St. Augustine, “On Genesis according to the Letter”
A literal translation for students of the Classical Liberal Arts Academy
by Mr. William C. Michael, O.P., Headmaster
Note: The translation below maintains, as far as possible, the original Latin word order, and is intended to assist students reading the Latin text. It is not intended for general reading. -WCM
BOOK ONE
Every divine Scripture twofold is, according to that which the Lord signifies, saying, a scribe instructed in the kingdom of God to be like a householder bringing forth from his treasure new things and old, which two also Testaments are called. In the Books moreover all holy it is necessary to consider what there eternal things are intimated, what deeds are narrated, what future things are foretold, what things to be done are commanded or advised. In the narration therefore of things done it is asked whether all according to the understanding of figures only are to be received, or also according to the faith of things done are to be asserted and defended. For that not to be received figuratively, no Christian will dare to say, attending to the Apostle saying: All these things in a figure happened to them; and that which in Genesis is written: And they shall be two in one flesh, a great sacrament commending in Christ and in the Church.
If therefore in both ways that Scripture must be examined, how it was said beyond allegorical meaning: In beginning made God heaven and earth—whether in beginning of time, or because first of all, or in beginning, which is Word of God only-begotten Son. And how it may be shown God without any change of Himself to have worked changeable and temporal things. And what may be signified by name of heaven and of earth—whether spiritual and bodily creature name of heaven and earth received, or only bodily: so that in this book of spiritual to have been silent may be understood, and thus to have said heaven and earth, so that every bodily creature, higher and lower, He may have wished to signify. Or of both formless matter was called heaven and earth: spiritual namely life, just as it can be in itself, not turned to Creator; for by such turning it is formed and perfected; but if it be not turned, formless it is: bodily however, if it can be understood by privation of all bodily quality, which appears in formed matter, when already are species of bodies, whether by sight, or by any other sense of body perceivable.
Or heaven is to be understood creature spiritual, from beginning from which it was made, perfect that and blessed always: earth truly, bodily matter still imperfect; because earth, he says, was invisible and unformed, and darknesses were over the abyss; by which words he seems formlessness to signify of substance bodily? Or of both formlessness by these also later words is signified: of bodily indeed by that which was said: Earth was invisible and unformed: of spiritual however by that which was said: Darknesses were over the abyss; so that by transferred word dark abyss we understand nature of life formless, unless it be turned to Creator: by which only way it can be formed, so that it be not abyss; and be illuminated, so that it be not dark? And how was it said: Darknesses were over the abyss? or because not was light? which if it were, certainly it would be above, and as if it would pour over: which then happens in creature spiritual, when it is turned to unchangeable and incorporeal light, which God is.
And how said God: Let be made light? whether temporally, or in of Word eternity? And if temporally, certainly mutably; how therefore can be understood this to say God, unless through creature; he indeed is unchangeable? And if through creature said God: Let be made light; how is first creature light, if was already creature, through which God might say: Let be made light? Or is not light first creature; because already had been said: In beginning made God heaven and earth; and could through heavenly creature voice be made temporally and mutably, by which might be said: Let be made light? But if so it is, bodily light was made this, which by bodily eyes we perceive, with saying by God through creature spiritual, which God already had made, when in beginning made God heaven and earth: Let be made light; in that way by which through such creature’s inward and hidden motion divinely might be said: Let be made light.
Or also bodily sounded voice of saying God: Let be made light; just as bodily sounded voice of saying God: You are Son my beloved: and this through creature bodily, which had made God, when in beginning made heaven and earth, before was made light, which in this sounding voice was made? And if so it is, by what tongue sounded this voice, with saying God: Let be made light; since not yet was diversity of tongues, which afterwards was made in building of tower after flood? What tongue was one and only, by which God spoke: Let be made light? and who was he whom it was necessary to hear, and to understand, to whom voice of such kind might be uttered? Or is this absurd and fleshly thought and suspicion?
What therefore shall we say? Or that which is understood in sound of voice, when is said: Let be made light, not however the very bodily sound, this well is understood to be voice of God? and whether this very thing to nature belongs of Word his, of which is said: In beginning was Word, and Word was with God, and God was Word? Since indeed of him is said: All things through him were made; sufficiently is shown also light through him made, when said God: Let be made light. Which if so it is, eternal is what said God: Let be made light; because Word of God God with God, Son only of God, to Father coeternal is: although by God this in eternal Word saying creature temporal was made. Since indeed words are of time, when we say: When, and sometime; eternal however is in Word of God, when to be made something ought: and then is made when to be made ought in that Word it is, in which is not when and sometime, since whole that Word eternal is.
And what is light itself which was made? whether spiritual something, or bodily? If indeed spiritual, it can itself be first creature, already by this saying perfected, which first heaven was called, when was said: In beginning made God heaven and earth: so that what said God: Let be made light; and was made light, it by recalling to himself the Creator, conversion of it made and illuminated is understood.
And why thus it was said: In beginning made God heaven and earth; and not it was said: In beginning said God: Let be made heaven and earth; and were made heaven and earth: just as of light it is narrated: Said God: Let be made light; and was made light? Whether first universally by name of heaven and earth it had to be included and commended what made God; and then by parts to be carried out, how He made, when for each thing it is said: Said God; that is, because through His Word He made, whatever He made?
Or when first was being made formlessness of matter either spiritual or bodily, it was not to be said: Said God: Let it be made; because form of the Word always to the Father cleaving, by which eternally says God all things, neither by sound of voice nor by thought of time-turning sounds, but by coeternal to Himself light of the Wisdom begotten by Him, is not imitated by imperfection, when dissimilar from that which supremely and first is, by a certain formlessness it tends toward nothing; but then it imitates form of the Word, always and unchangeably to the Father cleaving, when even it, by turning according to its kind to that which truly and always is, that is, to creator of its substance, takes on form, and becomes perfect creature: that in this which Scripture narrates: Said God: Let it be made, we understand God’s speech incorporeal in nature of His Word coeternal recalling to Himself imperfection of creature, that it be not formless, but be formed according to each thing which in order He carries out? In which turning and forming, because according to its kind it imitates God the Word, that is the Son of God always to the Father cleaving, with full likeness and equal essence, by which He and the Father are one; but it does not imitate this form of the Word, if turned away from Creator, formless and imperfect it remain: therefore remembrance of the Son is not thus made because Word, but only because beginning He is, when it is said: In beginning made God heaven and earth; beginning indeed of creature is intimated still in formlessness of imperfection: but remembrance of the Son is made, who also is the Word, because it is written: Said God: Let it be made; that through that which is beginning, He may intimate beginning of creature existing from Him still imperfect; through that however which is Word, He may intimate perfection of creature recalled to Him, that it might be formed by cleaving to Creator, and according to its kind imitating form eternally and unchangeably cleaving to the Father, from whom immediately it is what He is.
Not indeed has unformed life the Word the Son, to whom not only this is to be which to live, but also this is to live which is wisely and blessedly to live. Creature however, although spiritual and intellectual or rational, which is seen to be to that Word nearer, can have unformed life; because not just as this is to it to be which to live, so this to live which wisely and blessedly to live. Turned away indeed from Wisdom unchangeable, foolishly and miserably it lives, which unformedness of it is. Is formed however turned to unchangeable light of Wisdom, Word of God. From whom indeed it existed that it might be somehow and might live, to him it turns that it might wisely and blessedly live. Beginning truly of creature intellectual is eternal Wisdom; which beginning remaining in itself unchangeably, by no means would cease by hidden inspiration of calling to speak to that creature to which beginning is, that it might be turned to that from which it is, which otherwise formed and perfected to be could not. Therefore asked who he was, he answered: Beginning, because also I speak to you.
What however the Son speaks, the Father speaks, because the Father speaking is said the Word, which the Son is, by eternal manner, if manner is to be said, God speaking the Word coeternal. Is in God indeed goodness highest, and holy and just; and indeed not from need, but from beneficence coming love in his works. Therefore before it was written: And God said: Let light be; preceded the Scripture saying: And the Spirit of God was borne over the water. Because whether by the name of water he wished to call all bodily matter, that in that way he might hint whence made and formed are all things, which in their kinds now we can discern, calling water, because from moist nature we see all things on earth through various kinds to be formed and to grow together; or whether a certain spiritual life before the form of conversion as it were floating: was borne over surely the Spirit of God; because was subject certainly to the good will of the Creator, whatever that was which he had begun to be formed and to be perfected: that God saying in his Word: Let light be; in good will, that is in his good pleasure according to the measure of its kind might remain that which was made; and therefore right it is, that it pleased God, Scripture saying: And light was made; and God saw the light because it is good.
That just as in the very beginning of the initiated creature, which by the name of heaven and earth, because of that which from it was to be perfected, is mentioned, the Trinity of the Creator is hinted (for the Scripture saying: In the beginning made God heaven and earth; we understand the Father in the name of God, and the Son in the name of the beginning, who not to the Father, but by himself to the creature first and chiefly spiritual, and consequently also to the whole creature is the beginning: but the Scripture saying: And the Spirit of God was borne over the water, the completed mention of the Trinity we recognize); so also in the conversion and perfection of the creature, that the forms of things be ordered, the same Trinity is hinted: the Word of God namely, and the begetter of the Word, when it is said: God said; and the holy goodness, in which it pleases God whatever to him according to the measure of its nature perfect pleases, when it is said: God saw that it is good.
But why, the creature being mentioned first, although imperfect, afterwards is the Spirit of God mentioned, the Scripture first saying: But the earth was invisible and without form, and darkness was upon the abyss; and then adding: And the Spirit of God was borne over the water? Whether because needy and lacking love so loves, that to the things which it loves, it is subject; therefore, when the Spirit of God was mentioned, in whom his holy goodwill and love is understood, he was said to be borne over, lest God should be thought to love the works to be made through a necessity of want rather than through an abundance of beneficence? Of which matter mindful, the Apostle, about to speak of charity, says he will show a way more eminent: and in another place: Over-abounding, he says, the charity of Christ which surpasses knowledge. Therefore, since the Spirit of God was thus to be hinted, that he be said to be borne over, it was more fittingly done that something begun be first suggested, over which he might be said to be borne; not by place, but by a power surpassing and excelling all.
Thus also to things from that beginning perfected and formed, saw God because good it is: pleased indeed what made was, in that kindness in which it pleased that it be made. Two indeed are on account of which loves God creature His; that it may be, and that it may remain. That there might be therefore what might remain: Spirit of God was being borne over the water; but that it might remain: saw God because good it is. And what about the light was said, this about all. Remain indeed certain things having surpassed all temporal change in most ample holiness under God; certain things however according to their time’s modes, while through departure and succession of things of the ages beauty is woven.
What therefore said God: Let there be light; and there was made light, on some day said He, or before every day? If indeed by Word to Himself coeternal He said, this certainly timelessly He said: if however temporally He said, not by Word to Himself coeternal, but through some He said creature temporal; and through this not will be first creature light, because already there was through which temporally might be said: Let there be light. And that before every day to have made is understood, what was said: In beginning made God heaven and earth; that by name of heaven is understood spiritual already made and formed creature, as it were heaven of this heaven, which in bodies is highest. On second indeed day was made firmament, which again heaven He called. By name however of earth invisible and unformed, and by dark abyss, imperfection of bodily substance was signified, from which temporal things might be made, of which first would be light.
How however through creature, which He made before times, could be said temporally: Let there be light, to find is difficult. By sound indeed of voice we do not understand said: for whatever is such, bodily is. Or from that imperfection of bodily substance did He make some voice bodily, through which might sound: Let there be light? Therefore some vocal body before light was created and formed. But if so it is, already there was time, through which voice might run, and spaces of sounds to each other succeeding might pass. But if already there was time before might be made light, in which time might be made voice by which might sound: Let there be light; to which day did that time belong? One indeed day, and that same first begins to be numbered, on which was made light. Or to that same day belongs whole space of time, both in which was made vocal body, through which might sound: Let there be light, and in which was made very light? But every such voice for hearer’s bodily sense by speaker is brought forth; thus indeed he is made, that struck air he may sense. Had it then such hearing that whatever it was invisible and unformed, to which thus God might resound and say: Let there be light? Let this therefore depart from mind of thinker, absurdity.
Whether therefore spiritual motion, but nevertheless temporal it was, by which is understood said: Let there be light, expressed by eternal God through the Word coeternal in spiritual creature, which already He had made, when was said: In the beginning God made heaven and earth, that is in that heaven of heaven? or also this speech not only without any sound, but also without any temporal motion of spiritual creature, in its mind and reason fixed in some way by the Word coeternal to the Father, and in some way impressed is understood, according to which might be moved, and to appearance might be converted that lower dark imperfection of bodily nature, and might be made light? But great is and most difficult to grasp how it may be said, God not temporally commanding, nor it temporally hearing creature, which by contemplation of truth all times surpasses, but intellectually to itself impressed by unchangeable Wisdom of God the reasons, as intelligible speeches, into those things which are below transmitting, temporal motions in temporal things either to be formed or to be governed are made. But if light, which first was said to be made, and was made, also primacy of creation is understood to hold, it is intellectual life itself; which unless to the Creator to be enlightened were turned, would float without form. But when it was turned and enlightened, was made that which in the Word of God was said: Let there be light.
Nevertheless just as without time it was said, because into the Word coeternal with the Father time does not fall; whether thus also without time it was made, someone perhaps may ask. But how can this be understood, when light having been made and divided from the darkness, and names of day and night having been assigned, Scripture says: Evening was made, and morning was made, one day? From which it seems that that work of God was made through the space of a day, which having been completed, evening came, which is the beginning of night. Likewise the space of night having been completed, the whole day was fulfilled, so that morning might be made into another day, in which day God would work something else in order.
Nay rather that very thing is exceedingly wonderful, when God with no space of syllables by the eternal reason of His Word said: Let there be light; why with such delay light was made, until the space of the day passed, and evening came. Or perhaps quickly indeed light was made, but the delay of the day’s time could have been spent in this, when it was being separated from the darkness, and each, having been separated, was marked with its names? A wonder if even this could have been done by God with so much delay as is said by us. For the separation of light and darkness in that very work, when light was made, followed: for light could not be, unless it were separated from darkness.
What however called God light day, and darkness night, with how much delay could it have been done, even if this syllable by syllable through sound of voice He had done, unless with as much as by us it is said: Light be called day, and darkness be called night? unless perhaps someone thus be foolish, that because above all great is God, he thinks by mouth of God uttered, although very few syllables, through whole of day’s span could have been extended. To this is added, that to Word to Himself coeternal, that is of unchangeable Wisdom in internal and eternal reasons, not by bodily sound of voice, called God light day, and darkness night. Again indeed it is asked, if with words which we use He called, with what language He called; and what need there was of sounds passing, where of anyone there was not any bodily hearing: and it is not found.
Is it to be said, then, that when quickly completed was this work of God, so long stood the light with night not following, until the span of day was completed; and so long remained the night succeeding the light, until the span of the night-time passed away, and morning happened of the following day, with the one and first having passed? But if this I say, I fear lest I be mocked both by those who have most certainly known, and by those who can very easily observe that at that time when night is with us, those parts of the world are illuminated by the presence of light, through which the sun returns from setting to rising; and through this in all twenty-four hours is not lacking by the circuit of the whole circle, elsewhere day, elsewhere night. Shall we then in some part place God where to Him evening would occur, when from that part into another part the light departed? For also in the book which is called Ecclesiastes, thus it is written: And rises the sun, and sets the sun, and to its place it leads; that is, to that place whence it arose. For it follows and says: He rising goes to the south, and circles to the north. The southern part therefore when it has the sun, to us is day: but when to the part of the north circling it is carried, to us is night; yet not in another part is there not day, where the presence of the sun is: unless perhaps by poetic fictions the heart must be inclined, that we may believe the sun into the sea immerses itself, and thence washed from another part in the morning rises. Although if thus it were, the abyss itself by the presence of the sun would be illuminated, and there would be day. For it could also illuminate the waters, since by them it could not be extinguished. But this monstrous is to suspect. What of the fact also that the sun was not yet?
Wherefore if spiritual light on the first day was made, did it set so that night would follow it? But if bodily, what was that light which after the setting of the sun we are not able to see, since neither the moon yet was, nor any stars? Or if always in that part of heaven it is, in which the sun is, so that it is not the sun’s light, but as it were its companion, to it so joined that it cannot be separated or distinguished, to that same difficulty of solving this question there is a return: because also that light in the same manner as the sun, as its companion, from setting to rising circling returns; and is in another part of the world, at which time the part in which we are grows dark into night. From which arises the thought—which let it not be!—that in one part God was believed to be, which part that light would desert, so that to Him evening might occur. Or perhaps in that part He had made the light, in which He was going to make man; and therefore when from that very part the light had departed, evening is said to be made, even though in another part that light was, which from there had departed, in the morning about to rise after the circuit was completed?
Why therefore was the sun made for rule of the day, to shine upon the earth, if that light had sufficed for making day, which also was called day? Or did that former light illuminate the higher regions far from the earth, so that it could not be perceived on the earth; and thus it was fitting that the sun be made, through which the day would appear to the lower parts of the world? It can also be said that the brightness was increased with the sun added, so that by that light the day may be believed to have been less bright than now it is. Even this I know was said by someone, that first the nature of light was introduced in the work of the Creator, when it was said: Let there be light, and there was light; afterwards indeed, when about the luminaries it is spoken, what from that very light had been made was recalled, in the order of the days, in which it seemed to the Creator that all things were to be made: which nature of light, where it passed, evening being made, so that in turn night might be completed, neither did he say, nor do I think it can easily be discovered. For it is not to be believed that it was extinguished, so that the darkness of night might follow; and again rekindled, so that morning might come, before this was done by the sun’s office; which from the fourth day began to be done, the same Scripture attests.
Which before it was made, by what circuit to itself could three days and nights succeed, of the light which first was made with the nature remaining, if light bodily then made is to be understood, both to find and to explain is difficult. Unless perhaps the earthy and watery mass, before it was from either each separated, which on the third day to have been done is written, darkness God to have called someone might say, on account of the thicker corpulence, which light to penetrate could not, or on account of the very dark shadow of so great a mass, which it is necessary that from the other side it has a body, if from some side light was. To which place indeed of any body’s mass the light to reach does not allow, in that place shadow is: since a place lacking that light, by which it would be illuminated, unless it was hindered by an opposite body, this whole thing is what shadow is called. Which if for the mass of the body so great it has been, that it occupies space of the earth, as much as from the other side day occupies, night it is called. Nor indeed all darkness is night. For also in caves vast, into whose depths light to burst in through opposing mass is not allowed, there are indeed darknesses; since light is not there, and the whole space that is a place lacking light: yet not such darknesses received the name of night, but those which into that part of the earth come, from which is removed day. Just as not all light is called day; for also of the moon there is light, and of stars, and of lamps, and of flashes, and of whatever things thus shining: but that light is called day, to which night preceding and receding succeeds.
But if the primary light that on all sides the mass of earth had surrounded and woven, whether it stood still or was going around, there was not from which part it might admit night to succeed to it; because nowhere itself was departing, so that to it it might make room. Or from one part it had been made, so that itself going around, also night from another part in succession to go around it might allow? Since indeed the whole earth still water was covering, nothing was hindering that the watery and spherical mass from one part might make day by the presence of light, from another night by the absence of light, which into that part might succeed from the evening time, from which light into another might be turning.
Where therefore were gathered the waters, if the whole earth before they had occupied? those namely which were withdrawn, so that the land might be uncovered, into what part were they gathered? For if there was something bare of earth, where they might be gathered, already the dry land was appearing, nor was the whole abyss occupying. But if the whole they had covered; what was the place where they might be collected, so that the dryness of earth might appear? Perhaps into the height were they gathered, as it happens when for winnowing on the threshing floor the threshed harvest is raised, and heaped into a mound it uncovers the place which being spread it had covered? Who would say this, when he had seen everywhere the fields of the sea equally spread, which even when of the fluctuating water certain as it were mountains are raised, with the storms calmed again are leveled? And if certain shores are uncovered more widely, it cannot be said there are not other spaces of land, where what from elsewhere departs may come, from which into the place from which it had receded, again it may come. But when the whole entirely earth by a wavy nature was being covered, where would it withdraw, so that it might uncover certain parts? Or perhaps a more rarefied water like mist was covering the lands, which by gathering was thickened, so that from many those parts, in which the dry land might be able to appear, it might uncover? Although also the earth far and wide sinking down, might have offered other parts concave, into which the flowing and falling waters might be received, and the dry land might appear from those parts, from which the moisture would withdraw. Not is however formless in every way matter, where even misty appearance may have appeared.
And therefore it can still be asked, when God these visible appearances and qualities of waters and of lands created; for in none of the six days is this found. And so if he did this before every day, just as before the mention of these first days it is written: In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth; so that in the name of earth we may understand already the formed earthly appearance, with waters poured over it, already declared with this visible appearance of its kind: so that in what follows in Scripture saying: But the earth was invisible and unformed, and darkness was over the abyss, and the Spirit of God was borne over the waters, we may suppose no formlessness of matter, but earth and water without light, which had not yet been made, already endowed with their most well-known qualities: so that therefore earth is understood to be called invisible, because covered by waters it could not be seen, even if there were one who could see; and unformed for this reason, because not yet distinct from the sea, and surrounded by shores, and adorned with its produce and animals: if therefore it is so, why were these appearances, which without doubt are bodily, made before every day? Why was it not written: God said: Let the earth be made, and the earth was made; likewise: God said: Let water be made; and water was made; or both together, if they are contained as it were by one law of the lowest place: God said: Let earth and water be made, and so it was made?
Why was it not said, when this had been done: God saw that it was good? This consideration indeed persuaded (since it is clear that everything changeable is formed from some formlessness; and also both the Catholic faith prescribes it, and most certain reason teaches, that there could not have been any matter of natures unless by the beginner and creator of all things not only formed, but also formable, God, of whom also a certain Scripture says: Who made the world from formless matter), this matter to have been mentioned by those words, with which, according to spiritual prudence, it might suit also slower readers or hearers, which were said before the enumeration of the days: In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth, etc., until it would be said: And God said, so that from then on the order of formed things would follow.
Not because formless matter is prior in time to formed things, since both were created together, both that from which something was made and that which was made. For just as voice is the matter of words, and words indicate the formed voice, yet the one who speaks does not first emit an unformed voice which he might afterward collect and form into words: so also God the creator did not make formless matter at an earlier time and afterward in the order of various natures, as by a second consideration, form it; for he created matter formed. But because that from which something is made, although not in time, yet by a certain origin is prior to that which is made from it, Scripture was able to divide what it said into times of speaking, which God did not divide into times of making. For if it be asked whether we make words from voice or voice from words, hardly anyone of such dull mind will be found who would not rather answer that words are made from voice: so although he who speaks makes both at once, what is made from what is clear enough to natural attention. Therefore, since God made both at once, both the matter which he formed and the things into which he formed it, and it was fitting for Scripture to speak of both, and both could not be said at the same time; who would doubt that what something is made from should be said before what is made from it? Because even when we say “matter and form”, we understand both to exist together, yet we cannot pronounce both at once. And just as in a short moment of time it happens, when we utter these two words, that one is spoken before the other: so in the length of narration one had to be narrated before the other, although God, as said, made both together; so that what is prior only in origin in making may also be prior in time in narrating: for two things, of which one is in no way prior, cannot be named together; how much less narrated together? It must not be doubted, therefore, that this formless matter is somehow almost nothing, such that it was not made except by God, and that it was created together with the things which were formed from it.
But if it is credibly said that it is signified by those words: But the earth was invisible and unformed, and darkness was over the abyss: and the Spirit of God was carried over the water; so that, except for what is placed there about the Spirit of God, the rest are indeed words of visible things, but are to be understood as spoken to insinuate that formlessness, as could be done for the slower minds; because these two elements, that is earth and water, are more easily handled by the hands of workers in making something than the others, and therefore that formlessness was more fittingly insinuated by these names.
If this therefore probabilistically is said, there was not any formed mass, which light from one part illuminating, from another part might make darkness, whence night to day departing might succeed.
Emission truly and contraction of that light if we should wish day and night to understand, nor cause we see why thus it might be done. For not already there were animals, to which this vicissitude healthfully might be exhibited, and to which afterwards arising by circuit of sun we see to be exhibited. Nor any example occurs, by which this emission and contraction of light, so that vicissitudes of day and night might be made, we may be able to prove. Casting indeed of rays from eyes of ours, of a certain light indeed is a casting; and it can be contracted, when the air, which to eyes of ours is nearest, we look at; and to be emitted, when to that same straightness the things far placed we attend: nor truly when it is contracted, altogether it ceases to see the things which are far; but certainly more dimly, than when into that straightness the gaze is emitted. But that light which in sense of the seeing one is, so small is shown to be, that unless it be helped by external light, nothing we can see; and because from it it cannot be distinguished, by what example emission into day and contraction of light into night might be shown, as I said, to discover is difficult.
If however spiritual light made was, when said God: Be made light; not that true to-the-Father coeternal is to-be-understood, through which made were all things, and which enlightens every man; but that of-which it could be-said: Before all created was wisdom. For when that eternal and unchangeable, which not is made but begotten Wisdom, into spiritual and rational creatures, as into holy souls transfers herself, that enlightened they may be-able to-shine; is-made in them a-certain of-bright reason affection, which can be received made light, when said God: Be made light; if already was spiritual creature, which by name of-heaven was signified, in that which written is: In beginning made God heaven and earth; not bodily heaven, but heaven incorporeal of the bodily heaven, that is, above every body, not by steps of-places, but by loftiness of-nature placed above. In what however way at-once could be-made both that it might-be enlightened, and itself the illumination, and at different time had-to-be narrated, a-little before we said, when about matter we treated.
But to this light succeeding night, how shall we understand to have happened, that evening might be made? But from what darkness such light could be divided, with Scripture saying: And God divided between the light and the darkness? Were already sinners and fools falling from the light of truth, among whom and those remaining in the same light God might divide, as between light and darkness; and calling the light day, and the darkness night, He might show Himself not the maker of sins, but the ordainer by distribution of merits? Or is this day the name of all time, and all revolutions of the ages under this word are included; and for that reason not called the first, but one day? And there was made evening, and there was made, he says, morning one day: so that by this, that evening was made, the sin of the rational creature; but that morning was made, its renewal might seem to be signified.
But this is the discussion of prophetic allegory, which we have not undertaken in this discourse. For we have determined to speak now from the Scriptures according to the literalness of accomplished events, not according to riddles of things to come. Therefore, to the reasoning of natures made and created, how do we find evening and morning in spiritual light? Or is the division indeed of light from darkness the distinction of the already formed thing from the unformed; but the naming of day and night an indication of distribution, by which it is signified that God leaves nothing disordered, and that very formlessness, through which things from one form to another in a certain way by passing are changed, is not without arrangement; nor the defects and advances of the creature, by which all temporal things succeed one another, without the complement of the universe’s beauty? For night indeed the darknesses are ordered.
For the reason that when light had been made, it was said: God saw the light, that it was good; when this He might have said after all the things of the same day, that is, after He had explained: And God said, Let there be light; and there was light; And God divided between the light and the darkness; And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night; then He would say: And God saw that it was good; and afterward would add: And there was evening, and there was morning; just as He does in the other works, to which He gives names. Therefore here He did not do thus, because from the formed thing that formlessness was so distinguished, that not in it was the end, but still it remained to be formed through the other creatures now corporeal. Therefore if after those things had been distinguished by that division and by names, it had then been said: God saw that it was good; we would have taken those things to be signified as done, to which in their kind nothing would be added. But because He had made only the light thus complete; God saw, he says, the light, that it was good, and He divided it by division and names from the darkness. Nor then did He say: God saw that it was good; for that formlessness had been separated for this, that from it other things might still be formed. For that night which is most well known to us (for the circuit of the sun makes it over the earths), when by the arrangement of the lights it is divided from day, after that division of day and night it is said: God saw that it was good. For this night was not some formless substance, from which still others might be formed, but a space of place filled with air, lacking the daytime light; to which night indeed nothing would need to be added in its kind, that it might be more beautiful or more distinct. But the evening in that whole three-day period, before the lights were made, not unsuitably perhaps is understood as the end of the completed work; but the morning, as the indication of the future operation.
But before all, let us remember—of which we have already said many things—that not by temporal motions of His mind or body, as man or angel works, does God work; but by eternal and unchangeable and stable reasons of His coeternal Word, and by a certain, so to speak, brooding equally of His coeternal Holy Spirit. For also that which was said in the Greek and Latin tongue of the Spirit of God, that He was borne over the waters, according to the understanding of the Syriac language, which is near to the Hebrew (for this is said to be explained by a certain learned Christian Syrian), is not to be understood as “was borne over,” but rather as “was brooding.” Nor as swellings or wounds in the body are brooded over with waters either cold or tempered with suitable warmth; but as eggs are brooded over by birds, where that warmth of the mother’s body also somehow aids the formation of the chicks, through a certain affection of love in its own kind. Let us not therefore carnally think that on each of these days of the divine works there were as it were temporal words of God. For not for this did the very Wisdom of God, taken up in our weakness, come to gather the children of Jerusalem under His wings, as a hen gathers her chicks, that we may always be little ones; but that being infants in malice, we may cease to be children in understanding.
And in obscure things and most remote from our eyes, if from there we shall have read any writings—even divine ones—which can, with the faith by which we are imbued remaining safe, give rise to one meaning or another, let us not throw ourselves into any of them with hasty assertion, so that if perhaps truth more diligently discussed should rightly shake it, we fall—not for the sake of the meaning of the divine Scriptures, but for our own, fighting so for it that we want it to be the meaning of the Scriptures which is ours, when rather we ought to want that which is of the Scriptures to be ours.
Let us suppose, for example, in that which is written: And said God: Let be made light; and was made light, that one person understood that a bodily light was made, and another, a spiritual one. That there is spiritual light in a spiritual creature, our faith does not doubt. That there is also bodily light in the heavens, or even above heaven, or before heaven, to which night could succeed, is not against the faith so long as it is not refuted by most certain truth. But if it shall be refuted, that was not what the divine Scripture had, but what human ignorance had imagined. If, however, a certain reason shall have demonstrated that it is true, it will still be uncertain whether the writer of the sacred books wished that to be understood in those words, or something else no less true. But if the rest of the context of the discourse proves that he did not wish that to be understood, the other will not on that account be false, but both true and more useful to be known. If, however, the context of Scripture does not oppose understanding that, there will still remain the question whether something else could not also be. And if we find that something else could also be, it will remain uncertain which of them he wished; and it is not unreasonable to believe that he wished both to be understood, if each interpretation is supported by clear context.
For it often happens that something concerning the earth, the heavens, the other elements of this world, the motion and revolution or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, the certain eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of years and seasons, the natures of animals, plants, stones, and other such things is so well known even by a non-Christian that he holds it by the most certain reasoning or experience. But it is shameful, very harmful, and especially to be avoided, that a Christian, speaking on these things as though from the Christian Scriptures, should be heard raving in such a way that, as it is said, one can scarcely hold back laughter at seeing him err as widely as the whole sky. And it is not so much that a man is ridiculed in his error, but that our authors are believed by those who are outside the faith to have thought such things—and with great harm to those whose salvation we seek, they are rejected and condemned as unlearned. For when they discover someone of the number of Christians to be mistaken in a matter they know very well, and to assert a foolish opinion from our Books, how will they believe those Books concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they have thought them falsely written in matters they could test by experience or grasp by undoubted reasoning? The trouble and sorrow such presumptuous fools bring to wise brethren cannot be sufficiently expressed, when, having been refuted and corrected concerning their false and perverse opinion by those who are not bound by the authority of our Books, they try to defend what they said with the most reckless rashness and most obvious falsehood by bringing forward those same sacred Books to prove it, or even reciting many words from them by memory, believing them to serve as proof—without understanding either what they are saying or the matters they are asserting.
For to this considering and observing the book of Genesis in many ways, as much as I could, I have examined, and I have brought forth opinions concerning the words obscurely placed for our exercise; not anything one thing rashly affirming with prejudice of another interpretation perhaps better, so that according to his measure each may choose what he is able to grasp: but where he is not able to understand, to the Scripture of God let him give honor, to himself fear. But when in so many ways the words of Scripture which we have treated are interpreted, let them restrain themselves at last who, puffed up with secular letters, these things so placed, that all pious hearts they may nourish, as something unskilled and unpolished they mock; crawling on the ground without wings, and at the flight of frogs mocking the nests of birds. More dangerously, however, err certain weak brothers, who when they hear those impious ones about the numbers of heavenly bodies, or about any questions of the elements of this world, to discuss subtly and copiously, they become vain; and those, with a sigh preferring to themselves, and great thinking them, the books of most healthful piety with disdain they return to, and which sweetly they ought to draw in, scarcely patiently they touch; from the roughness of the grain recoiling, and at the flowers of thorns gaping. For they are not free to see how sweet is the Lord, nor do they hunger on the sabbath; and therefore slothful they are, with the power received from the Lord of the sabbath, to pluck the ears of grain, and for so long to turn them in their hands, and crushed to cleanse them, until they come to food.
Will say someone: What you so great threshing of this dissertation, what grains have you stripped? what have you winnowed? Why almost in questions do all things still lie hidden? Affirm something of those many things you have argued can be understood. To whom I reply, to that very food sweetly I have come, by which I have learned not to cling to man in responding according to the faith, what is to be responded to men who seek to calumniate the Books of our salvation; so that whatever they themselves about the nature of things by true proofs shall have been able to demonstrate, we show in our Writings not to be contrary. But whatever from any of their writings they shall have brought forward contrary to these our Writings, that is, to the Catholic faith, either by some ability we show to be false, or without any doubt we believe to be most false: and so we hold our Mediator, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden, so that neither by the loquacity of false philosophy we be deceived, nor by the superstition of false religion we be frightened. And when we read the divine Books in so great a multitude of true understandings, which from few words are drawn out, and are fortified by the health of the Catholic faith, that especially we choose, which certainly shall have appeared to be the meaning of the one we read; but if this be hidden, that certainly which the surrounding of the Scripture does not hinder, and which agrees with sound faith: but if also the surrounding of the Scripture cannot be handled and discussed, at least that alone which sound faith prescribes. For it is one thing not to discern what chiefly the writer intended, but another to err from the rule of piety. If both be avoided, the fruit of the reader is perfect: but if both cannot be avoided, even if the will of the writer is uncertain, a sentence agreeing with sound faith is not unprofitably discovered.
BOOK TWO
Coming soon…
