an extent that if it were in our power, we would decide to completely destroy them in nature, either out of ignorance of the place they occupy in it, or with knowledge of this place, because we place them below our convenience. For who would not prefer to have bread in his house rather than mice, money rather than fleas? And what is surprising when, when valuing even people whose nature is truly distinguished by high dignity, for the most part a horse is valued more highly than a slave, and a precious stone more valuable than a maidservant? Thus, with freedom of judgment, there is a great difference between the rational basis of the thinker and the need of the needy or the pleasure of the desiring; while the former is directed towards that which in itself has value in various degrees of things, need directs attention to that towards which it tends; the first seeks what is revealed as true by the light of the mind, and pleasure seeks what pleasantly caresses the bodily senses. However, in rational natures, a certain kind of weight of will and love is of such great importance that although in the order of nature angels are preferred to people, nevertheless, according to the law of justice, good people are preferred to evil angels. Chapter XVII. That the vice of malice is not in nature, but against nature, for which the cause of sin is not the Creator, but the will So, we are mistaken when we believe that the expression: “This is the beginning of the creation of the Lord” (Job 40:14) refers not to nature, but to the malice of the devil; because there is no doubt that the vice of malice was preceded by an intact nature. Vice is so disgusting to nature that it does not harm it. To depart from God would not be a vice if the nature for which this constitutes a vice were no longer consistent with being with God. That is why even an evil will serves as a strong evidence of a good nature. But God is both the best Creator of good nature and the fairest dispenser of evil will: when it abuses good nature. He uses evil will for the very good. As a result, He arranged it in such a way that the devil, who was created good by Him, but became evil of his own will, is humiliated, and is humiliated by His angels in the sense that his temptations serve to benefit the saints whom he wants to harm with them. And since God, when creating him, without a doubt knew his future evil and foresaw what benefits He would derive from his evil deeds, the psalm says: “This serpent, you created him to curse him,” in order to make it clear that at the very time when He created him, and in His goodness made him good, He was already, according to His foresight, preparing in advance how to use him and the evil. Chapter XVIII. About the beauty of the universe, which, according to God’s dispensation, becomes even more beautiful from the juxtaposition of opposites God did not create anyone - I do not say from angels, but even from people - about whom He knew in advance that he would become evil, and at the same time would not know what good benefit He would derive from him and thus decorate a number of centuries, like some excellent verse, with a kind of antithesis. For the so-called antitheses, which in Latin are called opposites, or even more expressively - oppositions, serve as the best decoration for speech. We do not use this word, although decorations of this kind are used not only by Latin speech, but also by the languages ​​of all nations. With such antitheses, the Apostle Paul, in his second letter to the Corinthians, captivatingly says in the place where we read: “In the word of truth, in the power of God, with the weapon of righteousness in the right and left hand, in honor and dishonor, with reproach and praise: we are considered deceivers, but we are faithful; we are unknown, but we are recognized; we are considered dead, but behold, we are alive; we are punished, but we do not die; we are saddened, but we always rejoice; We are poor, but we enrich many; we have nothing, but we possess everything” (II Cor. VI, 7–10). So, just as the mutual comparison of opposites gives beauty to speech, so from the comparison of opposites, from a kind of eloquence not of words, but of things, the beauty of the world is formed. This is very clearly expressed in the book of Ecclesiastes, when it is said that just as the evil is opposed to the good and death to life, so the sinner is opposed to the virtuous: one is always opposed to the other (Sir. 33:15). Chapter XIX. As apparently we should understand the words of Scripture: and God separate between light and darkness The darkness of divine speech is useful in that it leads to very many true judgments and introduces the light of knowledge, when one understands it one way, another another. But it is necessary that the meaning contained in a dark place be confirmed either by the obviousness of things, or by other places that are less dubious; or, if a lot is said, so that the thought that the writer had in mind flows out; and if it eludes, then the clarification of the dark place will give some other truths. Therefore, it does not seem to me inconsistent with the works of God that the creation of the first light means the creation of angels, and the division between holy and unclean angels is where it is said: “And God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light day and the darkness night” (Gen. 1:4–5). Such a division could have been made by one One Who was able, before they fell, to foresee that they would fall and remain in gloomy pride, deprived of the light of truth. For the division between day and night known to us, that is, between earthly light and earthly darkness, He commanded to make the heavenly luminaries so familiar to our senses: “Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to illuminate the earth and to separate day from night.” And a little further: “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” (Gen. I, 14:16–18). But between that light, which is the holy society of angels, shining spiritually in the light of truth, and the darkness opposite to it, that is, the most disgusting souls of evil angels who have deviated from the light of truth, only He himself could put a division, for Whom the future evil could not be secret or unknown - the evil not of nature, but of the will. Chapter XX. About what is said after the separation of light from darkness: “And God saw the light, that it was good.” Then one should not pass over in silence what is said by God: “Let there be light. And there was light,” immediately added: “And God saw the light, that it was good,” and not after He established a division between light and darkness and called the light day and the darkness night. This is so that it would not seem that, along with the light, He gave evidence of His favor to such darkness. For where we are talking about impeccable darkness, between which and the light visible to our eyes the heavenly bodies are considered to be divided, it is not before, but after, that it is noted that God saw that it was good: “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." Both are pleasing to him, because both are without sin. But where God said, “Let there be light. And there was light. And God saw the light that it was good,” and after this it is noted: “And God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light day and the darkness night,” without adding after this: “And God saw that it was good.” This is in order not to call both good, since one of them was evil due to its own fault, and not by nature. Therefore, in this case, the Creator is pleased only with light; and angelic darkness, although it should have entered the world order, should not, however, receive approval. Chapter XXI. About the eternal and unchangeable knowledge and will of God, according to which He liked everything created just as much before creation as after creation What is expressed in the saying used on every occasion: “God saw that it was good,” if not the approval of a creation created in accordance with the art, which is the Wisdom of God? But God not only knew that it was good when it was created: none of this would have happened if it had not been known to Him. So, when God sees that good is something that would never have happened if He had not seen it before it appeared, then He teaches, but does not learn, that it is good. Plato uses an even bolder expression, namely, that God was delighted and delighted at the completion of the creation of the universe. And in this case he is not so crazy as to think that God has become more blessed as a result of His new creation; he wanted to show by this that the artist was pleased with what had already been created, with which he was pleased in the idea, according to which it was to be created. The knowledge of God is by no means so diverse that it represents differently what is not yet present, differently what already exists, and differently what will be. For God despises the future, looks at the present and views the past not in our way, but in some other way, far superior to the way we think. Without moving in thought from one to another, He sees in a completely unchanging way. From what happens in time, the future, for example, does not yet exist, the present seems to exist, the past no longer exists; but He embraces all this in a constant and eternal present. And He contemplates in no other way with the eyes, and in another way with the mind: because He does not consist of soul and body; not otherwise now, not otherwise - before, and not otherwise - after: because His knowledge does not change, like ours, according to the difference of time: present, past and future, for with Him “there is no change or shadow of change” (James I, 17). The intention of Him does not pass from thought to thought, in whose incorporeal contemplation everything that He knows exists simultaneously and together. He knows times without any representations of the temporal property, just as he sets the temporal in motion without any movements of the temporal property. And therefore, where He saw good what He created, there He also saw good in order to create it. And what He saw created did not double His knowledge or increase it in some part, since He would have had less knowledge before He created what He saw: He would not have acted with such perfection if His knowledge had not been so perfect, to which nothing was added by His works. That is why, if we needed to give an idea of ​​the One who created light, it would be enough to say: “God created light.” But if it is necessary to give an idea not only of the One who created, but also of that by means of which he created, it is necessary to express it this way: “God said: let there be light. And there was light,” so that we would know not only that God created light, but also that He created it through His Word. But since we needed to point out three things that are especially important for the knowledge of creation, namely: who created it, through what he created it, why he created it; then it is said: “God said let there be light. And there was light. And God saw the light that he was good.” So if we ask who created? the answer will be: God. If we ask: through what did he create? said: yes it will be. If we ask: why did he create? because it's good. There is no creator more excellent than God, no art more valid than the Word of God, no reason better than that good should be created by the good God. And Plato recognizes that the most important reason for the creation of the world is that good creations had to come from a good God - whether he read this, or perhaps learned from those who read, or with his very insightful mind he saw the invisible of God, visible through creation, or learned from those who thought of it. Chapter XXII. About those who do not like something in the world, beautifully created by a good Creator, and who think that there is some evil nature This reason, that is, the goodness of God, which strived to create goods, this, I say, reason, so just and so sufficient that it, carefully weighed and piously considered, puts an end to all the disputes of researchers about the beginning of the world, some heretics did not recognize. This is on the basis that the poor and fragile mortality of the present flesh, which was the result of just punishment, is harmed by very many things when it does not correspond to it, for example, fire, or cold, or wild animals, or something of the same kind. They do not even pay attention to what significance these things have in their place and by their nature, in what beautiful order they are located and how much each one contributes its share of beauty to a kind of general republic, or how much benefit they bring to ourselves if we use them wisely and appropriately; so that even poisons, harmful when used improperly, turn into life-saving medicines when used appropriately; and vice versa, those things that give pleasure, for example: food, drink, even light itself, can turn out to be harmful if they are used immoderately and untimely. By this, divine providence teaches us not to condemn things recklessly, but to diligently examine their benefits; and where our reason or our weakness proves insufficient, consider this benefit to be hidden, just as those things were hidden that we were able to gain with difficulty. For the very concealment of benefit is either an exercise of our modesty, or a humiliation of arrogance - because absolutely no nature is evil, and this very name (evil) shows only the deprivation of good; but in the transition from earthly things to heavenly things and from visible to invisible, there are some goods that are better than others, so that there are different ones. God is just as great an Artist in the great as He is no less in the small. This small thing should be measured not by its magnitude, which is insignificant, but by the wisdom of the Artist. An example is a person’s appearance. It seems that almost nothing is taken away from the body if one eyebrow is cut off, and yet how much is taken away from beauty, which lies not in mass, but in the equality and symmetry of the members! One should not, of course, be particularly surprised that those who think that there is some evil nature that arose and spread from some of its opposite principles do not want to admit the mentioned reason for the creation of things - that the good God created good - believing that He was rather forced into great world activity by an external image from the evil warring against Him; that in order to curb and overcome evil He mixed His good nature with evil, which, most shamefully stained and subjected to the most severe captivity and oppression, with great difficulty barely cleanses and liberates, although not all: what He could not cleanse from this defilement will be a cover and bonds for the defeated and imprisoned enemy. The Manichaeans would not have gone mad, or rather, would not have been so extravagant, if they had believed that the nature of God, such as it is, is unchangeable and completely incorruptible, and therefore nothing can harm it; and the soul, which of its own free will could change for the worse and, as a result of sin, be damaged and deprived of the light of unchangeable truth, with Christian common sense would be recognized not as a part of God and not of the same nature as it is with God, but as created by Him and far from equal to the Creator. Chapter XXIII. About the error in which the teaching of Origen is reproached But it is much more surprising that even some of those who believe with us that there is only one beginning of all things and that every nature that is not what God could have been created only by Him - even of these some did not want to directly and simply believe in such a good and simple reason for the creation of the world, that is, that a good God created good and that what was after God was not the same as God, although it was good that could only be created good God. They say that souls, although not parts of God and created by God, sinned by departing from the Creator and, in varying degrees, according to the difference in sins, during the transition from heaven to earth, received various bodies as punishment, like prisons; that this is how the world came to be and the reason for the creation of the world was not that good was created, but that evil was curbed. Origen is rightly reproached for this. This he asserted and wrote in books, which he calls περì Αρχῶν, i.e. “On the beginnings.” At the same time, I cannot be sufficiently amazed that such a learned man, who practiced so much in the church scriptures, did not first of all pay attention to the fact that this contradicts the direct intention of Scripture, which has such great authority, which adds to all the works of God: “And God saw that it was good”; and at the end of everything he says: “And God saw everything that He had created, and behold, it was very good” (Gen. I, 31). It wanted to make it clear that there is no other reason for the creation of the world except that good came from the good God. If no one sinned, the world would be adorned and filled only with good natures; and if there is sin, then everything is not yet filled with sin, because a much larger number of good beings in heaven observe the order of their nature. And the evil will, which did not want to observe the order of nature, will not, as a result, escape the laws of the righteous God, who directs everything to good. For just as a picture with the color black placed in its proper place, so the totality of things, if anyone can look at it, appears beautiful even with sinners, although their ugliness, when considered in themselves, makes them vile. **** Then Origen and others who adhered to the same way of thinking should have paid attention to the fact that if this opinion were true, then the world would have been created in order for souls to receive bodies as a kind of restraining houses, in which they were imprisoned according to the extent of their sins: the highest and lightest are those who have sinned less, and the lower and heavier are those who have sinned more; earthly bodies, of which there is nothing lower and heavier, would rather have demons, who are worse than even evil people. Meanwhile, in order to make us understand that the moral qualities of souls should not be assessed by the properties of bodies, the worst demons received airy bodies; man, although evil at the present time, but whose anger is much less and more moderate, undoubtedly received a body of dust even before sin. Is it possible to say a greater stupidity than that, for example, that when creating this sun so that it was one in one world, the artist-God did not have in mind the beauty or even the well-being of bodily things, but that this happened rather because one soul sinned in such a way that it deserved imprisonment in just such a body? If it happened that not one, but two, and not even two, but ten or a hundred souls sinned in a similar way and in the same way, this world, therefore, would have a hundred suns. That this did not happen did not depend on the amazing foresight of the Creator aimed at the welfare and beauty of bodily things, but on simple chance - on the fact that the fall of one soul stopped at such a degree that it alone deserved such a body. To put it bluntly, it is not the fallen souls, about whom they do not know what they are saying, who need curbing, but they themselves, who think so, deviating too far from the truth. So, in these three answers that I indicated above to questions about any creature: who created it, through what he created it and why he created it - in the answers: God, through the Word, because it is good, does not it contain a deep indication to us of the Trinity itself, i.e. the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit? Or, perhaps, is there something that does not allow for understanding in the mentioned passage of Scripture? This question requires a long conversation and we should not be expected to explain everything in one book. Chapter XXIV. About the divine Trinity, which scattered signs of its trinity throughout creation We believe, we unshakably hold and sincerely preach that the Father begat the Word, that is, Wisdom, through whom all things were created, the only begotten Son, one - one, eternal - co-eternal, supremely good - equally good; and that the Holy Spirit is together the Spirit of the Father and the Son and is Himself consubstantial and coeternal with both; and that all this is a Trinity according to the property of persons, and one God according to the indivisible deity, as well as one omnipotent according to the indivisible omnipotence; but so, however, that when asked about one of Them, we say in response that each of Them is both God and omnipotent, and when about all together, then not three Gods or three omnipotents, but one omnipotent God: such is the indivisible unity of the three, and so it should be confessed. But whether the Holy Spirit of the good Father and the good Son, on the basis that He is common to both of them, can rightly be called the goodness of both - about this I do not dare to hastily express a rash judgment: with greater boldness I would call Him the holiness of both - not in the sense of the property of both, but imagining that He is also the substance and third person in the Trinity. What most likely leads me to the latter is that although the Father is spirit and the Son is spirit, the Father is holy and the Son is holy, yet the Spirit itself is called the Holy Spirit, as holiness is substantial and co-substantial with both. But if divine goodness is holiness, then it will be a direct logical conclusion, and not a bold assumption, to think that in the narrative of God’s creations, when it comes to who created this or that creature, through what he created, for what he created, by some mysterious way of expression that arouses our attention, we are given to understand the same Trinity. That, of course, is the Father of the Word, Who said: “Let it be.” And what was created when He spoke was, without a doubt, created through the Word. The expression “God saw that it was good” shows quite clearly that God, without any necessity, without any consideration of any personal benefit, but out of His goodness alone, created what was created, that is, He created it because it was good. This is why this is said after creation, to show that what was created corresponds to the goodness for which it was created. If this goodness is rightly understood as the Holy Spirit, then the entire Trinity is revealed to us in God’s creations. Hence, in the holy city of God, which in heaven consists of holy angels, beginning, formation and blessedness are distinguished. Ask where he is from? - God enlightens him; where does his bliss come from? - He enjoys God. Existing, has a certain type of being; contemplating, he is enlightened; clinging, having fun. Eats, contemplates, loves. In the eternity of God he receives strength; in the truth of God he shines with light, in the goodness of God he rejoices. Chapter XXV. On the division of the system of philosophy into three parts Because of this, the philosophers, as far as can be understood, decided to divide the system of philosophy into three parts, or rather, they managed to notice that it was divided into three parts (for they themselves did not establish that this was so, but rather found that it was so), of which the first is called physics, the other logic, the third ethics. Translated into Latin, the names of these parts have been so often used in the writings of many that they can be called natural, rational and moral: we briefly touched on them in the eighth book. It does not follow from this that the philosophers in these three parts thought anything worthy of God about the Trinity; although it is known that the first to discover and put into use this division of philosophy was Plato, who recognized only God as the creator of all beings, and the giver of knowledge, and the inspirer of love, with which life is well and blissfully spent. But although different philosophers have thought differently about the nature of things, and about the methods of investigating truth, and about the final good towards which we should direct everything that we do, nevertheless, all the efforts of their thought revolve around these three great and general questions. There is much disagreement in the opinions of each of them on each of these questions; yet none of them doubts that there is some cause of nature, a form of knowledge, the highest good of life. In the same way, for every human artist, in order for him to create something, three conditions are set: nature, art, benefit; nature is measured by natural talents, art by knowledge, usefulness by fruit. I know that the word fruit indicates the use of *****, and benefit indicates use, and that the difference between them is that what we use gives us pleasure in itself, without regard to anything else; and what we use, we need for something else. Therefore, temporal things should be used rather than consumed (for pleasure) in order to gain the right to enjoy eternal things. One should not do as some corrupt people do, who want to use (for pleasure) money, but to use God: they do not spend money for the sake of God, but honor God Himself for the sake of money. However, in more ordinary speech we say that we both use the fruits and find the fruit in the benefits. Even in the proper sense we call the fruits of the fields, which, in any case, we all use temporarily. So, in this last sense I used the word benefit, speaking about those three conditions that are set for a person, such as: nature, art and benefit. Accordingly, to achieve a blissful life, philosophers, as I said, invented a three-part system: natural according to nature, rational according to knowledge and moral according to benefit. If our nature were from us, we, of course, would give birth to our wisdom ourselves, and would not try to acquire it through science, studying it; If our love had a source in ourselves and related to us, it would be enough for a blissful life and there would be no need for any other good for our enjoyment. Under these conditions, since our nature has God as the author of its existence, we, undoubtedly, in order to know the truth, must consider Him as our teacher; In order to be blessed, we must look for the giver of inner pleasure in Him. Chapter XXVI. About the image of the highest Trinity, which to a certain extent is in the nature of man, even if he has not yet become blessed And we ourselves recognize in ourselves the image of God, that is, the highest Trinity - an image, it is true, unequal, even very different, not co-eternal and, to briefly express everything, not of the same essence as God, although in the things He created, it is closest in nature to God - an image that still requires improvement in order to be closest to God and in likeness. For we also exist, and we know that we exist, and we love this being and knowledge of ours. Regarding these three things that I have just enumerated, we are not afraid of being deceived by any lie that has the appearance of plausibility. We do not feel them with any bodily sense, as we feel those things that are outside of us, as we feel, for example, color - by sight, sound - by hearing, smell - by smell, what we eat - by taste, hard and soft - by touch. They are not one of these sensory things, the images of which, very similar to them, although no longer corporeal, rotate in our thoughts, are retained in our memory and arouse in us a desire for them. Without any fantasies and without any deceptive games of ghosts, it is extremely certain for me that I exist, that I know it, that I love. I am not afraid of any objections to these truths from academics who might say: “What if you are being deceived?” If I am deceived, that is why I already exist. For he who does not exist cannot, of course, be deceived: I, therefore, exist if I am deceived. So, since I exist, if I am deceived, then how am I deceived in the fact that I exist, if I undoubtedly exist, since I am deceived? Since I must exist in order to be deceived, there is no doubt that I am not deceived in what I know about my existence. It follows from this that I am not deceived in the fact that I know what I know. For just as I know that I exist, so I also know that I know. Since I love these two things, then to these two things that I know, I add this same love as a third, equal in dignity, for I am not deceived that I love, if I am not deceived in that I love; although even if the latter were false, in any case it would be true that I love what is false. On what basis would they reproach me for loving something false or keep me from this love if it were false that I love him? If what is mentioned is true and reliable, then who can doubt that when he is loved, the love for him is also true and reliable? Then, there is no one who does not want to exist, just as there is no one who does not want to be blessed. For how can anyone be blessed if he does not exist? Chapter XXVII. About being and knowing, and about love for both By some natural attraction, existence itself is so attractive that even the unfortunate do not want to be destroyed, and when they feel unhappy, they want the end not of their existence, but of their misfortune. Even if those who seem to themselves to be the most unfortunate, and in fact are so, and not only wise as fools, but even those who consider themselves blessed, are recognized as unhappy because they are poor and poor - even if someone were to offer immortality, with which their misfortune itself would not die, warning that if they do not wish to remain in this misfortune forever, they will turn into insignificance and never return to existence, but perish completely, then, probably, they too would rejoice and would prefer eternal existence on this condition to complete non-existence. The best witness to this is their own feeling. For why are they afraid to die and prefer to live in this need, and not end it with death, if not because nature obviously avoids non-existence? And therefore, knowing that they will die, they expect, as a great blessing, that mercy will be shown to them, that they will live longer in this very misfortune and later die. By this they prove with what great joy they would accept even such immortality as would not put an end to their misfortune. And don’t the most unreasonable animals, from huge dragons to insignificant worms, not endowed with the gift of understanding this, show with all kinds of movements that they want to exist and therefore avoid death? And trees and all young shoots, which have no ability to avoid death through obvious movements, in order to spread their branches safely through the air, don’t they sink their roots deeper into the ground in order to extract nutrition from there and thereby preserve their existence in a certain way? Finally, those bodies that do not only have feelings, but even no plant life, sometimes rise up, sometimes go down, sometimes stay in the middle spaces in order to preserve their existence where they can exist in accordance with their nature. And how great the love of knowledge is and how much human nature does not want to be deceived can be understood from the fact that everyone would rather cry in a state of sound mind than rejoice in a state of insanity. This great and amazing ability is not characteristic of any mortal animate being except man. Some of the animals have a much keener sense of vision than we do for contemplating ordinary daylight; but this disembodied light is inaccessible to them, which in a certain way illuminates our mind, so that we can correctly judge all these things: for us this is possible to the extent that we perceive this light. However, the feelings of irrational animals are inherent, if not knowledge, then at least some semblance of knowledge. Other corporeal things are called sensory not because they feel, but because they are subject to feelings. Of these, in trees something similar to feelings represents what they feed and give birth to. And all these bodily things have their reasons hidden in nature. They present their forms, which add beauty to the structure of this visible world, for purification of the senses; so that they seem to desire to be known in exchange for that which they themselves cannot know. But we perceive them with our bodily senses in such a way that we no longer judge them with our bodily senses. For we have another sense - (the sense of) the inner man, far superior to others, through which we distinguish between just and unjust: fair - when it has a certain form contemplated by the mind, unjust - when it does not have it. For the activity of this sense, neither the sharpness of the eye pupil, nor the opening of the ear, nor the opening of the nostrils, nor testing with the mouth, nor any other bodily touch are needed. Thanks to him I am convinced that I exist and that I know about it; thanks to him I love it and I'm sure I do. Chapter XXVIII. Should we love the very love with which we love both being and knowledge in order to get closer to the image of the Divine Trinity Regarding these two, being and knowledge, to what extent they constitute the object of love in us and to what extent some similarity of them is found even in other things below us, we have said enough, as far as this was required by the task of the work we have undertaken. But we have not yet said about the love with which they are loved, whether this love itself should be loved. She is loved; and we see this from the fact that in people who are deservedly loved, she herself is loved most of all. It is not the person who is rightly called good who knows what good is, but the one who loves. Yes, why do we feel within ourselves that we love love itself, with which we love what is good we love. There is also love with which we love what should not be loved; and he who loves that love, that loves, that should love, hates this love in himself. Both of these loves can exist in one person, and the good for a person is that he develops in himself that by which we live well, and destroys that by which we live poorly, until everything by which we live is completely cured and everything by which we live changes into good. If we were animals, then we would love carnal life and everything that corresponds to the feelings of the flesh; this would be a sufficient good for us and we, content with this good, would not look for anything else. In the same way, if we were trees, we, of course, would not love anything with the movement of feeling, although we would seem to strive for it if we were more fertile. And if we were stones, or waves, or wind, or flames, or anything else of the same kind without any feeling or life, then we would not lack some desire for our place and order. For something like love is the specific gravity of bodies, according to which they either fall down from heaviness, or tend upward through lightness. Specific gravity carries away the body in the same way as love carries away the soul, wherever it may be carried away. So, since we are people created in the image of our Creator, with whom eternity is true, and truth is eternal, and love is eternal and true, and who himself is the eternal, true and praiseworthy Trinity, unfused and indivisible; then in those things that are lower than us, but which themselves could neither exist in any way, nor maintain any form, nor strive for any order, nor maintain it, if they had not been created by Him Who is characterized by the highest being, Who is most wise, most good - in these things, tirelessly running through everything created by Him, we must look for, as it were, some traces of Him, imprinted They have more in one place, less in another; contemplating His image in ourselves, let us return to ourselves, like the famous younger son of the Gospel (Luke XV, 18), and rise up in order to return to Him from Whom we have departed as a result of sin. There our existence will not have death; there our knowledge will not go astray; there our love will not stumble. While we consider these three things to be undoubted and ours and regarding them we do not believe other witnesses, but we ourselves feel them directly and contemplate them with our inner most reliable gaze; but how long will all this continue and whether it will ever stop, and what it will come to, if it goes well or badly - for all this, since we ourselves cannot know this, we require or have other witnesses. Why there can be no doubt about the reliability of these witnesses - we will talk about this more carefully later. In this book, as far as possible, we will continue what we began to talk about the city of God, which does not wander in this mortal life, but is always immortal in heaven, that is, about the holy angels devoted to God, who never were and will not be apostates, between whom and those who became darkness, having retreated from the eternal light, God from the beginning, as we have already said, created a division. Chapter XXIX. About the knowledge of the holy angels, by which they recognize the Trinity in Her very divinity and contemplate the causes of things first in the idea of ​​the creator than in the very deeds of the Creator These holy angels know God not through audible words, but through the very presence of the unchangeable Truth, that is, through His only begotten Word; they come to know the Word itself, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. And that this Trinity is undivided, that the individual Persons constitute a single being in it, that they are all not three Gods, but one God - they know this better than we know ourselves. And they recognize creation itself there, that is, in the wisdom of God, as in the idea according to which it was created, better than in itself; and accordingly, they know themselves there better than in themselves, although they also know themselves in themselves. For they are created and are other than He who created them. Therefore, there they recognize themselves as if in daytime consciousness, and in themselves - as if in evening consciousness, as we said above. For the great difference lies in whether something is known in the idea by which it is created, or in itself. Thus, the correctness of lines or the truth of figures is known in one way when it is mentally contemplated, and in another when it is drawn in the dust; in one way justice is in the unchangeable Truth, and in another way in the soul of the just. This is how they come to know other things, for example, the firmament between the higher and lower waters, called heaven; the collection of waters below, the exposure of the earth and the growth of grass and trees; creation of the sun, moon and stars; birth of animals from water, i.e. birds, fish and animals, as well as the creation of all those who walk on the earth, and man himself, who surpasses all things on earth. All this is known differently by the angels in the Word of God, in which it has its unchangeable foundations and laws according to which it was created; and is known differently in ourselves. There this knowledge is clearer, like knowledge in an idea; here it is darker, like knowledge of the work. And when these deeds relate to the glory and honor of the Creator himself, they shine with light in the minds of those who contemplate, like the morning. Chapter XXX. On the perfection of the sixfold number, which is the first formed from the addition of its parts All this, as Scripture relates, for the sake of the perfection of the number six, through the sixfold repetition of the same day, is accomplished in six days. This is not because God needed a length of time - as if He could not create everything at once, which would then produce time through appropriate movements - but because the number six denotes the perfection of creation. For the first number six is ​​made up of its parts, that is, from the sixth part, the third and the half. These parts are one, two and three; added together they make six. But in this consideration of numbers, those parts of them must be understood in relation to which it can be said what part of the number they constitute, i.e. half, third, quarter, and which then receive their name from a known number. For example, although in the number nine four constitute a certain part, four cannot be said to be a part of nine; this can be said about one thing, because one is the ninth part of it; this can also be said about three, since three constitutes the third part of nine. But both of these parts, the ninth and third, i.e. one and three, being combined into one number, do not reach the whole number, nine. In the same way, in the number ten, the number four forms a known part, but it is impossible to say which one; and this can be said about one, because one is a tenth of ten. This number also has a fifth part, which is two; has also half, which is five. But these three parts of the number ten: the tenth, the fifth and the half, that is, one, two and five, added together, do not make ten and are equal to eight. The parts of the number twelve, added to one sum, exceed this number. It has a sixth part, which is two; has a fourth part consisting of three; has a third, consisting of four, and has a half, consisting of six. But one, two, three, four and six are not twelve, but more, that is, sixteen. I found it necessary to briefly mention this in order to show the perfection of the number six, which first, as I said, is composed of the combination of its parts into one sum. On this sixfold number God completed His creation. Therefore, numbers should not be neglected. Those who carefully delve into them know well what great importance must be attached to them in many places in the Holy Scriptures. It is not in vain that in the praise of God it is said that He has ordered everything by measure, number and weight (Wis. XI, 21). Chapter XXXI. About the seventh day, on which fullness and peace fall On the seventh day, that is, on the same day repeated seven times, a number that is also perfect in another respect, the rest of God falls, and at the same time sanctification is mentioned for the first time. Thus, God did not want to sanctify this day in any of His works, but in a rest that does not have evening: because there is no longer any creature that, knowing itself in one way in the Word of God and in another way in itself, could produce different knowledge, similar to day and evening. Much can be said about the perfection of the number seven; but this book is already too long, and I am afraid that it might seem that, taking advantage of the opportunity, I want to throw away my knowledge more frivolously than usefully. We must observe the rules of moderation and importance, lest they say of us that, by talking a lot about numbers, we have forgotten measure and importance. So, it is enough to mention that three is the first completely unequal number, and four is the first completely equal: the number seven consists of these. Therefore, it is often used instead of an indefinite number, for example: “A righteous man will fall seven times and rise again” (Proverbs XXIV, 16), i.e. no matter how many times a righteous man falls, he will not perish. This, however, must be understood not in relation to misdeeds, but in relation to misfortunes that lead to humility. And again: “Seven times a day I glorify You” (Ps. 119:164); which is elsewhere expressed in a different way: “His praise is continually in my mouth” (Ps. 33:2). And much of this kind is found in the Holy Scriptures, in which the number seven, as I said, is usually used to designate the whole totality of some thing. Therefore, the same number often denotes the Holy Spirit, about whom the Lord says: “He will guide you into all truth” (John XVI: 13). This number also denotes the peace of God, by which man also rests in God. For in the whole, that is, in complete perfection, there is peace, and in the part there is labor. We work until we know in part, “but when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will cease” (1 Cor. xiii. 10). Because of this, it happens that even these Scriptures we study with difficulty. Meanwhile, the holy angels, for communication and union with whom we sigh on this most difficult journey, possess both the eternity of stay, and the ease of knowledge, and the bliss of peace. They help us without difficulty: because their spiritual, pure and free movements do not tire them. Chapter XXXII. About the opinion of those who assert that the creation of angels preceded the creation of the world Someone may start an argument and begin to argue that it is not the holy angels that are meant in that passage of Scripture where it says: “Let there be light. And there was light"; and he will think or say that then for the first time any corporeal light was created; The angels were created before, and not only before the firmament, created between waters and waters and called heaven, but even before that which is said: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth”; and that the expression “in the beginning” does not mean that here we are talking about what was created first of all: because even before God created the angels, it means that He created everything in Wisdom, precisely in His Word, which in Scripture is called the Beginning, just as He Himself in the Gospel, when asked by the Jews who He is, answered that He is the Beginning (John VIII, 25). But I will not support the dispute by defending the opposite opinion, especially since I am quite pleased that already at the very beginning of the sacred book of Genesis there is an indication of the Trinity. For after it is said: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” - in order to make it clear what the Father created in the Son, as evidenced by the psalm in which we read: “How great are Thy works, O Lord: with wisdom Thou hast created all things” (Ps. 103:24), - after this, the Holy Spirit is completely appropriately mentioned. After it is mentioned what property at the beginning God created the earth, or mass, or matter for the formation of the future world, (which) He called by the name of heaven and earth, and it is added: “The earth was formless and empty, and darkness was upon the deep,” after finishing the mention of the Trinity, it is said: “And the Spirit of God hovered over the waters” (Gen. I, 2). So, let everyone understand as they wish. The question is so profound that it can, for the exercise of readers who do not deviate from the rule of faith, call for different solutions. Let no one doubt that there are holy angels in heaven, although not co-eternal with God, nevertheless unshakable and firm in their eternal and true bliss. Teaching that His children belong to their society, the Lord not only says: “Like the angels of God in heaven” (Matthew XXII, 30), but also shows what kind of contemplation the angels themselves enjoy, saying: “I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of My Father in heaven” (Matthew XVIII, 10). Chapter XXXIII. About two different and dissimilar societies of angels, which are quite decently understood under the names of light and darkness The Apostle Peter clearly shows that some angels sinned and were cast into the underworld of this world, which serves as a kind of prison for them until their future final condemnation on the day of judgment, when he says that God “did not spare the angels who sinned, but, having bound them in the chains of hellish darkness, he delivered them up to judgment for punishment” (2 Pet. II, 4). Who can doubt that God, either in His foreknowledge or by His very deed, established a division between these and other angels? Who will object to the fact that the latter are rightly called light, when even we, who still live in faith and still hope for equality with them, but have not achieved it, are called light by the Apostle: “You were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord” (Eph. V, 8)? And the fallen angels are clearly called darkness - those who understand or believe that they are worse than unfaithful people know this well. Let it be in a certain place in this book where we read: “Let there be light. And there was light,” another light should also be understood; even in the place where it is written: “And God separated the light from the darkness. And God called the light day and the darkness night" (Gen. 1:4–5), speaks of another darkness. In any case, we believe that there are two angelic societies: one enjoys God, the other boasts of pride; one, which says: “Worship Him, all His angels” (Ps. 96:7), the other, the prince of which says: “All this I will give to You, if you fall and worship me” (Matthew IV, 9); one is burning with holy love for God, the other is smoking with unclean love for one’s own greatness; The first of them, according to how it is written: “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (Jas. IV, 6), dwells in the sky of heaven, and the other, cast out from there, rushes about in this lower airy sky; the first enjoys peace in bright piety, while the second is agitated by dark passions; the first, at the behest of God, humbly comes to the rescue and takes righteous revenge, while the other burns with a passion to enslave and harm; the first is a servant of God's goodness to help at will, and the other is curbed by the power of God so that it does not harm as much as it wants to harm; the first mocks the second, for the latter, against its will, brings benefit with its persecutions, and the latter envies the first, gathering its wanderers to its fatherland. So, if we have expressed the opinion that in the well-known book, which is called the book of Genesis, under the name of light and darkness are meant these two angelic societies, unequal and opposite to each other, of which one is good by nature and righteous in the direction of the will, and the other is good by nature, but perverted in the direction of the will - societies, the clearest indications of which are contained in other places of the divine Scriptures, then, at least in the given place, the writer implied something else; the darkness of his expressions, in any case, was explored by us not without benefit. Although we were not able to accurately understand the thought of the writer of this book, we did not deviate from the rule of faith, which is sufficiently known to believers on the basis of other sacred Scriptures of the same authority. Let only the bodily creations of God be mentioned here; but they, nevertheless, have some similarities with the spiritual, as a result of which the apostle says: “For you are all sons of light and sons of day: we are not sons of night nor of darkness” (1 Thess. V, 5). If the writer meant precisely this, then the task of our research has been completed as well as possible: we must assume that the man of God, endowed with unusual and divine wisdom, or better than God, perfected, according to him, in six days, could in no way omit the angels. “In the beginning (whether because He created them first, or, as it is more decent to understand “in the beginning,” because He created them in the only begotten Word), says Scripture, God created the heavens and the earth.” These words designate the entire totality of creatures, or, what is more likely, the spiritual and physical creation, or the two great parts of the world, which embrace all created things; so that the writer first wanted to speak about the whole totality of creation, and then traced its parts in order of the mysterious number of days. Chapter XXXIV. About the fact that some think that when the firmament was created, angels are meant by the name of the divided waters, and that some consider the waters not to have been created Some thought that numerous hosts of angels were named after the waters, and the meaning of the words: “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate water from water” (Gen. I, 6) supposedly that by water above the firmament should be understood the angels, and below it - either these visible waters, or the mass of evil angels, or the tribes of all people. If this is so, then this passage indicates not when the angels were created, but when they were separated. But some (which is characteristic of the most perverse and ungodly vanity) even deny that waters were created by God, on the grounds that Scripture nowhere says: “And God said: Let there be water.” They can say the same thing and with similar vanity about the earth; because nowhere is it written: “God said: let there be earth.” But, they say, it is written: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” In this case, water should also be understood here: both are designated together by one name. “His is the sea,” as we read in the psalm, “and He created it, and His hands formed the dry land” (Ps. 94:5). But those who, under the name of waters above the heavens, want to understand angels, take into account the weight of the elements and therefore do not think that the liquid and heavy nature of water can be placed in the highest spaces of the world. If they themselves had the opportunity to create man in their own way, they would not have put mucus in his head, which in Greek is called φλέγμα and which replaces water in the elements of our body. The art of God indicated here the most suitable room for mucus; and according to their assumption, this is so absurd that if we did not know this, and in the mentioned book it would be written that God placed moisture, liquid and cold, and therefore heavy, in the part of the human body that is higher than all the rest, these experts of the elements would absolutely not believe it; and if we submitted to the authority of the same Scripture, we would argue that something else should be understood here. But if we diligently began to examine and consider separately everything that is written in this divine book about the creation of the world, then we would have to talk a lot and deviate far from the plan of the work undertaken. As far as it seemed necessary, we have already said enough about those two different and mutually opposed societies of angels, which represent the well-known fundamental principles of the two cities in the human environment, about which I proposed to speak further. Therefore, let us finally finish the real book. “You shouldn’t be like those ignoramuses who scold the artist: they say why not all the colors in his painting are juicy and bright, why there is light there and shadow here. Are they really better at painting than he is, and the painting would have won better if it had been, say, all bright red? And any city, no matter how well governed, could not exist if its inhabitants were equal in everything. There are also those who are sincerely indignant when the characters in a drama are not entirely heroes, but also servants, peasants, and jesters. But they, too, are an integral part of the action: leave the heroes alone, and what will be left of the drama itself? Plotinus. Enneads. “On Providence (I)” (III, 2:11). An untranslatable play on words and thoughts in Russian, based on the similarities and differences in the use of words: fructus, frui, and usus, uti You might be interested in: