Книга вторая (В которой разбираются прочие пять или шесть вопросов, предложенных из книги Царств)

Quite already, as it seems, I answered what was proposed from the apostle. Now I will begin another part, dedicated to what you have found from the Books of Kings, which, like many and almost all Old Books, are figurative and shrouded in mystery. And although from the time we pass over to Christ the veil is removed (2 Cor 3:16); however, now we see in a riddle, but then [we will see] face to face. For the veil completely blocks the view, and the riddle [allows one to see] as if through glass, according to the words of the same apostle: “Now we see through glass and in a riddle” (1 Cor. 13:12); it does not reveal the most obvious appearance, but it does not completely hide the truth. So, we will proceed to this, under the guidance of the Lord, rather supported by your prayers than burdened by commands, especially because, as I understood from your letter, you are not asking about the meaning of all this as a prophecy. After all, [if this were so], then it would truly be difficult for me to obey you, since I would have to talk about the entire internal connection and sequence of these books, so that even if my mind was ready for this, the consciousness of the enormity of the undertaking, which requires more free time [than I have], would interfere with it. But now deign to find out and discover in my writings, as far as I have understood, the proper meaning of those historical acts that are indicated in the words you mentioned. The Spirit of God Operates the Prophets in Various Ways (§1) 1. First of all, I will [address] what you commanded me to explain from the first book of Samuel, [namely], in what sense it is said: “And the Spirit of the Lord entered into Saul” (1 Samuel 10:10), if in another place [Scripture] says: “And the evil spirit of the Lord was in Saul” (1 Samuel 16:14). And it is written here like this: “And behold, when he turned to go from Samuel, God changed Saul’s heart, and all the signs were fulfilled that day. And he came from there to the hill, and behold, a chorus of prophets met him, and the Spirit of God entered into him, and he prophesied among them” (1 Samuel 10:9-10). Samuel predicted all this to him when, at [God’s] command, he anointed him. And, as I believe, this does not contain any question. For “the Spirit breathes where it will” (John 3:8), and the prophetic Spirit cannot be stained by contact with any soul, since He penetrates everywhere in His purity (Wis. 7:24). However, He does not affect everyone in the same way; but on some - informing the spirit of these people themselves and showing images of things, on others - using the mind and bestowing knowledge, on others - in inspiration [touching] both, and on others - even in their ignorance. And the [prophetic Spirit] informs the spirit [of man] in two ways: either in a dream, and in a similar way, not only many saints, but also Pharaoh and King Nebuchadnezzar saw something that none of them was able to understand, but both of them could see (Gen. 41; Dan. 2–4); or by means of an indication in a frenzy, which some Latin authors call stupor - hardly in the proper sense, but rather in a figurative sense, when the mind is alienated from the bodily senses, so that the spirit of a person, embraced by the Divine Spirit, is deprived of images that are subject to perception and contemplation - this is how Daniel was shown what he did not understand, and Peter - a vessel lowered from heaven on four ropes (Acts 10:11 ), because he only later learned what this phenomenon meant. And using the mind to [give] knowledge, [the prophetic Spirit acts] in one way, [namely] when the meaning and meaning of that very thing that is shown in images is revealed; and this is a prophecy in the more precise sense of the word, since first of all the apostle calls it a prophecy (1 Cor. 13:2); So Joseph was honored to understand what Pharaoh could only see, and Daniel explained to the king what he perceived and did not understand. When the mind is under the influence of [the Spirit] in such a way that it does not comprehend the images of things in conjectural research, but peers into the things themselves - and thus wisdom, justice and all the unchangeable Divine ideas are comprehended - this does not apply to the prophecy that we are now talking about. And both prophetic gifts are given to those who contemplate the images of things in the Spirit, and immediately understand their meaning or become aware [of this] in the vision itself with the help of clear words - this is how something is explained in Revelation. And on those who do not know, the prophetic Spirit acts in the same way as on Caiaphas, when he, as a high priest, uttered a prophecy about the Lord, that it was better for one to die for the whole people (John 11:49–50); after all, he cared about others in the words he spoke, and did not know that he did not say them from himself. There are abundant examples in the Holy Scriptures, and I speak of things well known to your zeal. For you do not learn this from me, but by asking, you are thereby testing me, [on the one hand], wanting to know about my success, (and on the other), being ready to correct the erring one. The same word that stands [in Scripture]: “The Spirit entered into him” (1 Samuel 10:10) denotes, as it were, some sudden breath from the hidden recess of Divinity. So, what we should think about exactly which of the above methods influenced Saul - this becomes quite clear from what is written here: “God changed Saul’s heart into a different one” (1 Sam. 10:9). After all, this is how another disposition of the heart is designated here, which God, through a change, made capable of perceiving for prophetic prophecy images denoting and foreshadowing something. Prophecy as a permanent property and temporary state (§ 2) 2. However, between the prophecy of such prophets as Isaiah, Jeremiah and others like them, and this transitory prophecy that appeared in Saul, there is the same difference as between human speech when people talk, and the same speech when it was uttered because of the need for a miracle by the donkey on which the prophet Balaam sat (Num. 22:28). For this animal received such a gift for a time so that God could show what He had decided, and not at all because animals usually speak to people. And even if this example is far removed due to the great difference, it should be much less surprising that a bad man was given a prophecy for a while as a temporary favor, if it was given by the One who, when he wanted, made the donkey speak. After all, cattle are much more different from people than a bad person is from the chosen ones, but still people. For if someone says something related to wisdom, one should not immediately consider him a wise man. In the same way, the one who suddenly uttered a prophecy should not be counted among the prophets: after all, the Lord says in the Gospel that some joyfully receive the word, but do not have the depth of the root and are fickle (Matthew 13:20-21). And therefore, as the following words show, “this became a proverb: “Is Saul also among the prophets?” (1 Sam. 10:12) So, let us not be surprised if some Divine action is manifested in people whose merits or character it surpasses, when by chance it pleases God to manifest something like this for the purpose of some designation. 3. And if it is confusing that Saul was later oppressed by an attacking evil spirit, although he had previously received the Prophetic Spirit, then this should not be surprising. For the latter happened for the purpose of some kind of announcement, and the first - as a well-deserved vengeance. And this variability in the human spirit, that is, in a creation subject to change, and especially when we are clothed in decaying and mortal flesh, should not confuse us. Don’t we see that in Peter himself, as the Gospel shows, there was such a great confession that he was worthy to hear: “Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, for it was not flesh and blood that revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 16:17), but a little later he reasoned so carnally about the passions of the Lord that he immediately heard: “Get behind me, Satan, you tell me temptation; For you think not about the things of God, but about the things of men?” (Matthew 16:23) And, perhaps, for some who understand more deeply, the distinction on the basis of which Peter first, by the revelation of God the Father, knew that Christ was the Son of God, and then was afraid lest He should die, has the same meaning in relation to the visions of the mind mentioned above as the revelation of prophecy, which first inspired Saul, and then the confusion with the evil spirit that oppressed him, for distinguishing the visions that imaginatively occur in the human spirit when the mind is inactive. Why is the evil spirit of God? (§4) 4. And the fact that even the spirit of the Lord is called evil should be understood in the sense in which it is said: “The earth is the Lord’s” (Ps. 23:1), that is, it is His creation and is in His power. Or if this example is not suitable because the earth is not evil - after all, “every creation of God is good” (1 Timothy 4:4) - then it is [quite] suitable that Saul himself, already vicious, wicked and ungrateful to Saint David, who even became his persecutor, driven by the flame of the cruelest hatred, was still called the Lord’s anointed. After all, that’s what David himself called him when he avenged his murder (2 Samuel 1:14–15). However, I believe that the evil spirit that aroused Saul was called the spirit of the Lord because it attacked Saul according to the hidden judgment of the Lord. For God uses the ministry even of evil spirits to take revenge on the evil or to test the good; and [is used] differently in the first case and in the second. For although a certain spirit is evil because, out of his evil will, he seeks to harm [someone], he does not receive the power to cause harm otherwise than from Him, under whose authority everything is ordered in accordance with exact and just degrees of merit, since no evil will is from God, but all power is from God (Rom. 13:1). After all, although it is in someone’s power to desire, it is not in his power to do what he wants for someone or to suffer from someone. For the only Son of God Himself, intending to suffer at a certain time, humbly said to a man who spoke proudly and claimed that he had the power to kill or release Him: “You would have no power over Me, if it had not been given you from above” (John 19:11). Also, the devil, wanting to harm the righteous man Job, of course, had his own, devilish will to cause harm, but he asked for power from the Lord God, saying: “Stretch out Your hand and touch his flesh” (Job 2:5) - although, if it were allowed, he himself would have done it. For in a similar way he asked for permission, and called the hand of the Lord his hand, which received permission from the Lord, that is, the very power that he wanted to receive. The words of the Gospel that the Lord says to the disciples are consistent with this: “This night Satan asked to sift you like wheat” (Luke 22:31). That is why the evil spirit of God is called, for he is a servant of God, doing in relation to Saul what the almighty Judge condemned him to endure. So, this spirit of God was not from the point of view of his will, according to which he was evil, but was God's, [firstly], as a creation created by [God], [and secondly], by virtue of the power that he acquired not from his own, but from the Lord's justice. For this is how the very words of Scripture sound, saying: “And Samuel arose and went away to Ramah; and the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord seized him, and oppressed him. And Saul’s servants said to him: Behold, the evil spirit of the Lord troubles you” (1 Samuel 16:13-15). So, what was said to him by the servants: the evil spirit of the Lord, is made clear. the superordinate words of the narrative Scripture, which read: “The evil spirit is from the Lord.” For this is why it is “the Lord’s” because it is “from the Lord”; After all, he himself had a desire to harm, that is, to envelop Saul, but would not have had the opportunity if it had not been permitted by the highest justice. For if God justly takes revenge, as the apostle himself says, giving people over “to the lust of their hearts” (Rom. 1:24), then it is not surprising that, taking revenge no less justly, He also gives them over to the lusts of others who seek to harm. And with all this, His justice is always maintained unshakable. The words "Spirit of God" without any addition mean the good Spirit of God. Should this Spirit be understood as the Holy Spirit, consubstantial with the Father and the Son? (§5) 5. One should also pay attention to what is said here with the addition (of the word “evil”): “the evil spirit of God.” After all, when it is simply said: “the spirit of God,” then even if “good” is not added, we still consider it good. And from this it is clear that the good spirit is called the spirit of God according to [its] essence, and the evil spirit - according to [its] ministry. However, even here they can ask: “If it is said about the spirit of God, and already on this basis, without any addition, it should be considered good, then is it necessary to think that this is the Holy Spirit of one essence in the Trinity, about whom the Scripture says: “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor. 3:17); and also: “But God has revealed it to us by His Spirit” (1 Cor. 2:10); 1 Corinthians 2:11) And in many other places [of Scripture] the Spirit of God is similarly mentioned, and the Holy Spirit is implied, although there is no addition, because the surrounding words sufficiently show Whom it is about; After all, who else does [the apostle] mention, saying: “This very Spirit beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God” (Rom. 8:16); and: “This very Spirit strengthens our weakness” (Rom. 8:26); and: “All this is done by one and the same Spirit, distributing to each one individually as he pleases” (1 Cor 12:11); and: “There are differences of gifts, but the Spirit is the same”? (1 Cor 12:4). In all these sayings neither God nor the Holy One is added, but of course it is He. But I [and in general] do not know whether it can be confirmed by some obvious example that in some places where the Spirit of God is spoken of without any addition, it is not this Holy Spirit that is designated, but some other one, although good, but created and created. For what is given in defense of [this opinion] is doubtful, and does not have clear confirmation, as [for example], what is written: “The Spirit of God moved over the waters” (Gen. 1:2). After all, if by the name of waters is meant that formless matter that was created out of nothing, from where everything came, then why cannot one think that the Holy Spirit of the Organizer, in order to organize everything, hovered over this matter, not in accordance with the levels of places and the intervals of space, which is completely unfair to talk about any incorporeal thing, but in accordance with the superiority and perfection of the will that dominates everything? And therefore it is especially so that this saying, as is generally characteristic of the [Old] Scripture, also announces something prophetic and prefigures the sacrament of the future baptism of the [newly] born people from water and the Holy Spirit. So, it is not necessary, [considering] what was said: “And the Spirit of God hovered over the waters,” to see here the same spirit by which, as some would like to think, this entire corporeal mass of the world, as a whole, is animated to provide for everything that is born and contained in its form of corporeal creations. After all, everything is a creature. There are also those who would like to attribute what is written: “For the Spirit of the Lord fills the whole world” (Wisdom 1:7), to the same spirit, that is, to the invisible creation, which animates and contains everything visible as a whole through some kind of universal spiritualization. But I don’t see what prevents us from understanding the Holy Spirit here, if God himself says in the prophet: “I fill heaven and earth” (Jer. 23:24). After all, it is not without His Holy Spirit that God fills heaven and earth. Therefore, is it surprising if it is said about His Holy Spirit: “fills the whole universe”? (Wis.1:7). Indeed, in one sense He fills, sanctifying, as it is said about Stephen and those like him: “he was filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 7:55); so, in one sense He fills with sanctifying grace, as He fills some saints, and in another sense, with [His] sustaining and ordering presence, as He fills all things. In consequence of all the above, I do not know whether it can be asserted on the basis of any solid testimony of Scripture that if, without any addition, the spirit of God or the spirit of the Lord is spoken of, it means something other than the Holy Spirit. But even if there is suddenly something that has not yet caught my eye, then I can certainly say the following for sure: whenever the Spirit of God is mentioned in the Holy Sayings and nothing is added, whether the Holy Spirit, consubstantial with the Father and the Son, or some invisible creation is thought of, in no case should one think of him as evil, unless it is added that he is evil. And since God uses the evil [spirit] for good to carry out His judgments, to take revenge on the evil and teach or test the good, then this spirit is called the spirit of God. How did Saul have both a good and an evil spirit? (§6) 6. Nor should we be confused by what is written below, that the same Saul [again] prophesied when the Spirit of God came upon him, so that it turns out that after the good Spirit there is an evil spirit, and after the evil one there is again a good one. After all, this happens not due to the variability of the Holy Spirit, who remains unchanged with the Father and the Son, but according to the variability of the human soul, and God distributes everything: to the evil - according to the merit of condemnation or correction, to the good - according to the abundance of His grace. Although it may seem that the same Spirit of God was always in Saul; yet was evil to him, for Saul did not live up to the holiness of that Spirit. But that doesn't seem right. After all, the more prudent and more accurate meaning is that, due to the variability of human impulses, the good Spirit of God acts for good, bestowing either prophecy or some other work in the Divine service; and the evil spirit acts maliciously, although because of its service to Divine justice, which distributes everything and uses everything correctly, it is called the spirit of God. [Such an understanding] is especially obvious from what was said: “The Spirit of God departed from him,” “and an evil spirit from the Lord took hold of him” (1 Samuel 16:14). After all, it cannot turn out that one and the same thing both retreats and embraces. Further, in some manuscripts, and especially in those which seem to be translated word for word from the Hebrew, we find the spirit of God mentioned without any addition; and his malice becomes clear from the fact that he attacked Saul, and David strengthened Saul by playing the harp. However, it is obvious that “evil” was not added here, since this was already said a little higher, and can easily be deduced and understood from the nearby [words] of Scripture. Indeed, in the above-mentioned manuscripts [this place] reads like this: “Therefore, when the spirit of the Lord attacked Saul, David took the lyre and fingered it with his hand, and Saul was revived, and it was easier for him; for the evil spirit departed from him” (1 Samuel 16:23). So, since in the second case it is not said: the spirit of God, but only: “evil spirit,” then what is said here is, as it were, an addition to what was not said above. Or it is said this way, since the following words stood above: “And Saul’s servants said to him: Behold, the evil spirit of God troubles you; let our lord command, and let your servants [standing] before you look for a man skilled in playing the cithara, so that when the evil spirit of God attacks you, he will play with his hand, and it will be easier for you” (1 Samuel 16:15-16). So, there was no need, when saying again: “when the spirit of God attacked Saul,” to add “evil,” since it is clear what kind of spirit is being spoken of. Saul, pursuing David, was seized with a prophetic and good Spirit (§ 7) 7. However, there is [another] great question that cannot be explored by a fleeting impulse of the soul, namely: [how can it be] that when Saul was pursuing the innocent David, full of hatred and furious with envy, “the Spirit of God came upon him, and he went and prophesied as he went” (1 Samuel 19:23) For it is impossible to see here any spirit except the good one, with the help of which the holy prophets discerned the images and appearances of future things; not only on the basis that it is said: “and he prophesied,” for in the manuscripts [translated] from the Hebrew we find similar words spoken in relation to the evil spirit: “And the next day the evil spirit of God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of his house” (1 Sam. 18:10). And in other places of Divine Scripture we often find that prophecies are called not only good, but also evil; the prophets of Baal are also mentioned (1 Kings 18:19, 22, 25, 40); and those who prophesied in the name of Baal are also reproached (Jer. 2:8). Therefore, it is not at all necessary to think that the spirit that descended on Saul afterwards was good, since it is said: “And he went away, and as he went he prophesied.” [But rather on the basis that it should be considered good] that the words stand here without any addition: “The Spirit of God also came upon him” (1 Samuel 19:23). After all, it was not said above, as in the previously discussed place: “the evil spirit of God,” so that on the basis of this one could mean the same in relation to what follows, and even on the contrary, the preceding words testify with greater force that this Spirit of God was good and truly prophetic. For David was with Samuel, and Saul sent servants to take David. And since Samuel was among the prophets in the prophetic assembly, where everyone was prophesying at that time, the sent servants, filled with the same spirit, began to prophesy; the same thing happened with the other sent [servants], and the same thing with others, and when Saul himself later went there, “the Spirit of God came upon him, and he went and prophesied as he went” (1 Sam. 19:23). After all, when it is said: “The Spirit of God came upon them also, and they began to prophesy” (1 Samuel 19:20), it is clear that this is the same Spirit that was in the prophets, among whom was Samuel, and therefore, of necessity, it should be considered the good Spirit. And for this reason, it is necessary to carefully examine the question of how they, being sent to take a man and lead him to death, were worthy of the influence of such a Spirit, and Saul, who sent them, when he himself came and sought to shed innocent blood, were deemed worthy to receive this Spirit and prophesy. Is it possible to have the gifts of the Holy Spirit without love? Without love the gifts of the Spirit are of no use (§8) 8. And without a doubt it will be appropriate here to point out what the Apostle Paul quite clearly sets out, showing the most excellent way. He reasons like this: “If I speak in the tongues of men and angels, but do not have love, then I have become like sounding brass and a ringing cymbal. And if I have [the gift of] prophecy, and know all mysteries, and possess all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so much so that I move mountains, but do not have love, then I am nothing. And if I give away all my goods and give my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing” (1 Cor 13:1-4). It is clear that here he mentions gifts that are taught through the dispensing activity of the Holy Spirit, as above he says: “But to everyone is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the benefit; to one is given the word of wisdom by the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith, in the same Spirit; to others the gift of healings in one Spirit; other miracles; to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another diversities of tongues... And all this is done by one and the same Spirit, giving to each his own, as He pleases” (1 Cor. 12:7-12). So, it is quite obvious that prophecy is one of the gifts of the Spirit. However, if someone has it, but does not have love, then he is nothing. From this we can understand the following: it often happens that some [people], even being unworthy of eternal life and the Kingdom of Heaven, are nevertheless marked, although they do not have love, with some gifts of the Holy Spirit, but without love these gifts, although in themselves they are nothing, do not bring any benefit to such [people]. After all, prophecy without love, as has already been shown, does not lead to the Kingdom of God, but love without prophecy undoubtedly does. For when [the apostle], speaking about the members of Christ, says: “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? - then by this he undoubtedly shows that even one who does not have the [gift of] prophecy can be included in the number of members of Christ; but what place among them can someone take if he does not have love, without which a person is nothing? And in discussing the members of which the body of Christ is composed, he in no way says: “Do all have love?” - as he says: “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are everyone miracle workers? Does everyone have gifts of healing? "(1 Cor. 12:29-30) and so on in the same way. Is it possible to have the gift of prophecy without love? (§9) 9. But someone will say that although it may happen to someone not to have prophecy, but to have love, and as a result of this, when enumerated, such a [person] belongs to the members of Christ, however, it cannot be that he had prophecy, but did not have love; for a man who has prophecy without love is nothing. In the sense [nothing] in which we could say that a person who has a soul without a mind is nothing; [we would say this] not because it is possible to find a person who has a soul and does not have a mind, but because even if it were possible to find one, he would be nothing. In the same way one can say: “If a body has a form but no color, then it cannot be seen”; [and it is said thus] not because there is a body that does not have color, but because even if it existed, it still could not be perceived. Perhaps in this sense it is also said that if someone has a prophecy but does not have love, then he is nothing; [this is said] not because there can be a prophecy in someone without love, but on the basis that even if it were, it could not bring any benefit to [such a person]. So, to resolve this question, it is required that we show someone who is vicious, and, moreover, has this very gift of prophecy. And if we don’t find anyone, then Saul himself shows this quite clearly. But it is also obvious that the famous Balaam was also depraved, for Scripture is not silent about the fact that he was condemned by the Divine Court, but had a prophecy; since he had no love, he had an inherent will to curse the people of Israel, incited by the reward promised by the enemy who hired him for money to curse, and yet, due to the gift of prophecy poured out on him, he involuntarily uttered a blessing (Num. 22-24). These words are fully confirmed by the saying recorded in the Gospel that “many will say on that day: “Lord, Lord, in Your name we ate and drank, and in Your name we prophesied, and in Your name we did many miracles; After all, we cannot assume that they will lie in that court, where there is no place for deception; and we don’t even read that any of them said: “We loved You.” So, they could say: “We prophesied in Your name,” although they were worthless and wicked, but they could not say: “We have kept the love You commanded.” For if they said that, they would not hear the answer: “I don’t know you.” After all (the Lord) says: “By this they will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). An example for heretics and schismatics (§ 10) 10. So, this example of Saul is opposed to some proud heretics who deny that anything good from the gifts of the Holy Spirit can be given to those who do not belong to the portion of the saints, when we tell these heretics that such people can have the sacrament of baptism, which, when they come to the Catholic Church, should in no way be condemned in them or taught to them as if they did not have it. [However, we affirm] that they should not firmly hope for their salvation, since we do not reject what, according to us, they receive; on the contrary, they must recognize the need for themselves to enter into the communion of unity through the bonds of love, without which they can have anything they want, even if it is holy and honorable in itself, and, moreover, themselves be nothing, becoming the less worthy of the reward of eternal life, the less well they have used the gifts that they received in this transitory life. For only love is used well, and love endures all things (1 Cor. 13:7), and therefore does not break unity, being its strongest bond. After all, the slave also received a talent, and this talent cannot be understood otherwise than as some kind of Divine gift, but “to the one who has, it will be given, and from the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away” (Matthew 25:29). What he does not have cannot be taken away, but he does not have anything else, so what he has is deservedly taken away from him; does not have love to use it, so everything else that he has is taken away, since all this is useless without love. Why is the evil spirit called the Lord's? (§ 11) 11. So, it is not surprising that King Saul received the Prophetic Spirit when he was first anointed, and later, when he was rejected due to disobedience and the [good] Spirit of the Lord departed from him, he was seized by an evil spirit from the Lord; Moreover, this spirit is called the spirit of the Lord because of its service, since the Lord uses all, even evil spirits, for good: either to punish someone, or for correction, or for testing; and although there is no malice with God, “there is no power that is not from God” (Rom. 13:1). The dream of the Lord is even called the Lord’s, namely, the one who announced the soldiers of the same Saul, when David took the spear and the cup at the head of the sleeping man; not because there was a dream in the Lord at that time, so that He Himself was sleeping, but because this dream, which then gripped people, was induced by the command of God, so that the presence here would not be noticed His servant David. It is also not surprising that the same Saul again received the prophetic Spirit when he pursued the righteous and came to seize and kill him in the place where the prophets were meeting. After all, in this way it is quite clearly shown that on the basis of such a gift no one can feel safe, [thinking] that he is very pleasing to God if he does not have love. For this gift could have been given to Saul, undoubtedly, because of some hidden sacrament; and that means it could be given to someone who is rejected, envious, ungrateful, who repays evil for good, and even after this very reception of the Spirit has not corrected himself or changed for the better. Man is unable to say anything worthy of Him about God (§ 1) 1. Let us now consider in what sense it is said: “I repented that I made Saul king” (1 Samuel 15:11). After all, you ask, of course, not as ignorant in the understanding of such words, but testing my first fruits through fatherly zeal and benevolent care - how can God, who possesses omniscience, repent of anything. So, when this is said about God, I believe that something unworthy [of Him] is being said, if [in general] anything worthy of [Him] can be found from what is said about Him. For since His eternal power and Divinity immediately wonderfully surpass all words by which human communication is carried out, then whatever is said about Him in a human way, even what seems contemptuous to people, human infirmity itself is convinced by this that even what it considers to be said about God in the Holy Scriptures in an appropriate manner is adapted rather to human perception than to Divine sublimity; so as a consequence of this, this last one (i.e. what was said in an appropriate way) must also be surpassed by a clearer understanding, just as that first one (i.e., said in an inappropriate way) was surpassed by any [understanding]. How do they talk about knowledge and foreknowledge in relation to God? In what sense is it said about the wrath, jealousy and mercy of God? (§2) 2. For which of the people would not think that there can be no repentance in God, who knows everything in advance? And it is quite clear that if of these two words, namely foreknowledge and repentance, we consider one, namely foreknowledge, to correspond to God, then we deny that there is repentance in Him. But if anyone, examining this in more profound reflection, asks how this very foreknowledge is characteristic of God, and discovers that His ineffable Divinity is far and far beyond the meaning of this word, then let him not be surprised that both of these can be said about Him from the point of view of people, and at the same time both of them are spoken of Him in an inappropriate way, if we mean God in Himself. After all, what is foreknowledge if not knowledge of the future? But what is the future for God, who transcends all time? After all, if the knowledge of God possesses the things themselves, then for him they are not future, but present; and therefore this can no longer be called foreknowledge, but only knowledge. And if, as in the order of temporary creations, so He does not yet have what will be, but in His knowledge He precedes it, then He knows it twice: first in accordance with the foreknowledge of the future, and then in accordance with the knowledge of the present. Then something is temporarily inherent in the knowledge of God, and this is extremely absurd and false. For [God] cannot, having foreknew something as the future, know it when it has come, unless He knows it twice: both foreknowing it before it appeared, and knowing it when it has already appeared. Thus, it turns out that - and this is far from the truth - something is temporarily inherent in the knowledge of God, when the temporal, which is foreknown, is also known as the present, which before it became so was not known, but was only foreknown. And if even when that which was foreseen had come, nothing new became inherent in the knowledge of God, but the same foreknowledge remains that was there even before what was foreseen happened, then why is it called foreknowledge, not referring to something future? For what it perceived as the future is now the present, and a little later will become the past. But one cannot speak of foreknowledge of present or past things. Then we return to the fact that the foreknowledge of future things has become the knowledge of the same things, but now present. And since what was at first foreknowledge then becomes knowledge in God, it is subject to change and is temporary, whereas God, who truly and completely exists, is in no way subject to change and is not in the least temporary. So, it is better for us to speak not about God’s foreknowledge, but only about His knowledge. But you can also ask about it, how it [exists in God]. For we usually speak of a certain knowledge in us when we retain in memory something perceived and known, when we remember something that we have perceived and known, so that we can reproduce it when we wish. If everything is exactly the same in God, and in the proper sense one can say: He knows and has known, perceives and has perceived, then He allows time, and to no less a degree that variability penetrates here, which should be removed further from the essence of God. And yet, in an inexpressible way, God both knows and foreknows. In the same way, He repents in an inexpressible way. After all, although God’s knowledge is far removed from human knowledge, so that any comparison here is worthy of laughter, yet both are called knowledge. And besides, human knowledge is such that the apostle even says about it: Knowledge will be abolished (1 Cor. 13:8), which in no way can fairly be said about the knowledge of God. So human anger can be violent and [occurs] not without mental torment, but the wrath of God, which is spoken of in the Gospel: “But the wrath of God abides on him” (John 3:36); and the apostle [says]: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness” (Rom. 1:18), [so poured out] that God, always remaining completely calm, with amazing justice inflicts punishment on the creation subject to Him. Likewise, human mercy is performed with some suffering of the heart (cordis miseriam), which is why the very name of mercy (misericordia) comes from the Latin language. This also includes the fact that the apostle encourages not only to rejoice with those who rejoice, but also to weep with those who weep (Rom. 12:15). But who sane will say that God is affected by a certain suffering (ulla miseria)? And yet Scripture testifies everywhere that He is merciful. In the same way, we cannot think of human jealousy without some kind of infection of ill will, but [we think of] a jealous God differently: the word is the same, but the method is different. Divine things are called by human names, but at the same time they must be thought of without any imperfection. What is the difference between knowledge and wisdom? (§3) 3. Consider everything else for a long time; There are countless testimonies that confirm that many Divine things are called by the same names as human things, while [in reality] they are separated by an incomparable difference. However, it is not for nothing that the same names are given to both things, but rather for the reason that when those [human things] that are contained in the everyday way of life and are recognized by their testing and use are known, they provide a certain way to the knowledge of the higher [Divine things]. For if I take away from human knowledge the variability and certain transitions from thought to thought that happen when we remember [something] in order to discern with the soul what was not in its attention a little earlier, and thus jump from one part to another through successive memories - for this reason the apostle also calls our knowledge knowledge “in part” (1 Cor. 13:9), - so when I remove all this and I will leave only the vitality of the exact and unshakable truth, illuminating everything in a single and eternal contemplation; and I will not even leave it - for human knowledge does not possess this - but to the best of my ability I will invent this, then the knowledge of God will appear before me one way or another. And this name, on the basis that in knowledge something is unhidden for a person, can be common to both of these things. Although in people themselves, knowledge usually differs from wisdom, so that the apostle says: “To one is given the word of wisdom by the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:8). But in God, of course, not these two things exist, but something single. In people they usually differ in such a way that wisdom refers to the knowledge of the eternal, and knowledge - to what is perceived by the bodily senses. But even if someone else had made a different distinction, still if they had not been different, they would not have been so divided by the apostle. And if the truth is that the name of knowledge must be attributed to those things that are perceived by the bodily sense, then God has no knowledge at all, because God Himself does not consist of body and soul, like man. But it is better to say that God’s knowledge is different and does not belong to the genus to which what is called human knowledge belongs; after all, in the same way, what is called God has a completely different meaning than what is said: “He stood in the assembly of the gods” (Ps. 82:1). However, this very generality of the expression [knowledge] in some way refers to unconcealment. In the same way, I will remove violent excitement from human wrath so that the vengeful force remains, and thus, one way or another, I will rise to the knowledge of what is called the wrath of God. Also, if from mercy you remove compassion for the one whom you pity by participating in his misfortune, and what remains is the calm goodness of help and deliverance from misfortune, then in this way a certain knowledge of Divine mercy will be achieved. Let us also not reject and discard the zeal of God when we find it in Scripture, but let us remove from human zeal the sick languor of sorrow and the harmful confusion of the soul, and only the decision will remain, according to which a violation of purity cannot go unpunished; so that by this we will be lifted up and begin in some way to grasp the zeal of God. How can God have repentance? (§4) 4. Therefore, also, when we read that God says: “I have repented” (1 Samuel 15:11), we should consider how the work of repentance usually manifests itself in people. Here, without a doubt, the will to change is revealed, but in man it is [associated] with the sadness of the soul; for he condemns within himself what he has done thoughtlessly. Therefore, let us eliminate what comes from human weakness and ignorance, and only the will will remain so that something becomes different from what it was. Thus it is possible to a great extent to grasp in our minds according to what rule the repentance of God should be thought of. For when it is said that He repents, [it means] that He wants something not to be as He created it to be. However, even when it was like this, it had to be like this; and when it is no longer allowed to be like this, it should no longer be like this; [and all this happens] in accordance with some eternal and unshakable court of justice, through which God, according to His unchangeable will, distributes everything that changes. Why do repentance and jealousy seem less becoming to God than foreknowledge, anger, and the like? (§5) 5. But since we usually speak with praise about foreknowledge and knowledge among people, and the human race is inclined to fear anger from powerful rulers rather than condemn it [in them], then we believe that such things are said about God in an appropriate way. And due to the fact that someone who is jealous or repents of something usually either falls into some kind of offense or corrects it in himself, this is said about people with condemnation, and as a result of this, bewilderment arises when we affirm that there is something similar in God. However, Scripture, taking care of everything, most likely offers similar [qualities] for this purpose, so that what [of the qualities attributed to God] pleases us is not understood in relation to God in the same way as is usually understood in people. For by means of what we do not like, if we do not dare to understand it in God as we find it in man, we learn in the same way to consider also what we consider appropriate and appropriate [to God]. For if we cannot say something about God, because we do not like it in a person, then we have no right to call God unchangeable, because this is said about people with condemnation: “For there is no change in them” (Ps. 54:20). In the same way, there is something that is praiseworthy in man, but impossible in God, like shame, which is the great adornment of youth, like the fear of God, which is mentioned with praise not only in the Old Scriptures, but also the Apostle says: “Working out sanctification in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 7:1); but in God, of course, it does not exist. Therefore, just as some praiseworthy [qualities] of people would be incorrectly reflected in relation to God, so and something reprehensible in people is rightly thought of in God; however, it is not the same as in people, but, with a general name, it is far removed in its method and concept. After all, a little later, the same Samuel, to whom the Lord said: “I repented that I made Saul king” (1 Sam. 15:11), says to Saul himself about God: “For He is not a man, that He should repent” ( 1 Samuel 15:29). Here he shows quite clearly that even if God says: “I repented,” this should not be understood in human terms, as we have already explained to the best of our ability. How could Samuel be summoned by a sorceress? (§1) 1. You also ask whether the unclean spirit that was in the sorceress could have caused Saul to see Samuel and have him speak to him? (1 Samuel 28:7-19) But what deserves much more surprise is that Satan himself, the prince of all unclean spirits, could talk with God and ask permission to tempt the most righteous man Job (Job 1:11) and he asked that the apostles be handed over to him for temptation (Luke 22:31). And if there is no difficult question here because the omnipresent Truth speaks to any creature through any creature, and for this reason it is not at all worth exalting the one to whom God is speaking, since the whole point is in what exactly is said - after all, the emperor does not speak to many innocents, for whose happiness he is vigilantly concerned, and speaks to many guilty ones, whom he orders to be executed - so, if because of this no bewilderment arises, then there is no question either in how the unclean spirit could speak to the soul of a holy man. After all, it is clear that God, the Creator and Sanctifier of everything, is much greater than any saint. And if it is confusing that the evil spirit was allowed to evoke the soul of the righteous and, as it were, extract it from the hidden abodes of the dead, then shouldn’t we be more surprised that Satan took the Lord Himself and placed Him on the wing of the church? (Matthew 4:5) Whatever the way he did this, the way in which he caused Samuel to be called is also hidden; unless someone suddenly says that it was much easier for the devil to get permission to take the living Lord from where he wanted and put him where he wanted than to call the spirit of dead Samuel from his villages. So, if what is described in the Gospel does not confuse us because the Lord, without any diminishment of His power and Divinity, wanted and allowed this to happen, just as from the Jews, although vicious, unclean and doing the works of the devil, He nevertheless endured capture, captivity, ridicule, crucifixion, and murder, then it will not be absurd to believe that by some kind of dispensation The divine will allowed that, not involuntarily and not under the power or burden of magical power, but of its own free will and out of obedience to the secret order of God, hidden from the sorceress and Saul, the spirit of the holy prophet agreed to appear before the eyes of the king in order to express to him the will of God. Therefore, why should it seem that the soul of a good man, when it has come, being called by living wicked people, is deprived of its dignity, if often living good people, being called, come to the wicked and talk to them about what the duty of justice requires, of necessity or for the benefit of the moment, bringing their vices to light, and at the same time the beauty of the virtue of the good remains unshakable? Perhaps it was not the spirit of Samuel that was summoned, but a ghost (§ 2) 2. Although an easier way out and a more convenient explanation may be found for this case, if we admit that it was not really the spirit of Samuel that was awakened from its rest, but through the wiles of the devil a certain ghost and imaginary apparition was revealed, which the Scripture calls by the name of Samuel because usually the images of things are called by the names of those of which they are images. So everything that is drawn or sculpted from some metal or wooden material or from anything else suitable for this kind of creativity, as well as what we see in dreams, and in general almost all images are usually called by the names of those things of which they are images. For who would doubt calling a drawn man a man? After all, when we look at the images of certain specific people, we also immediately attach to them our own names [of these people], for example, when, looking at a picture or a fresco, we say: “This is Cicero, this is Sallust, this is Achilles, this is Hector, this is the river Simoentes, this is Rome,” whereas in reality all this is nothing more than painted images. Therefore, also, the images of the cherubim, which are the heavenly powers, when they were made of metal by the command of God and placed above the ark of the covenant to indicate the greatness of this thing, were called nothing less than cherubim (Ex. 25:18). In the same way, anyone who sees a dream does not say: “I saw the image of Augustine or Simplician,” but will say: “I saw Augustine or Simplician,” although at the time when he saw something similar, we were not witnesses [to it], which quite clearly shows that he saw images of people, and not people themselves. And Pharaoh said that he saw ears of grain and cows in a dream (Gen. 41:17-28), and not images of ears of grain and cows. So, if it is well known that the images of things are called by the names of those things of which they are images, then the story of Scripture that they saw Samuel is not surprising, although in fact, perhaps, only the image of Samuel appeared as a result of the tricks of one who disguises himself as an angel of light and presents his servants as servants of righteousness (2 Cor. 11:14-15). How do demons know the future? (§3) 3. And if it is confusing how the evil spirit predicted the truth to Saul, then it may also seem surprising how the demons recognized Christ (Matthew 8:29), Whom the Jews did not recognize. For if it pleases God that even with the help of lower and underground spirits someone should know something true, even if temporary and related to this mortality, then it is very easy and not at all incongruous that the Almighty and Righteous One gives, in accordance with the hidden distribution of His ministries, a certain gift of foresight even to such spirits, so that they may announce to people what they have heard from the angels. [And this is done] as a kind of punishment for those to whom this is predicted, so that they suffer, knowing about the evil that threatens them before it happens. And [evil spirits] hear only as much as the Lord and Ruler of everything commands or allows them. Therefore, also the prophetic spirit in the Acts of the Apostles recognized the Apostle Paul and intended to be a herald of the Gospel (Acts 16:17). However, they mix deception [with the truth], and they proclaim something true that they have learned rather with the aim of deceiving than with the purpose of teaching. Perhaps something similar happened here, when this image of Samuel, predicting that Saul would die (1 Samuel 28:19), also said that the latter would be with him [in one place], which is an obvious lie. After all, we read in the Gospel that after death the good are separated from the evil by a large gap, and the Lord Himself testified that a great gulf lies between the proud rich man, already suffering the torments of hell, and the one who lay ulcerated at his door, and has now inherited peace (Luke 16:26). Or maybe that’s why Samuel said to Saul: “You will be with me” (1 Samuel 28:19), because this does not refer to the equality of bliss, but to the same state of death, for both of them were people, and both could die, so that the already dead announced death to the still living. Your piety, I believe, sees that, in accordance with both proposed methods of understanding, this reading has an interpretation that does not contradict faith; unless, through a deeper and more intricate investigation, which surpasses the limits of both my strength and time, it is revealed with obviousness whether the human soul, after withdrawing from this life, having been summoned by magical spells, can or cannot appear to the eyes of the living, bearing the outlines of [its former] body, so that it can not only be seen, but also recognized - and if it can, is it true that the soul of the righteous is not is forced by magical rites, but honors its appearance by obeying the more hidden dictates of the higher law - so, if it is found that such a thing is impossible, then not both meanings will be missed in the consideration and explanation of this passage of Scripture, but, excluding the first, it will be necessary to think that an imaginary likeness of Samuel was created by the devil's cunning. But since, whether the above-mentioned may or may not happen, the deceit of Satan and the cunning production of imitative images take various cares to deceive the human senses, we, with caution, without condemning more careful investigations, until it is given to us to invent and expound something better, consider it more probable that something similar (namely, the appearance of a mere ghost) was done through the evil ministry of this sorceress. In what body position should one pray? А в отношении твоего вопроса, что означает написанное: «Вошел царь Давид, и сел перед Господом» ( 2Цар.7:18 ), то как иначе следует понимать это, если не так, что сел он пред лицом Господним: либо потому, что был там ковчег завета, благодаря которому он более отчетливо мог ощутить некое священное присутствие Господа, или поскольку сел он помолиться, что должным образом совершается лишь пред лицом Господним, то есть в глубине hearts? Ибо сказанное: «перед Господом», можно понимать и в таком смысле: там, где не было людей, способных услышать молящегося. Поэтому или из-за ковчега завета, или из-за некоего укромного места, удаленного от присутствия посторонних, или из-за глубин сердца, где было побуждение к молитве, весьма уместно сказано: «сел перед Господом». The only thing that confuses me is that he prayed while sitting; хотя и святой Илия делал точно так же, когда молясь исходатайствовал дождь ( 3Цар.18:42–45 ). Эти примеры убеждают нас, что нет никакого предписания на тот счет, как располагать тело для молитвы, когда дух исполняет свое намерение в присутствии Бога. For we also pray while standing, as it is written: “The publican stood afar off” (Luke 18:13); and kneeling, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 7:59, 20:36); and sitting, as in this case David and Elijah. And if we had not prayed even while lying down, it would not have been written in the Psalms: “Every night I wash my bed, I wet my bed with my tears” (Ps. 6:7). For when someone seeks prayer, he positions his members so that the position of the body at that time is suitable for inciting the spirit [to prayer]. And if it is not we who are looking for the attraction to prayer, but it overwhelms us, that is, something suddenly penetrates our mind, thanks to which the prayerful disposition manifests itself in inexpressible sighs, then, of course, we should not interrupt prayer, no matter what situation this happens to a person, and look for where to sit, stand or prostrate. For the focus of the mind [on God] generates a kind of solitude for itself, and often we even forget in what position or to what part of the sky the members of the body were turned towards at that moment. About the words of Elijah complaining to God about the death of the widow's son And in the words of blessed Elijah, when he said: “O Lord, Witness of this widow, with whom I live with her, You did evil by killing her son” (1 Kings 17:20), there is nothing confusing, if only the correct intonation is observed. After all, this is not at all the voice of someone who believes that the Lord acted very badly with this widow, who so mercifully received the prophet; especially at a time when there was someone here to whom she offered all her very meager food, being, moreover, in such great and severe need. Therefore, it is said here as if he had said: “O Lord, Witness of this widow, with whom I live with her,” has it really been “Have you done evil by killing her son?” It is implied here that the Lord, being a Witness to the heart of this woman, saw in him the abundance of her piety - after all, even Elijah himself took pity on her - so that He killed her son not with the goal of causing some evil, but in order to show a miracle to the glory of His name, and thanks to this glory to make His prophet known both to people then living and to subsequent generations - as the Lord says that Lazarus did not die to death, but that God might be glorified in the Son His own (John 11:4), and it is clear that further events confirm this. For, based on the confidence with which Elijah believed that this did not happen so that his mistress would be struck with untimely sorrow, but rather this was done for the purpose that God would majestically reveal to the widow what kind of servant of God she had received, the Scripture continues and says: “And he breathed on the lad three times, and called on the Lord, and said: Lord my God, now let the soul of this lad return to him. And so it was done” (1 Kings 17:21–22). So, this very petition, in which Elijah so briefly and so confidently prayed that the boy would be resurrected, sufficiently shows with what mood the above was said. And the woman herself shows that this is why her son was killed, for which Elijah supposed this to have happened when he uttered the words mentioned above not in an affirmative, but in a negative sense. After all, when she received her son alive, she said: “Behold, I have learned that you are a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in your mouth is true” (1 Kings 17:24). And there is much in Scripture that, if not pronounced in a certain way, takes on the opposite meaning; so, for example, [the words]: “Who accuses God’s elect? God is the One who justifies” (Rom. 8:33). If you understand this answer as affirmative, then look at the vicissitudes that will result. Therefore, it should be pronounced as if it were said: “Is it possible that God [accuses] the One who justifies?” - and the implication was: “Of course not.” So, I believe that thanks to this remark, this saying of Elijah, which the inappropriate intonation made dark, is now quite clear. About the lying spirit sent to deceive Ahab And about the spirit of lying by which Ahab was deceived (1 Kings 22:20-23), we think what, as I believe, has already been sufficiently and quite clearly discussed above, namely, that the almighty and righteous God, who deservedly distributes rewards and punishments, not only uses good and holy servants for deeds befitting them, but also uses evil ones for deeds worthy of them; while they seek to harm someone according to their perverted desire, this is allowed to them only to the extent that He who “has ordained everything by measure, number and weight” considers it necessary (Wis. 11:21). And the prophet Micah spoke about this as it was revealed to him. For something hidden and very secret is shown to the prophets as much as [their] human sense can accommodate, when in revelation even images of things instruct him like words. After all, how does God do this, who is everywhere present and, moreover, present everywhere entirely and always; and how the holy angels and all the highest and purest spirits created by the same God are aware of His simple, unchangeable and eternal truth, and how they realize in time what they see eternally just in Him for the purpose of ordering lower things; how also fallen spirits, who did not stand in the truth, because of the impurity and weakness of their lusts and the punishments imposed on them, being unable to contemplate and recognize the truth present within, expect signs from the outside, from some creation, and are prompted by them either to do something or not to do something; and how they are forced by the rulers of the universe by eternal law, being defeated and bound, to await the permission of God or to obey His command is both difficult to comprehend and too long to explain. And I fear that everything I have already said will not satisfy your expectations and will cause annoyance at your severity, since although you wanted me to send one book in response to all the questions you proposed, I sent two, and very lengthy ones at that, and perhaps I did not answer your questions diligently and diligently enough. Therefore, I ask for your many and tireless prayers about my mistakes. I also demand at least a brief but stern review from you about this work of mine; I will not reject even the most severe, as long as it is completely truthful. You might be interested in: