Книга неоконченная («ранняя редакция»)

The beginning of the book of Genesis is explained up to and including verse 26: “Let Us make man in Our image,” etc. Chapter I. Preliminary Discourses on the Catholic Faith. What is sin? What is the punishment for sin? Sins are natural. Why is the church called catholic? The fact that in natural objects is not clear to us - and this, as we think, was produced by the omnipotent Artist God - must be spoken not affirmatively, but with investigation, especially in those books that Divine authority recommends to us, where it is difficult for a person who thoughtlessly asserts an unsteady and dubious opinion to avoid the accusation of blasphemy; but, on the other hand, inquisitiveness in research should not go beyond the limits indicated by the Catholic faith. And since many heretics are in the habit of explaining the Divine Scripture according to their own understanding, in disagreement with the teachings of the Catholic faith, then, before explaining the book [of Genesis] itself, we consider it necessary to briefly outline the Catholic faith. It is as follows. Almighty God the Father created and ordered all creation through His only begotten Son, that is, His Wisdom and Power, consubstantial and coeternal with Himself, together with the Holy Spirit, also consubstantial and coeternal with Himself. Thus, Catholic teaching instructs us to call this Trinity one God, and to believe that He created and created everything that exists, insofar as it exists; so that every creature, both rational and corporeal, or, to put it briefly in accordance with the words of the Divine Scriptures, both visible and invisible, was created not from the Divine nature, but by God out of nothing, and that there is nothing in it pertaining to the Trinity, except that the Trinity created it - that it was created. Therefore, one must say or believe that all creation is neither consubstantial nor coeternal with God. On the other hand, everything created by God is “good”; evil is not something natural, but everything called evil is either sin or punishment for sin. And sin itself is nothing more than a vicious inclination of our free will, when we are inclined towards what righteousness prohibits and to abstain from which is a matter of our freedom, that is, sin lies not in these things themselves, but in the illegal use of them. The lawful use of things consists in the fact that the soul should remain in the law of God and be subordinated with complete love to God alone, and that the rest of everything subordinate to it should be ruled without passion and lust, that is, according to the commandment of God: for in this case it will rule without difficulty and misfortune, but, on the contrary, with the greatest ease and bliss. This is precisely the state when the soul is tormented by creatures that do not submit to it, when it itself does not submit to God, and constitutes the punishment for sin: when it was submissive to God, creation also submitted to it. Thus, fire is not evil, because it represents God’s creation, but it burns our weak being as a result of sin. The sins that we commit before Divine mercy necessarily after we have fallen into the present state as a result of the sin of our free will are called natural sins. But man was renewed through Jesus Christ our Lord, when the ineffable and immutable Wisdom of God itself deigned to receive the full and perfect man and be born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, be crucified, buried, resurrect and ascend into heaven; what has already been accomplished - to come again at the end of the ages to judge the living and the dead and to resurrect in the flesh; what is preached as yet to be accomplished. Those who believe in Christ are given the Holy Spirit. He founded the Mother Church, which is called catholic because it is perfect in the whole community of its members (universaliter) and is not contained in any of them (in nullo) and is spread throughout the whole world. Those who repent are forgiven of all previous sins and are promised eternal life and the kingdom of heaven. Chapter II. Ways of explaining the Law. Story. Allegory. Analogy. Etiology. In accordance with this faith, one must look at what in the book [of Genesis] can be subject to testing and research. - “In the beginning God created heaven and earth” (Gen. I, 1). Some interpreters of the Scriptures recommend four ways of explaining the Law, the names of which can be given in Greek, and defined and explained in Latin, namely, historical, allegorical, analogical and etiological - historical, when any divine or human action is recalled, allegorical, when sayings are understood allegorically, analogical, when the agreement of the Old and New Testaments is indicated, etiological, when reasons for words and actions are given. Chapter III. Genesis 1 Explained So, the words: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth” can be the subject of study from the following aspects: whether they should be understood only in a historical sense, or whether they mean something allegorically, how they agree with the Gospel and for what reason the book [of Genesis] begins this way. In a historical sense, further, the question is possible, what does “in the beginning” mean, i.e., at the beginning of time, or in the Beginning - in the very Wisdom of God, because the Son of God Himself called Himself the beginning when it was said to him: “Who are you ecu? and I said to them: “The firstfruits, as I say unto you” (John VIII, 25). For there is a Beginning without beginning and a Beginning from another Beginning. The beginning without beginning is the Father alone, which is why we believe that everything [came] from one beginning. The Son is the beginning in the sense that He is from the Father. Even the first rational creature can be called the beginning of that of which in God’s creation it serves as the head. In fact, since the beginning is correctly called the head, then in his gradually ascending calculation the apostle did not call the wife the head of anyone; for he called the husband the head of the wife, Christ the head of the husband, and, finally, God the head of Christ (I Corinth. XI, 3): thus, the creature is subordinate to the Creator. Or is it not because it is said: in the beginning, because that was the first creation? But could heaven and earth have been created first in the series of creations, if Angels and all intelligent Powers were created initially? For we must also consider the Angels to be created by God, since in Psalm 148 the prophet also lists the Angels when he says: “That was spoken, and came to be, He commanded, and was created” (Ps. CXLVIII, 5). But if the Angels were originally created, then one can ask whether they were created in time, or before all time, or at the beginning of time? If they were created in time, then it means that there was already time before the Angels were created; and since time itself is a creation, it is necessary to allow something before the Angels were created. If we say that they were created at the beginning of time, so that time itself began with them, then we will have to call false the opinion of some that time began with heaven and earth. If the Angels were created ahead of time, then one must ask how this is reconciled with the further words: “And God said: let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to illuminate the earth and separate between day and night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years”? From these words it seems to be clear that time began when the sky and celestial bodies began to move along the path determined for them; and if so, how could there have been days earlier than time began, if time began from the movement of the luminaries, which, it is said, were created on the fourth day? Or, perhaps, the routine of those days was introduced in relation to human weakness, according to the law of storytelling, in order to give people an understanding of sublime objects through simple speech, because the narrator’s speech itself is not possible without something first, middle and last? Or, so that there are luminaries, is it not said about those times that people measure by continuity in bodily movement? For if there were no bodily movement, then there would be no time; which, however, in itself is very clear to people. But if we agree with this, we will have to ask whether there can be time besides the movement of bodies, in the movement of an incorporeal creature, what is the soul or even the mind, which, without any doubt, moves when thinking, and in this movement one thing has earlier and the other later, which is unthinkable without the extension of time? And if we admit this, then at the same time we also admit the idea that there was a time before heaven and earth, if Angels were created before heaven and earth. For then there was already a creature that spent time in incorporeal movements. And there will be no mistake if we admit that time exists next to this creature, just as it exists in our soul, which is accustomed to bodily movements thanks to bodily feelings. Or perhaps it is not present in the dominant and highest creatures. But be that as it may (this is a very mysterious subject and inaccessible to human thought), we must accept by faith, although this exceeds the measure of our thinking, that every creature has a beginning and that time itself is a creation, and therefore it also has a beginning and is by no means co-eternal with the Creator. One might even think that heaven and earth are placed here instead of all creation in general, so that both this visible ethereal firmament and that invisible creature of the higher Powers are called heaven, and earth is the lower part of the World, with the animate beings inhabiting it. Or is not all the highest and invisible creation called heaven, and all that is visible earth, so that in this sense the words: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth” can be understood about all creation? And perhaps, not indecently, in comparison with the invisible creation, everything visible is called earth, so that that, in turn, is called by the name of heaven. Therefore, the invisible soul, when it is burdened with love for visible objects and is puffed up by the acquisition of them, is also called earth, as it is written: “Why are the earth and ashes proud” (Sirach. X, 9)? But one can ask, is everything called heaven and earth in a definite and harmonious form, or is it called heaven and earth by the name of heaven and is it called the very, at first formless, world matter, which in an ineffable way, by the command of God, is then placed into real, with a certain appearance and form, nature? For although we read in Scripture: You created the world “from ugly matter” (Wisdom XI, 18), we cannot say that matter itself, no matter what kind it was, was not created by Him from whom, as we acknowledge and believe, everything came; so that the arrangement and bringing of each individual thing into a definite and harmonious form is called Peace; the very matter is called heaven and earth, as if the seed of heaven and earth: that was heaven and earth in a disordered and mixed form, in a state convenient for the perception of forms from the Artist God. – Until now, we had to carry out the inheritance regarding the words: “in the beginning God created heaven and earth,” for nothing about them should have been asserted rashly. Chapter IV. Genesis 2 and 3 explained. Abyss. Four elements. Similarities about the Spirit above the waters. “The earth was invisible and unstructured, and darkness was on the top of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving on the top of the water” - Heretics (Manichaeans), rebelling against the Holy Testament, usually use slander about this place, saying: “How in the beginning did God create heaven and earth, if the earth already existed”? This is what they say, not understanding that these words were added to explain what the earth was like, about which it has already been said that God created heaven and earth. Thus, it should be understood this way: God in the beginning created the heavens and the earth; but this earth, created by God, was invisible and unsettled until He Himself was demarcated and brought out of confusion into a certain order of things. Or is it not better to understand that in this verse the same matter is mentioned again, which is above called heaven and earth, so that the meaning will be this: in the beginning God created heaven and earth, but what is called heaven and earth was the invisible and unsettled earth, and darkness [was] on the top of the deep; i.e. what is called heaven and earth, was a certain mixed matter, from which, after the elements were separated from it and took shape, the world was formed, states of the two largest parts, heaven and earth? This confusion of matter could be brought closer to a simple understanding under such features only when the earth is called invisible, unsettled, that is, not yet put in order, or not prepared, and [when it is said that] there was darkness at the top of the abyss, that is, above this boundless depth. And this depth, in turn, is perhaps named because no one’s thought can understand it, due to its very formlessness. "And darkness is on top of the abyss". – Was there an abyss below and darkness above, as if a separateness of space already existed? Or, since the description of the mixture of matter still continues, which in Greek is called caoz, is it not because it is said: “And darkness is on top of the abyss” that there was no light, which if there was, then, of course, would be at the top, because it is thinner, and would illuminate what was below it? And in fact, whoever carefully considers what darkness is will find it nothing other than the absence of light. Thus, the words: “And darkness was on top of the abyss” are equivalent to the words: “There was no light over the abyss.” For this reason, that matter, which by the further action of God is distributed into certain forms of things, is called invisible and unstructured earth and depth devoid of light, having previously been called by the name of heaven and earth, as if the seed of heaven and earth, as already said above; unless, however, under the name of heaven and earth the writer first wanted to designate the universe, so that later, when matter had already been explained, he could move on to studying the parts of the World. “And the Spirit of God was moving on top of the waters.” – The writer did not say before that God created water, and however, in no case should one think that God did not create water, and that it already existed before He created anything. For, as the Apostle says, “He is the one from whom are all things, through whom are all things, and in whom are all things” (Rom. XI: 36). Consequently, God created water, and to think otherwise is a great misconception. But why is it not said that God created water? Didn’t the writer also want to call water the same matter that he previously called heaven and earth, invisible and unsettled earth, and the abyss? In fact, why not be called water, if it could be called earth, when [in essence] it was not yet delimited and formed by water, or earth, or anything else? And perhaps it was first called heaven and earth, then invisible and unsettled earth and an abyss devoid of light, and, finally, water for the purpose of first denoting by the name of heaven and earth the matter of the entire universe, for which it was created completely out of nothing; then, in the name of the invisible and unsettled earth and the abyss, give the concept of formlessness, because among all the elements, the earth is the most formless and least light than the rest; finally, by the name of water, to designate the matter subject to the action of the Creator, for water is more mobile than earth, and therefore the matter subject to the action of the Creator, in view of the ease of processing and greater mobility, should be called water rather than earth. And although air is more mobile than water, and ether, not without reason, is considered and felt even more mobile than even air; however, it would be less convenient to call matter by the name of air or ether. For air and ether are considered more elements that have the ability to produce action, while earth and water only have the ability to receive action. If this is not clear, I believe that it is absolutely obvious that at least the wind sets water and some earthly objects in motion, and the wind is moving and, as it were, agitated air. Hence, since it is obvious that air moves water, but it is not clear from what cause it moves itself in order to be wind: then who will doubt that it is more fitting for matter to be called by the name of water, because water is set in motion, than by the name of air, which sets it in motion? But to move means to undergo an action, and to move means to produce an action. To this we must also add that everything born from the earth is irrigated with water so that it can sprout and grow; so that in these very creations, apparently, it is the same water that moves. Hence, it is more appropriate to call matter by the name of water, since, submissive to the action of the Creator, in this case it would be designated by this name for its mobility and rotation in each born body, than by the name of air, in which only mobility can be noted, but there are no others (properties) that more strongly distinguish matter; so the meaning of all the words will be this: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth,” that is, matter that could receive the form of heaven and earth; this matter - “the earth is invisible and unstructured”, that is, it was formless and devoid of light, an abyss, which, in view of the fact that it should have been subject to the action of the Creator, was also called water for this obedience to creative action. So, this meaning of matter indicates, first of all, its purpose, i.e., why it was created, secondly, its formlessness, thirdly, its service and subordination to the Creator. Therefore, heaven and earth come first, for for their sake matter was created; on the second - the invisible and unsettled earth and darkness at the top of the abyss, that is, formlessness devoid of light, which is why the earth is called invisible; on the third - water, submissive to the spirit in the perception of a certain form and form, which is why the Spirit of God hovered over the water, so that by spirit we understand the creator, and by water - that from which it was necessary to create, that is, matter capable of formation. For when we call these three names for one object, world matter, formless matter and matter capable of formation, then heaven and earth are completely applicable to the first, confusion, abyss, darkness to the second, and submissiveness (cedendi facilitas) to the third, over which the spirit of the Creator is already hovering in order to begin the work of creation. “And the Spirit of God was moving on top of the waters.” – It was carried not like oil on water or water on earth, that is, as if contained (in water), but, if we need to take examples from visible nature for this, as the light of the sun or moon floats over those objects that it illuminates on earth: it is not contained in these objects, but floats above them, itself contained in the sky. On the other hand, one should not think that the Spirit of God hovered over matter as if within space; but [He was carried] by some active and formative force, so that what He was carried over received life and education, just as the will of an artist is carried over a tree, or over any other object to be processed, or even over his bodily organs, which he directs to work. And this similarity, although it is more sublime than any body, is however not sufficient and almost insignificant for understanding the bearing of the Spirit of God over the worldly matter subject to His action; but in a number of objects that are accessible to people’s understanding, we do not find a clearer or closer similarity to what we are talking about. Therefore, in reasoning of this kind, it is best to adhere to the commandment of Scripture: “Glorify the Lord, exalt Him as much as you can, He will exceed more and more.” (Sirach. XLIII, 33). This is what we should say, if in this place we mean the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, Whom we honor in the ineffable and immutable Trinity. But [the words: “And the Spirit of God rushed on top of the water”] can be understood differently, meaning by the Spirit of God the created life principle (vitalem creaturam), by which the entire real visible world and everything corporeal is held and moved - a principle to which Almighty God has imparted a certain power - to be His instrument in the production of everything that is born. Since this spirit is better than every ethereal body, because every invisible creation is superior to visible creation, there will be no inconsistency if we call it the spirit of God. For what is not God’s in the ranks of what God has created, when even about the earth itself it is said: “The earth is the Lord’s and its fulfillment” (Ps. XXIII, 1), and about everything in general it is written: “For your essence is all, O Master who loves souls” (Wisdom XI, 27)? But in this way the Spirit of God can only be understood in this case if the words: “in the beginning God created heaven and earth” we understand as words spoken only about visible creation, precisely in such a way that over the matter of visible objects at the beginning of their formation there hovered an invisible spirit, which, however, was itself a creature, that is, not God, but nature created and given by God. But if all creatures, i.e. and consider the rational, the spiritual, and the physical as matter, denoted by the word water, then in this place the Spirit of God can in no way be understood as anything other than that immutable and Holy Spirit that hovered over the matter of all things created by God. A third opinion may also arise about this spirit, namely, that under the name of spirit an indication is made of the element air, and that, thus, the four elements from which the real visible world arose, i.e., sky, earth, water and air are designated - designated, however, not because they were already delimited and defined, but because they are in a formless mixture of matter, only their emergence was indicated, but this formless mixture of matter itself designated by the name darkness and abyss. But whichever of these opinions is true, one must believe that God is the creator and Creator of everything that has happened, whether visible or invisible, in so far as it concerns nature itself, and not the vices that are contrary to nature, and that there is absolutely not a single creature that did not receive its origin from Him and was perfected in its kind and its essence. Chapter V. About verses 3 and 4 of Genesis. Threefold light - ethereal, sensual and intelligent. What is light? “And God said: let there be light, and there be light.” One should not think that God said; “Let there be light” in a voice released from the lungs, tongue or teeth. Such ideas are characteristic of carnal people, and “to be wise according to the flesh is death” (Rom. VIII, 6). These words: “Let there be light” are spoken in an indescribable manner. But the question is possible whether this saying was spoken by the only begotten Son, or whether it itself is the only begotten Son: because this saying is called the Word of God, by which all things were created (John I: 1, 3), if only at the same time we were far from the ungodly thought that the Word of God - the only begotten Son - is a word, as if spoken by a voice, just as it happens with us. The Word of God, by which all things were created, has neither beginning nor end; born without beginning, It is co-eternal with the Father. Therefore, the saying: “Let there be light,” if it was begun and stopped, is rather a word spoken by the Son than the Son itself. However, this too is incomprehensible, and let no carnal image slip into the soul and disturb the pious-spiritual mind; since the opinion that in the nature of God, taken in its proper sense, anything has a beginning and an end, is an impudent and dangerous opinion, which, however, is forgivable for carnal people and small children, and even then not as an opinion with which they would remain for the future, but as an opinion that over time they will leave. For if it is said that God begins and ends something, this must be understood to mean that all such things begin and end not in His very nature, but in His creation, which amazingly obeys Him. “And God said: Let there be light.” Is this the light that we see with our bodily eyes, or some kind of hidden light that we are not given to see through the body? And if it is a hidden light, then is it corporeal, which may be spread throughout space in the highest parts of the World, or incorporeal, such as exists in our soul, which also includes the study of what we should avoid and desire with our bodily senses, and which even the souls of animals are not deprived of, or one that is above reason and from which everything that is created begins? But whatever light it means, we must, however, think that it is a created light, and not the one with which the born, but not created, Wisdom of God itself shines, so as not to think that God was without Light before he created the one we are now talking about. About this latter, as the words themselves sufficiently show, it is noted that he was created: “And he said,” he says, “let there be light, and there be light.” The Light born from God is another matter, and the light that God created is another: Light born from God is Divine Wisdom itself, while created light is changeable light, whatever it may be, corporeal or incorporeal. But people are usually perplexed as to how bodily light could exist before the sky and celestial bodies, which are spoken of after light, were created: as if it were easy or completely possible for a person to understand whether there is any light other than the sky, which, however, is widespread and spread throughout space and embraces the world! And although by light we can here mean light and incorporeal, if we say that the book of Genesis speaks not only about visible creation, but about all creation in general, but what is the need to dwell on such a dispute?! And it may be that since the Angels were created, then under the light about which people interrogate, although very briefly, but quite decently and accordingly, it was the Angels who were designated. “And God saw the light as good.” These words should be understood not as an expression of, as it were, joy from extraordinary goodness, but as an approval of creation. For, as far as this can be expressed in human language, what is more fitting to say on behalf of God than the words: speech, be, please, so that in speech one can understand His power, in speed - His power, and in will - His favor: so these ineffable [actions] had to be expressed to people by man in order to serve everyone’s benefit! “And God separate between the light and the darkness.” From this we can understand with what fidelity the actions of the Divine creation are described. For no one, of course, will think that light was created in order to be mixed with darkness, and therefore it needed to be separated from it; but this separation of light from darkness occurred precisely because light was created. For “what communication is there to the light on the subject” (2 Cornf. VI, 14.)? Thus, God separated light from darkness by creating light, the absence of which is called darkness. And the difference between light and darkness is the same as between clothing and nakedness, or full and empty, and under. It was said above in what meanings light can be understood: the opposite negations can be called darkness. In fact, there is light that we see with our bodily eyes and is itself corporeal, as for example. the light of the sun, moon, stars and other similar [bodies], if they exist; This light is opposite to darkness, when some place is devoid of visible light. There is, then, another light: this is life that feels and has the ability to distinguish what, through the body, is transferred to the discussion of the soul, that is, white and black, sonorous and hoarse, fragrant and fetid, sweet and bitter, hot and cold, etc. like that. For the light that is felt by the eyes is another thing, and the light that is excited through the eyes in order to be felt is another thing: the first is in the body, and the second, although it perceives sensations through the body, is, however, in the soul. The darkness opposite to such light is, so to speak, insensibility, or better yet, insensibility, i.e. lack of the ability to sense, even if there was something visible that could be felt if there were light in this life through which sensation occurs. This is not the same as when bodily organs are absent, for example. in the blind or deaf, for in their soul there is that light that we are now talking about, but only bodily organs are missing; and it’s not like during silence a voice is not heard, when there is this light in the soul, and bodily organs are present, but nothing comes out that can be felt. Hence, it is not the one who is deprived of this light who does not feel for the reasons indicated, but the one who does not have this very ability in his soul at all, which is usually no longer called the soul, but simply life, which is believed to be characteristic of a vine, a tree, and every plant, unless, however, one can somehow be convinced that they have life, as some extremely mistaken heretics think, admitting that [trees] do not only feel with the body, i.e. they see, hear, and distinguish between heat and fire, and even understand our thinking and know our thoughts; but this, however, is a different question. So, opposite to the light with the help of which something is felt, darkness is insensibility, when a certain life is deprived of the very ability to sense. Meanwhile, anyone who agrees that [this ability] is decently called light will agree at the same time to call it that light through which every thing becomes obvious. And when we say: “It is obvious that it is loud,” “it is obvious that it is sweet,” “it is obvious that it is cold,” and everything else of this kind that we perceive with our bodily senses, then this light, with the help of which all this becomes obvious, no doubt is located inside, in the soul, although the sensations are received through the body. Finally, in creatures one can discern a third kind of light, through which we think. The opposite darkness is unreasonableness, such as the souls of animals. So, this saying makes it clear that in the nature of things God created light, either ethereal or sensory, inherent in animals, or rational, belonging to angels and people; and that He, by the very act of creating light, separated light from darkness, this makes it possible to see that light is a different matter and the absence of light, which God placed (ordinavit) in the opposite darkness, is another. For it is not said that God created darkness: He created only forms (species), and not their absences, which relate to that nothingness from which He created everything; however, when it is said: “And God separate between light and darkness,” we must think that absences [forms] have also been established by God, so that they too take their place, since God rules over everything and controls everything. Thus, pauses in singing, alternating at certain regular intervals, although they represent the absence of sounds, are nevertheless conveniently placed by skillful singers and add more pleasantness to the whole play. Likewise, shadows in painting mark every most outstanding feature in the picture and make a pleasant impression not by their appearance, but by their location. God is not the creator of our vices; but He, however, controls (ordinator est) them too, placing sinners in that place and forcing them to endure the punishments they deserve: this means that the sheep are placed on the right hand, and the goats on the left (Matthew XXV, 33). Thus, God both creates and controls one thing, and only controls another. He both creates and governs the righteous; sinners, since they are sinners, He does not create, but only controls them. Therefore, when he places the righteous on the right hand and sinners on the left and commands the latter to go into eternal fire, this means governing them according to their merits. So, God both creates and disposes of the very forms and natures; He does not create the absence of forms and shortcomings of nature, but only disposes of them. That is why He said: “Let there be light, and there will be light,” and did not say, “Let there be darkness, and there will be darkness.” Consequently, He created one of them, but did not create the other; however, He placed both in order when He divided the light from the darkness. Thus, everything is beautiful individually, because it was created by God, but everything is beautiful as a whole, because it is controlled by Him. Chapter VI. The first half of verse 5 of Genesis is explained. Why is a name called a name? “And God will call the light Day, and the darkness he will call Night.” - Since light, and in turn day, is the name of a known thing, on the other hand, darkness and night are also names: then both in relation to light and in relation to darkness it was necessary to say that these objects in the present case are given names; so that the object to which a name is given could be designated by any other name, but not otherwise. And it is said: “God called the light day” so that it could be said indifferently and vice versa: “And God called the day light, and the night darkness.” What should we answer if someone asks us: “Is the name day given to the light, or is the name light given to the day,” because both of these [words], of course, are names, since they are pronounced in an articulate voice to designate objects? In the same way, regarding the other two [words], the question is possible: “Is the name night given to darkness, or is the name darkness given to the night?” But, judging by the way Scripture presents the matter, it is obvious that day is named after light, and night is named after darkness, because when it was said that God created light and separated light from darkness, names were not yet discussed; and after that the names day and night were added, although both light and darkness are undoubtedly also names denoting known objects, just like day and night. Hence, this must be understood in such a way that an object that received a name could be designated only by some name. Or should not this name be recognized as a delimitation of the objects themselves? For not all light is day, and not all darkness is night; but light and darkness are called by the names of day and night in the case when they alternate and are separated from each other by certain shifts. And indeed, every name serves to distinguish [objects]. That is why a name is called a name, because it designates an object, serves as its icon 4 ; and denotes - the same thing that distinguishes, serves to differentiate [one object from another]. Hence, the fact that God separated light from darkness means, perhaps, the same thing as calling light day and darkness night, and calling them means, in turn, the same thing as establishing them. Or, perhaps, these names make us understand what light and what darkness [in this case the writer] named, as if saying: “God created light and divided light from darkness; “I call day light, and darkness night, so that you do not understand any other light that is not day, or any other darkness that is not night.” For if all light could be understood as day, and all darkness could be distinguished by the name of night, then perhaps there would be no need to say: “And God called light day, and called darkness night.” Another possible question is what day and what night is called here? If [the writer] gives us to understand that day that begins with sunrise and ends with sunset, and that night that lasts from sunset to sunrise: then I do not understand how this was possible before the heavenly bodies were created. Could not the very duration of hours and times be so named, besides the difference between light and darkness? On the other hand, how can we reconcile that continuity, which is indicated by the name of day and night, with the above-mentioned rational light, if only it is understood here, or with light in the sense of sensations? Or perhaps in this case the indication [of day and night] was made in accordance not with what happens, but with what can happen, because delusion is possible in the mind and a kind of stupidity in the feeling? Chapter VII. About the second half of verse 5 of Genesis. “And there was evening, and there was morning: one day.” - In the present case, the day is called not as it was called when it was said: “And God calls the day light,” but as, for example, we say: “30 days make a month”; in this case, we include nights in the number of days, while above the day is named separately from the night. So, after it has already been said about the creation of the day through light, it was timely to say that evening and morning appeared, that is, one day; so that one day [is counted] from the beginning of the day to the beginning of [another] day, that is, from morning to morning, which days, as I said, we call with the inclusion of nights. But how did evening and morning come? Didn't God create light and divide light from darkness into such a space of time as the light part of the day lasts, that is, without turning on the night? On the other hand, how can it be true that it is written: “For with you there is always a hedgehog of power” (Wisdom XII, 18), if God needed time to do something? Isn’t everything accomplished by God, as it were, in idea (in arte) and in reason, i.e. not in the course of time, but in the power itself, by which He at once (stabiliter) produces even such objects that we consider not permanent, but transitory? For although in our speech some words disappear and others appear in their place, it is still incredible that the same thing happens in theory (in arte), in which artistic speech immediately (stabiliter) appears? Hence, although God creates outside the extension of time, because with Him “there is always a hedgehog of power,” however, temporary natures experience their changes in time. Therefore: “And there was evening and there was morning, one day,” it is said, perhaps, as something intuited, that is, as it should or could be, and not as it happens at successive moments in time. For he who said: “He who lives forever created all things in common” (Sirach. XVIII, 1) contemplated with his mind the creation in the Holy Spirit; but in the book of Genesis the narrative is quite decently conducted as if things were created by God in successive periods of time, so that the very order [of creation], which could not be represented by feeble minds in simultaneous (stabili) contemplation, was presented, thanks to this way of speaking, as if before sensual eyes. Chapter VIII and IX and IX. Genesis 6 explained. Planet Saturn. Explaining Genesis 8. “And God said: let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let there be a separation in the midst of the waters and the waters, and so be it. And God made the firmament, and God separated between the waters that were under the firmament and between the waters that were above the firmament.” – Are these the same waters above the firmament as our real waters below the firmament, or, since [the writer] apparently means here the same water over which the Holy Spirit hovered (and we recognized this water above as the world’s matter itself), then is it not this water, of course, in the present place, divided by the created firmament so that the lower represents corporeal matter, and the upper – animate matter? Indeed, here what is called firmament is what is later called heaven. And among bodies there is nothing better than a celestial body. For some bodies are heavenly bodies, and others are earthly, and the best of them, of course, are heavenly; I don’t know if everything that exceeds their nature can be called a body; it is, perhaps, rather a certain force, already subject to reason, by which God and truth are cognized; this nature, as accessible to education from the side of virtue and prudence, by the power of which its movements are restrained and limited, which is why it is, as it were, material, it is correctly called by divine inspiration water, exceeding the region of the corporeal sky not by spatial distance, but by the dignity of incorporeal nature. Namely, since the sky is called the firmament, it will not be incongruous to think that everything below the ethereal sky, on which everything remains in a calm and solid form, is more mobile and fluid. – As for the type of corporeal matter, formed before receiving the form and differentiation (from which the firmament is called the firmament), some considered these visible and cold waters to be the surface of the sky stretched above us. To prove this opinion, they referred to the slowness of one of the seven wandering stars, which is higher than the others and is called Fainwn by the Greeks, and which travels the stellar circle within 30 years; so that is why it is slow because it is located closest to the cold waters above the sky. I do not know how this opinion can be defended before people who have studied such subjects to the finest detail. But nothing of this kind should be asserted recklessly, but should be spoken of with caution and moderation. “And God said: Yes, there will be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let there be a parting in the midst, water and water. And so be it." - After it has already been said: “And it came to pass”, what need was there to add more: “And God created the firmament, and God separated between the waters that were under the firmament, and between the waters that were above the firmament”? For when [the writer] said above: “And God said: let there be light, and there was light,” he did not add: “And God create light”; meanwhile, in the present case, having said: “And God said: let it be and be,” he adds: “And God created”... Isn’t it clear from here that that light should not be understood as bodily light, so that it would not seem that God created it through some intermediate creature (and I call the Trinity God); on the contrary, the firmament of heaven, as material, received its appearance and form from an incorporeal creature, so that at first it was spiritually imprinted on the incorporeal nature by the Truth, which was then imprinted bodily on the creation of the firmament of heaven, which is why it is said; “And let God speak... and so be it”, i.e. in rational nature itself, perhaps, something was created earlier from which the appearance was imprinted on the body; when it was added: “And God created the firmament and separated between the waters that were under the firmament and between the waters that were above the firmament,” then in the matter itself these words indicated assistance for the creation of the body of heaven. Or, perhaps, in the first case what was added in the second was not added, just for the sake of variety, so that the text of the speech does not turn out to be monotonous, [and therefore] there is no need to subject everything to punctual consideration? Let everyone choose the explanation he can; but let him not recklessly assert the unknown as known, and let him remember that it is appropriate for a person to enter into the study of divine affairs as much as is permissible. “And God called the firmament the sky.” – What was said above regarding the name can be taken into account here, for not every firmament is heaven. “And God saw it as good.” - And regarding this subject, it is necessary to say the same thing that was said above, except that in the present case I see the wrong order: above it is said first: “And God saw the light as good,” and then added: “And God divided between light and darkness: and God called light day and called darkness night”; in the present case, the creation of the firmament is first narrated and the firmament is called heaven, and then it is said: “And God saw that it was good.” If this diversity was not introduced for the sake of avoiding monotony, then in this case we must undoubtedly keep in mind what was said: “God created everything in common.” For why, in the first case, did He first see that it was good, and then give a name; in the present case, He first called a name, and then saw, “that it was good,” if not because this difference means that in Divine activity there are no successive moments, although these very deeds are revealed in temporal succession? According to this sequence, one thing is created before, and another after, without which there cannot be a story about what was created, although God could have done all this without temporal succession. “And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.” This has already been said above; the same reasoning, I believe, is valid here. Chapter X. Genesis 9 and 10 explained. What does it mean to get in shape? And God said: let the waters that are under heaven be gathered into one, and let the dry land appear. And so be it." – From here we can conclude with even greater probability that the water mentioned above represents, as we believed, the matter of the world. For if [precisely] water filled the entire universe, then where or where could it have gathered? If [the writer] previously named a certain material mixture by the name of water, then its collection should be taken as its very formation; so that now appears the same kind of water that we see at the present time. On the other hand, the saying: “and let the dry land appear” can be taken as the formation of the earth, so that the earth has now received the appearance that we see at the present time. For previously it was called invisible and unsettled, since it did not yet have a material form. So, God said: “let the waters under heaven be gathered together,” that is, let this bodily matter receive such a form that the same water that we see now appears. “The assembly is one”: the name of this unity indicates the meaning of the form; for to receive a form means the same as to be brought into something unified, since the highest unity is the beginning of every form. “And let the dry land appear,” that is, let [the dry land] take on a visible and different form from confusion. And indeed, the water collects in such a way that dry land appears, that is, what was carried [through space] like the sea is now contracted and compressed; so that what was previously dark becomes light. “And it came to pass”: it may be that this too was accomplished earlier in the minds of rational nature, so that what was said later: “and the waters were gathered into one fellow and the dry land appeared” should not seem to us an unnecessary addition, when it has already been said: “and it came to pass”, and in this saying we should see an indication of the bodily action that followed the rational and incorporeal action. “And God called the dry land, and the gathered waters called the sea.” And here we are again dealing with names, for not all water is sea and not all land is land. Hence, these names were supposed to serve as designations of what kind of water and what kind of land. On the other hand, it would not be incongruous to understand this naming of God in the sense of the very distinction and formation [of these objects]. “And God saw that it was good.” And in the present case [the writer] maintained the same order; therefore what has been said above must be applied to this case. Chapter XI. Genesis 11, 12 and 13 explained. “And God said: Let the earth bring forth the herb that sows seed after its kind and in its likeness, and let the fruitful tree produce fruit whose seed is in it according to its likeness.” After the earth and the sea were created, named and approved - which, as we have already said more than once, should not be considered [actions separated from one another] by intervals of time, so that any slowness is not associated with the ineffable ease of the creative action of God - is not added immediately, as in the two previous days: And there was evening and there was morning, the third day, but a new creative action is added: “Let the earth bring forth the former a herb that sows seed according to its kind and likeness, and a fruitful tree that produces fruit, the seed of which is in it according to its likeness.” This was not said about the firmament, nor about the waters, nor about the land: for the light does not have a successive generation (propaginem) from itself, likewise the sky is not born from another sky, and the earth or sea does not produce from itself other seas or lands that follow them. Therefore, the words: “he sows seed according to his kind and likeness” and: “his seed is in him according to his likeness” should have been said about the earth, where the likeness of what is born preserves the likeness of what preceded it. And on earth everything exists in such a way that it is first enclosed with roots in the bowels of the earth and is contained in it, and then in a certain way is separated from it: this is precisely its property, I believe, that is indicated in the present narrative, because all this was created on the same day on which the earth appeared, and, however, God again says: “Let the earth grow”; then it is said: “And it came to pass”, and then, in accordance with the above rule, after the words: “And it came to pass”, the fulfillment follows: “And the earth brought forth a grass plant, sowing seed after its kind, and a fruit tree, producing fruit, the seed of which is in it in its likeness.” And finally, [the writer] says: “And God saw that it was good.” Thus, all this, on the one hand, is united under one and the same day, but on the other hand, it is distinguished by the repeated words of God. I believe that the issue here is not about land and sea, but rather about the difference precisely in the nature of objects that, being born and dying, spread through successive descent from the seed. Or, since the sea and the earth could happen at one time, not only in the minds of the spiritual nature, where everything was created at once, but even in bodily movement; meanwhile, trees and all kinds of plants could arise only when the earth from which they grow had already appeared: was it not because the command of God had to be repeated that it designated different, but on the same day, creations, since they are tied to the earth with their roots and are contained in it? But here the question may be, why didn’t God give them names? Is this not omitted because there were too many of them? However, we will better discuss this question later, when we meet other objects that God did not name, as He called the light, the sky, the earth and the sea. “And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.” Chapter XII. The first half of Genesis 14 is explained. “And God said: let the luminaries in the firmament of heaven illuminate the earth and separate between day and night, and let them be for signs in times and days and years, and let them be for enlightenment in the firmament of heaven as they shine across the earth.” - The luminaries, about which it is said: and let them be in the days, were created on the fourth day: what are three days that have passed without luminaries? or why will the days need luminaries, if there could be days without them? Is it not so that by the movement of these luminaries people can more clearly distinguish the passage of time and the continuity of its moments? Or does this calculation of days and nights not mean the difference between nature, which has not yet been created, and those that have already been created, so that morning received its name because of the form of creatures, and evening because of the absence [of form]? For the appearance and form of a creature is as far as it concerns Him by whom it was created; in themselves, they cannot have either one or the other, because they are created from nothing, and to what extent they have it depends not on their matter, which is created from nothing, but on the One who is above all and on whose will they exist in their kind and order. “And God said: let there be lights in the firmament to illuminate”... Is this said only about the fixed stars, or about the wandering ones? But two luminaries, the greater and the lesser, belong to the wandering luminaries: how then were all the luminaries created to be on the firmament, when each of the wandering luminaries has its own circumference, or rotation? Is it possible, in view of the fact that in Scripture we read about many heavens, and about heaven, as for example. in the present place, when the sky is called the firmament, should not [by sky] be understood as this entire ethereal machine, which contains all the stars and below which there is a layer of clear, clean and calm air, and even lower this already cloudy and stormy air? “Illuminate the earth and separate between day and night.” But hasn’t God already divided the light from the darkness and called the light day and the darkness night, whence it is clear that He divided day from night? What does it mean now when it says: “and separate between day and night”? Isn’t such a division of day from night now established with the help of luminaries, so that it is noticeable even to people through their bodily eyes, which they use to contemplate visible objects; whereas before the light God made this division so that it could be visible only to a few [creatures] with a pure spirit and a clear mind? Or did not God then establish a division between day and night of another kind, that is, between the form that He impressed on formless matter, and between formless matter, which was still subject to formation and form; Meanwhile, it’s a different matter that day and that night, the change that we notice due to the rotation of the sky and cannot happen otherwise than with the rising and setting of the sun? Chapter XIII. About the second half of verse 14 and about verses 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. The great, so-called Platonov colloquially, year. “And let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for seasons.” The expression in signs, it seems to me, is equivalent to the expression in times, so by signs one should not understand one thing, and by times another. For in the present place [the writer] speaks of those times which, by the difference of moments, indicate that above them stands unchanging eternity, so that time is a sign, as if a trace, of eternity. What times he is talking about, he also indicates this by adding the expression: “both in days and in years”; so that days occur as a result of the rotation of the fixed stars, and years are known to us when the sun passes through its stellar circle, and less known when each of the moving luminaries passes through its own circles. He does not say: “and in months,” perhaps because the monthly year is a lunar year, just as 12 lunar years make up the year of that luminary, which the Greeks call Faeqon, and 30 solar years make up the year of that luminary, which they call Fainon, and, perhaps, that when all the luminaries pass their paths, that great year passes, about which many have spoken a lot. Or in the words: “in signs,” is he not talking about those signs that indicate a certain navigation route, and in the words “in times” - about the seasons: spring, autumn and winter, because they also come and maintain their continuity and order due to the rotation of the stars; should the words: “in days” be understood as we explained above? “And let them be (sint) for enlightenment in the firmament of heaven, as they shine on the earth.” – It has already been said above: “Let there be (fiant) lights in the firmament of heaven to illuminate the earth,” why was this repetition made? In accordance with what is said about plants, so that they produce seed and that there is seed in them according to their kind and likeness, is it not connected here by contrast with the luminaries: “let them be” (fiant) and “let them be” (sint), i.e. let them be only themselves, but not give birth? “And so be it.” The order [of sayings] remains the same as above. “And God made two lights: the greater light at the beginning of the day, and the lesser light at the beginning of the night, and the stars.” - What he calls the beginning of the day and the beginning of the night, this will be seen later. But whether the stars mentioned here also refer to the beginning of the night or not, this arouses bewilderment. According to some, this suggests that the moon was originally created full, because only the full moon rises at the beginning of the night, that is, immediately after sunset. But it is absurd to start counting not from the first, but from the sixteenth or fifteenth [number]. In no case can we be induced to accept this opinion by the fact that this luminary, just created, had to be complete. It is full every day, but its fullness is visible to people only when it is opposite the sun. For when the moon is with the sun, then, taking a position under the sun, it seems to disappear; but it is complete even then, because it is illuminated from its other half and only cannot be seen by those who are below, that is, those who inhabit the earth. This subject cannot be clarified in a few words, but requires thorough research and evidence through some visual figures. “And God set it in the firmament of heaven as a light on the earth.” How, having said earlier: “let them be in the firmament,” again now says: “God created the lights and placed them on the firmament,” as if they were created outside [the firmament] and then placed on it, when it was said earlier that they were on it? Or is it not possible to see from here that God did not do this as people usually do, but it is told about it as it could have been among people; namely: among people it means one thing, and another, “put down”; But with God, who posits in creating, and, positing, creates, both constitute one and the same action. “And to rule day and night, and to separate between day and night.” - Previously it was said: “at the beginning of the day and at the beginning of the night,” which here [the writer] explains by saying: “to rule the day and the night.” From here we must understand the beginning in the sense of primacy, because just as during the day, of all that we see, there is nothing more excellent than the sun, so at night there is nothing more excellent than the moon or stars. Therefore, the bewilderment we indicated above should no longer confuse us, and we should think that the stars are placed [on the firmament] in such a way that they relate to the beginning of the night, that is, to the primary position in it. “And God saw it as good.” The order is the same as above. Let us remember, by the way, that God did not call this [creation] by name, although it could have been said: “And God called the lights stars,” because not every light is a star. “And there was evening, and there was morning, the fourth day.” – If we mean days that are limited by sunrise and sunset, then this day will not be the fourth, but perhaps the first; so that one might think that the sun rose at the time when it was created, and set while the other luminaries were created. But whoever knows that when it is night for us, the sun shines in another place, and when the sun shines for us, it is night in another place, he will seek a more sublime meaning for calculating these days. Chapter XIV. Genesis 20 explained. “And God said: let the waters take away the souls of the living creatures and the birds that fly on the earth, in the firmament of heaven: and so it was.” – Animals that swim are called reptiles because they do not walk on their legs. Or maybe because there are still others who creep on the earth under the water. Or whether birds also exist in the waters, such as. fish that have scales, or others that do not have scales, but are supported by feathers? Which animals should be classified as flying in a given place, there may be confusion about this. For the question is also why [the writer] attributed flying animals to water and not to air. In fact, we cannot in this place mean only those birds that love water, such as, for example, ducks, ducks and others of the same kind. For if the writer had spoken here only about them, then in another place he would not have failed to talk about other birds, among which some have such an aversion to water that they do not even drink it. Perhaps, in the present case, he called this air adjacent to the earth water, because its humidity even on the clearest nights is demonstrated by dew, and also because it condenses into a cloud. And a cloud is the same water, as everyone who has to walk through the mountains among clouds, or even through fields during fogs, feels. It is in this air, as they say, that birds fly. In the same higher and cleaner air, which everyone calls real air, they cannot fly, because due to its thinness it cannot withstand their gravity. It is said that no clouds gather in it and there are no storms; there is no wind there and it is so quiet that, as if on the top of Mount Olympus, which, as they say, rises beyond this moist air, some writings, usually inscribed on the dust, after a year were found intact and undamaged by those who climbed this notorious mountain. Therefore, it is not without reason to believe that in the Divine Scriptures even these spaces are called the firmament of heaven, so that, one might think, that calmest and purest air also refers to the firmament. In fact, the name of the firmament can even designate the calmness and great silence of 5 objects. Hence, I believe, in many places in the psalms it is said: “and your truth reaches to the clouds” (Ps. XXXV, 6; and LVI, 11). For there is nothing stronger and purer than the truth. And although the clouds gather in the space lying below the region of the purest air, and therefore the quoted words [of the psalm] must be understood allegorically, they are taken from objects that in this case serve as some kind of similarity; so that the more stable and purer creature, filling the space from the highest sky to the very clouds, that is, to this foggy, stormy and humid air, represents in justice the image of truth. Thus, birds flying above the earth, under the firmament, are correctly attributed to waters, because it is not without reason that the air is called water. From here it is made clear that it is not said at all about air how or when it was created, because the lower air is contained in the name of the waters, and the highest in the name of the firmament, and thus not one of the [four] elements is omitted. But perhaps someone will say: “if the words: “let the waters be gathered together” make us understand that water was created from the original material mixture, and God called this collection the sea; then how can we understand here the creation of this air, which is not called sea, although it can be called water? In view of this, it seems to me that in the words: “let dry land appear,” an indication is made not only of the appearance of the earth, but also of the appearance of this densest air. For through it the earth is illuminated, so that it becomes visible to us. Hence, in this one saying: “let it appear,” an indication is made of everything without which land could not appear, that is, its appearance, its nakedness from water, and the distribution of air through it, through which light reaches it from the highest parts of the world. Or rather, is not the type of this air indicated in the saying: “let water be gathered together,” because when the air condenses, it seems that it produces water? Hence, perhaps, [the writer] called such a condensation [of air] as a collection of water that the sea appeared; so what is worn unassembled, i.e. not condensed, there is that water that can support flying birds and is called by both names, that is, both thinner water and denser air. But when it is asked where he himself came from, this is not said. Or [finally], perhaps, is not the opinion of some true that layers of this air are formed from the moist evaporation of the sea and land - layers of air, on the one hand, so much denser in comparison with the higher and clear air that it is a convenient medium for the flight of birds, and on the other hand, so much thinner in comparison with the water that washes our body that in comparison with it it appears to our sensation as dry and airy. But since it was said above about the earth and the sea, there was no need to talk about their evaporations, that is, about waters, as elements for birds, since you already know that the cleanest and calmest air is assigned to the firmament. For even about springs and rivers it is not said how they appeared. But people who enter into a detailed study and discussion of this subject say that from the sea, unnoticed in the form of an ethereal current, that is, such evaporations that we cannot notice, fresh vapors are released, from which the cloud is composed; and from here, the earth, moistened by the rains, is watered and saturated in its innermost cavities to such an extent that this water, accumulating and flowing in different ways, makes its way into sources that are either small or even sufficient to form rivers. Proof of this is indicated by the fact that steam from boiled sea water, obtained using a curved lid (cooperculo), produces fresh-tasting moisture. Likewise, it is almost obvious to everyone that the shallow springs feel the lack of rain. The sacred story also testifies to this, when, during a drought, Elijah prayed for rain: praying himself, he ordered his youth to direct his gaze to the sea, and when he noticed a small cloud rising from the sea, Elijah announced to the excited king about the onset of rain, with which the king was almost exhausted on his way home (III Kings XVIII, 43, 44). And David says: “Lord..., call for the water of the sea and pour it on the face of the earth” 6. Therefore, having named the sea, about other waters, both about those dew-bearing waters, which in their subtlety represent the air environment for flying birds, and about the waters of springs and rivers, [the writer] considered it unnecessary to talk about if the former come from evaporation, and the latter from repeated rains with which the earth is fed. Chapter XV. About the same verse 20, as well as verses 21, 22, 23 and 24 of Genesis. “Let the waters of the creeping things destroy the souls of the living” - Why is it added: living? How can souls be other than living? Or did [the writer] want to point out by this that more noticeable life that is inherent in sentient animals, since plants are deprived of it? “And the birds flying on the earth, in the firmament of heaven.” – If birds do not fly in that purest air where there are no clouds, then it is obvious that this air belongs to the firmament, because, as it is said, birds fly on the earth under the firmament of heaven. “And so be it.” The order remains the same: these words are added here, as in other cases, with the exception of the light created first. “And God made the great whales and every living thing that creeps along the waters according to their kind, and every flying bird according to its kind.” Let us remember here by the way that the words: according to their kind are said about those creatures that multiply through seed: this has already been said about herbs and trees. "And every flying bird." Why is it added: “feathered”? Can there be anything that flies without feathers? And if it can, then did God create such a flying thing, because we don’t find it anywhere? Anyway, can anything fly without feathers? For bats, locusts, flies, and other similar creatures that do not have down, however, have feathers. But the word “feathered” was added so that we understand not only birds, because fish are also feathered and fly under water above the earth. That is why it is not said: “birds”, but flying ones in general: “And flying birds.” “And God saw that it was good.” And here it should be understood as in previous places. “And I bless, saying: grow and multiply and fill the waters that are in the seas and let the birds multiply on the earth.” - God was pleased to attribute this blessing to productivity, which is found in the succession of offspring, so that, being created weak and mortal, [animals] preserve their race by birth by virtue of this very blessing. But since plants also retain similarities with those that preceded them through birth, why did He not bless them too? Is it not because they are deprived of a feeling that is close to reason? For it is not in vain, perhaps, that God uses a second person in blessing, turning to animate creatures, as if hearing to a certain extent, with the words: “Grow and multiply and fill, O waters of the sea”; however, this blessing is not completed in the same (second) person, because the words follow: “And let the birds multiply on the earth,” and it does not say: “Multiply on the earth.” Perhaps this makes it clear that feeling is not so close to reason that it can understand words addressed to it as perfectly as [creatures] who think and can use reason. “And so be it.” Here, anyone, even a slow-witted person, must guess how those days are calculated. In fact, if God gave animals a certain number of seeds, preserving such an amazing constancy in their kind that [animals], in a certain number of days, each according to its kind, having conceived in the womb, give birth, and having laid eggs, warm them (which order of nature is preserved by Divine Wisdom, which “reaches from the end even to the end firmly and controls all good” (Wis. Sol., VIII, 1); then how could they in one day they will conceive in the womb, and go through the period of pregnancy, and give birth, and feed the child, and fill the waters of the sea, and multiply on the earth? For even before the evening comes, it is already said: And so it was. And meanwhile, when [the writer] says: “And there was evening,” he no doubt recalls formless matter; [creative] action on matter, because the morning ends the day that has passed after the action. However, God does not say: “Let there be evening,” or “Let there be morning”; for, just as by the names of evening and morning [the writer] designates matter and form, which, as has already been said, only God created, in this case a very brief indication of created objects is obtained, since their absence, that is, the intermediate state from form to matter or nothing - unless this is precisely what we think is hinted at by the name of night - [the writer] would not call created, but only established by God, just as he says above: “And God separate between light and darkness”; so that the name evening denotes formless matter, which, although created from nothing, nevertheless exists and has the ability to perceive forms and appearance. And by the name of darkness one can, in any case, understand that nothingness which God did not create, but from which He created everything that only out of His ineffable goodness He deigned to create, for he is omnipotent who has created so much out of nothing. “And there was evening, and there was morning, the fifth day.” Here, after it is said: “And so it was,” [the writer] did not add, as usual, the very fulfillment [of the command], as if it had been created again; for this has already been said above. And by blessing, which relates to the production of offspring, no new creation was formed, but was only preserved through the successive reproduction of what had already been created. And therefore it is not said: And God saw that it was good; for the thing itself was already pleasing to Him, and only had to be preserved in its posterity. So, nothing is repeated here, except perhaps the words: “And so it was”; and immediately an addition was made about evening and morning, the names of which, as already said, denote the origin of [creatures] from formless matter and the external form that they received, unless, however, upon examination something better and more sublime is discovered. “And God said: Let the earth bring forth every living creature according to its kind, four-legged creatures and creeping things, and the beasts of the earth according to their kind, and cattle according to their kind. And so be it." – Since we have already said why live is added to the word soul, as well as what it means by gender, and finally, about the usual conclusion: “And it was like this”: then all this must be understood as stated above. But since in Latin the name of animals is used to designate any generally irrational animal, then in this place we must distinguish between their species, meaning by the name four-legged all draft animals, by reptiles - all reptiles, by beasts or wild animals - all untamed animals; and under cattle - four-legged animals that do not help with work, but provide one or another benefit for those who keep and feed them. Chapter XVI. Genesis 25 and 26 explained. – What is an image? - Similarity in the proper sense of the word. -Where does beauty come from? - Universe. - Mind. “And God created the beasts of the earth according to their kind, and the cattle according to their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth according to their kind.” – This repetition in the words: “And God created”, after it has already been said: “And so it was,” should be considered according to the above rule. The name of cattle here, as I think, denotes all four-legged animals that live under human supervision. “And God saw it as good”: these words must be understood in the usual sense. “And God said: Let us create man in our image and likeness.” – Here, worthy of note is, on the one hand, some connection, and on the other, some difference between animate beings. Indeed, [the writer] says that man was created on the same day as the animals. Earthly animate beings appear all together, but about man, due to the superiority of reason, from whose side he is created in the image and likeness of God, he is spoken of, however, separately, after the usual conclusion has been made about the rest of the earthly animate beings in the words: “And God saw that it was good.” It is also worthy of note that God does not say about other creatures: let us create. By this, the Holy Spirit, in any case, wanted to instill in us the idea of ​​​​the superiority of human nature. Meanwhile, to whom is it now said: let us do, if not to the one to whom it was said concerning other creatures: let it be? “For all things were by Him, and without Him they were nothing” (John 1:3). But we wonder why it was said to another: let it be, if not because He created at the command of the Father, and why is it said now: let us do, if not because They both created together? In fact, everything that the Father creates, does He not create through the Son, and therefore it is now said: let us create, in order to show man, for whom the Scripture itself has appeared, that what the Son does according to the word of the Father, the Father Himself does; so what was said about other creatures: “let it be, and be,” in the present case is expressed in one word: let us create, that is, not a separate speech, and a separate action, but both together. “And God said: Let us create man in our image and likeness.” Every image is similar to that of which it serves (although not everything that is similar to something is its image), as for example. [images] in the mirror and painting are similar images; however, if one is not born of the other, then none of them can be called the image of one another. For an image is obtained when it is an exact expression of something (exprimitur). Why, when it has already been said: in the image, is it added: and in the likeness, as if there could be an image that is not similar? From here, it would be enough just to say: according to the image. Is it perhaps another thing - similar and another - likeness, just as another thing is pure and another - purity, another - strong and another - strength; So, just as everything that is strong is strong because of its strength, and everything that is pure is pure because of its purity, so is everything like that similar because of its similarity? But our image is not quite accurately called our likeness, although it is accurately called similar to us; so that similarity, due to which everything that is similar is similar, lies in the same place where purity is found, due to which everything that is pure is pure. Purity is not pure from union with something: on the contrary, from communication with it everything that is pure becomes pure. Such purity, of course, lies only in God, in whom there is also that Wisdom, which is wise not as a result of union with something, but from communication with which every soul that is wise becomes wise. Therefore, only the Likeness of God, according to which everything was created, is called likeness in the proper sense: because It is similar not from communication with some kind of likeness, but is itself the original Likeness, from communication with which everything that God created through Him becomes similar. Thus, in the addition: in the likeness, after it has already been said: in the image, perhaps there is an explanation showing that the image about which is spoken here is like God, not in such a way that it shares participation in some kind of likeness, but in such a way that it represents the likeness itself, in which everything that is called similar participates. In the same way, he represents purity itself, from communication with which souls are pure, wisdom itself, from communication with which they are wise, and, finally, beauty itself, from communication with which everything that is beautiful is beautiful. For if [God] had spoken only about the likeness, he would not have made it clear to them that the likeness was born from Him, and if he had spoken only about the image, then although he would have made it clear that this image was born from Him, he would not have shown that it is a similar image, and not only similar, but also the likeness itself. Meanwhile, just as there is nothing purer than purity itself, wiser than wisdom itself and more beautiful than beauty itself, so exactly it cannot be named or thought of, and there is nothing more similar than the likeness itself. From this it is clear that His Likeness is so similar to the Father that it fully and perfectly expresses His nature. And to what extent the Likeness of God, through which everything is created, matters in the imprint of external form on objects - although this exceeds human concepts greatly, it can be determined to some extent by us if we pay attention to the fact that the whole nature of both sentient and rational creatures retains traces of unity in parts that are similar to each other. In fact, from the wisdom of God, rational souls are called wise, but this name is no longer applied; for we cannot call cattle, much less trees, fire, water, air or earth wise, although all this, as far as it exists, exists through Divine wisdom. Meanwhile, we call stones, animals, people and Angels similar to each other. Even regarding individual objects, we say that [for example] earth can be earth because it has parts similar to each other - that in the same way water in each of its parts is similar to the rest, without which it could not be water - that, in turn, any part of the air in no case could be air if it were not similar to the rest, each particle of fire or light is what it is because it is similar to the other parts. In the same way, we can look at each of the stones, at each tree and at each body of every animate being, i.e., that they can exist not only together with other objects of their kind, but also separately from them, only if they have similar parts to each other. And the more beautiful the body is, the more similar parts are included in its composition. Finally, even in the spiritual realm, not only is the friendship of some souls with others strengthened by virtue of similar morals, but in each soul separately, similar actions and forces serve as indicators of a blissful life, without which there can be no constancy. But we cannot call all this similarity itself a similarity. Hence, if the universe consists of things similar to each other, so that each individual thing is what it is, and they all fill the universe created and governed by God, then all this was created, of course, through the highest unchangeable and incorruptible Likeness of the Creator of all things so that it was beautiful due to the similar parts, but not everything was created in the Likeness itself, but only one rational essence; why everything is through likeness, and according to likeness there is only the soul. So, the rational essence was created both through the likeness and in the likeness, for between Him and it there is no mediating nature - no, because the human mind (as, however, it feels this when it is only the purest and most blessed) does not strive for anyone other than the Truth itself, which is called the Likeness, Image and Wisdom of the Father. Hence the words: “Let us make man in Our image and likeness” are correctly understood in relation to what constitutes the inner and main part of man, that is, in relation to the mind. For a person must be valued from the side that occupies the first place in him and which distinguishes him from wild animals. Everything else in him, although beautiful in its own way, nevertheless represents features common to animals and therefore should not be highly valued; unless, however, the circumstance that the figure of the human body has a vertical position for contemplating the sky does not indicate, perhaps, that even the human body is thought to be created in the Likeness of God; so that just as the Likeness does not turn away from the Father, so the human body is not turned away from heaven, like the bodies of other animals, which have an inclined, belly-down position. But, however, this should not be taken in an unconditional sense, for our body is very different from the sky in many ways; on the contrary, in that Likeness, which is the Son, there cannot be anything dissimilar with Him to Whom It is similar: everything else is similar in part and is not similar to each other; Similarity itself does not contain anything unlike. And yet the Father is the Father, and the Son is nothing other than the Son: because as soon as the Likeness of the Father is spoken of, even if this Likeness has nothing dissimilar with the Father, the Father is no longer alone if he has the Likeness. “And 7 God said: Let us make man in our image and likeness.” What has been said hitherto would have been sufficient. In accordance with it, the words of Scripture, in which, as we read, God said: “Let us make man in our image and likeness,” express the idea that the likeness of God, in which man was created, can be taken as the Word of God itself, that is, the only begotten Son of God, although, on the other hand, man, of course, this very image and likeness is not equal to the Father: it is true that man is the image of God, as the Apostle very clearly shows, saying: “A man should not eat, covering his head, the image and glory of God” (1 Cornf. XI, 7); never. – But the Divine words: “Let us make man in our image and likeness” should rather be accepted in the sense in which this saying would be understood not in the singular, but in the plural, precisely so that man was created in the image not of one Father, or one Son, or one Holy Spirit, but of the entire Trinity. And the Trinity is such that It is one God; on the other hand, God is one so that He is Trinity. In fact, He does not say to the Son: “Let us make man in Your image,” or “in My image,” but says in the plural: “in our image and likeness”; and who will dare to separate the Holy Spirit from this plurality? But since this plurality is not three Gods, but one God, then it is precisely for this reason, one must think, that Scripture further expresses itself in the singular and says: “And God created man in the image of God”; so [these words] should not be understood as if God the Father [created man] in the image of God, that is, His Son: otherwise how will it be true. what was said: “in our image,” if man was created in the image of one Son? And since what God said: “in our image” is true, then the words: “God created man in the image of God” mean the same as if it were said: “in His image”; which is the Trinity Itself. Meanwhile, some believe that likeness [in the last words] is not mentioned or said: “And God created man in his own image and likeness” because man was created only in the image; and he will receive the likeness later in the resurrection of the dead: as if there could be any image in which there is no likeness?! For if the image is not completely similar, then without a doubt it is not an image. However, so that it does not seem that in this case we are guided only by reason, we consider it necessary to cite the authority of the Apostle James, who, speaking about the language of man, remarks: “those” [i.e. e. language] “we bless God and with that oak man were in the likeness of God.” (James III, 9). A play on words based on the consonance of the Latin words: nomen, name, noto, to designate, and notamen, icon, label. Magna pars rerum, vm., in all likelihood, pax rerun]. This ending was added by Augustine many years after he wrote this book. You might be interested in: