Four rules are here set down, by which it may easily be judged — among the various interpretations of authors who explain this teaching of Moses on the generation of the world — which interpretation is true or false, and which is more or less probable — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

LatineEnglish

Four rules are here set down, by which it may easily be judged — among the various interpretations of authors who explain this teaching of Moses on the generation of the world — which interpretation is true or false, and which is more or less probable.¹

Traduntur quatuor regulae, quibus facile iudicari possit, de variis auctorum hanc Mosis de generatione mundi doctrinam explanantium interpretationibus, quae vera aut falsa sit, et quae sit magis minusve probabilis interpretatio.

Describitur a Mose in exordio huius libri origo et fabrica huius mundi corporati et aspectabilis, et ostenditur quemadmodum a Deo per sex dies particulatim conditus, dispositus et exornatus fuerit; cuius descriptionis et narrationis Mosaicae apud scriptores tam veteris quam recentis memoriae vix dici potest quam multae sint atque discrepantes interpretationes, quarum aliquae sunt falsae, nonnullae vix probabiles, quaedam etiam ad turpiter errandum lubricae ac praecipites. Quare, ut lector errores omnes (quoad eius fieri possit) praecavere, et certam atque compendiariam viam investigandae reperiendaeque veritatis insistere queat, subiiciam hoc loco breves aliquot regulas, ad quas explorare et diiudicare valeat quae interpretatio sit bona aut mala, quae proposito et verbis Mosis congruens aut discrepans, et de multis non reprobandis quae sit magis minusve probanda.

There is described by Moses, at the opening of this book, the origin and fashioning of this corporeal and visible world, and it is shown how it was, part by part, founded, arranged, and adorned by God over six days. Of this Mosaic description and narration there are, among writers both of ancient and of recent memory, interpretations so many and so discordant that it can scarcely be told — some of them false, several scarcely probable, and certain ones slippery and headlong toward shameful error. Wherefore, that the reader may (so far as may be) guard against all errors, and keep to a sure and compendious way of investigating and finding the truth, I shall here append a few brief rules, by which he may be able to examine and judge which interpretation is good or bad, which agrees with or departs from the purpose and the words of Moses, and, among the many not to be rejected, which is more or less to be approved.

FIRST RULE. The teaching of Moses which is handed down concerning the creation of the world is plainly historical.²

Prima regula. Doctrina Mosis, quae de creatione mundi traditur, est plane historica.

Narrat enim Moses mundum factum esse a Deo ex aliquo certo temporis initio, nec totum simul puncto temporis esse conditum, sed per partes spatio sex dierum esse fabricatum. Confirmat hanc regulam Beatus Augustinus initio libri octavi de Genesi ad litteram, ita scribens:

For Moses narrates that the world was made by God from some fixed beginning of time, and that it was not founded all at once in a point of time, but fashioned part by part over the span of six days. The Blessed Augustine confirms this rule at the beginning of the eighth book of On Genesis according to the Letter, writing thus:

"The narration of Moses in the book of Genesis is not a kind of speech about figured things, as in the Song of Songs, but is an account of things wholly done, as in the books of Kingdoms (Kings) and others of that sort. But because in these the things spoken of are such as the most familiar use of human life knows, they are without difficulty — indeed most readily — taken at first according to the letter. In the book of Genesis, however, because the things spoken of are such as do not occur to those who observe the accustomed course of nature, on that account so[me...]"³

"Narratio Mosis in libro Geneseos non est genus locutionis figuratarum rerum, sicut in Cantico Canticorum, sed est expositio rerum omnino gestarum, sicut in Regnorum libris et ceteris eiusmodi. Sed quia in his ea dicuntur quae vitae humanae usus notissimus habet, non difficile, immo promptissime, primitus accipiuntur ad litteram. In libro autem Geneseos, quod ea dicuntur quae usitatum naturae cursum intuentibus non occurrant, propterea no[nnulli...]"

"...on that account some are unwilling to have these things understood literally, but [hold them] figuratively spoken, and they think that the properly historical narration of this book begins from that place where, sent away from Paradise, Adam and Eve came together and begot offspring — as though, forsooth, it were familiar to us either that they lived so many years, or that Henoch was translated, or that the aged and barren Sara bore a son, and the like." Thus Augustine.⁴

"...propterea nonnulli volunt ea non proprie, sed figurate dicta intelligi, atque ex illo loco putant incipere proprie historicam narrationem huius libri, ex quo, dimissi de Paradiso, Adam et Eva convenerunt atque genuerunt; quasi vero usitatum nobis sit vel quod tot annos illi vixerunt, vel quod Henoch translatus est, vel quod grandaeva et sterilis Sara filium peperit, et cetera huiuscemodi." Haec Augustinus.

Ex his perspicue intelligitur, si narratio Mosis est historica, consequens esse ut ea propria et vulgo usitata eorum significatione accepta sit. Si enim Moses historice scripsit, procul dubio id docere voluit quod verba eius proprie sumpta declarant. Quare eorum interpretatio maxime laudanda et probanda est qui, quaecumque a Mose traduntur hoc loco, sedulo curant ut verba ipsa sonant et prae se ferunt interpretari. Atque huius rei testem et approbatorem excitabo Augustinum, qui libri octavi de Genesi ad litteram cap. 2, partim corrigens quae scripserat super Genesim in duobus libris contra Manichaeos (quod non historicum sed figuratum et mysticum interpretationis genus in illis secutus esset), partim ostendens sibi in iis libris quos posterius, aetate et doctrina maturior et in studio sacrarum litterarum exercitatior scribebat, cordi et curae fore ut expositionem sententiae verborum inhaerentem quoad posset sequeretur, ad hunc modum scribit:

From these things it is clearly understood that, if the narration of Moses is historical, it follows that it must be taken in the proper and commonly used signification of its words. For if Moses wrote historically, he undoubtedly wished to teach what his words, taken in their proper sense, declare. Wherefore the interpretation of those is most to be praised and approved who diligently take care to interpret whatever is handed down by Moses in this place just as the words themselves sound and present themselves. And as witness and approver of this I shall call up Augustine, who, in ch. 2 of the eighth book of On Genesis according to the Letter — partly correcting what he had written on Genesis in his two books Against the Manichees (because in them he had followed not the historical but the figurative and mystical kind of interpretation), partly showing that in those books which he was writing later (more mature in age and in learning, and more practiced in the study of the sacred letters) it would be his heart's care to follow, so far as he could, the exposition that adheres to the [literal] sense of the words — writes in this manner:⁵

"I wrote two books on Genesis against the Manichees in the recent time of my conversion; and because it did not then occur to me how all things might be taken in their proper sense, I explained, with what brevity and clearness I could, what those things signified figuratively which I could not find [a way to take] according to the letter — yet mindful of what I most wished (though I could not achieve it): that all should at the outset be understood not figuratively but properly; and not altogether despairing that they could be so understood, I set down this very thing in the second book of the first part (that is, in ch. 2) thus: 'Whoever shall wish to take all the things said by Moses according to the letter, and to understand them no otherwise than the letter sounds, and does so without any injury to the faith, is not only not to be grudged this, but is to be held an excellent and most praiseworthy interpreter.' This I said then. But now, because the Lord has willed that, gazing upon and considering these things more diligently, I should judge — not in vain, as I think — that it can even by me be demonstrated that these things were spoken by Moses according to the proper, and not the allegorical, manner of speech, just as we wished to show above, so let us also scrutinize what follows concerning Paradise." Thus far Augustine.⁶

"Scripsi ego contra Manichaeos duos libros super Genesim recenti tempore conversionis meae; et quia non occurrebat mihi tunc omnia quemadmodum proprie possent accipi, quid figurate significarent ea quae ad litteram non potui invenire, quanta valui brevitate et perspicuitate explicavi; memor tamen quid maxime voluerim nec potuerim, ut ratio figurate, sed proprie primitus cuncta intelligerentur; nec omnino desperans etiam sic posse intelligi, id ipsum in primae partis secundo libro (hoc est, in cap. 2) ita posui: 'Quisquis voluerit omnia quae dicta sunt a Mose secundum litteram accipere, nec aliter intelligere quam littera sonat, idque citra ullam fidei iniuriam faciat, non solum ei non est invidendum, sed praecipuus multumque laudabilis intellector habendus est.' Haec tunc dixi. Nunc autem, quia voluit Dominus ut, ea diligentius intuens atque considerans, non frustra (quantum opinor) existimarem etiam per me posse secundum propriam, non autem secundum allegoricam locutionem haec dicta esse a Mose demonstrari, sicut ea quae superius voluimus ostendere, sic etiam quae sequuntur de Paradiso perscrutemur." Hactenus Augustinus.

Verum nihil est quod hanc regulam et fortius confirmet et luculentius illustret quam quod scribit in eam sententiam Basilius, Origenem (tacito tamen eius nomine) reprehendens. Is enim in tertia Homilia super Genesim, cum commemorasset opinionem Origenis intelligentis per aquas supercaelestes bonos Angelos, per sublunares vero aquas malos Spiritus, subdit ea quae sequuntur:

But there is nothing that more strongly confirms and more brilliantly illustrates this rule than what Basil writes to this effect, reproving Origen (though suppressing his name). For he, in the third Homily on Genesis, when he had recalled Origen's opinion — understanding by the supercelestial waters the good Angels, and by the sublunary waters the evil Spirits — adds what follows:⁷

"And indeed these men (he says), under the pretext of an anagogical sense and a more sublime understanding, transfer everything into allegories; but we, casting aside these interpretations as being like dreams and old wives' tales, by the name of water understand real water, and the other things likewise."⁸

"Et quidem isti (ait) praetextu anagogici sensus et sublimioris intelligentiae ad allegorias transferunt omnia; nos vero, hisce interpretationibus (ut quae somniis et anilibus fabulis similes sunt) relegatis, nomine aquae intelligamus veram aquam, et ceteras res similiter."

In exordio autem nonae Homiliae super Genesim similia dicit...

And at the opening of the ninth Homily on Genesis he says similar things...⁹

...he says, and things even somewhat more striking. "I know," he says, "the laws of allegories — though not invented by me, yet elaborated by others — I hold them: for those who do not accept the common meanings of Scripture take water not as water, but as some other nature, and twist 'fish' and 'herb' and the rest to whatever seems good to them; just as the interpreters of dreams, who, looking to what they have set before themselves, are wont to invent interpretations of dreams. But I, when I hear 'hay,' understand hay; and 'plant,' and 'fish,' and 'wild beast,' and 'beast of burden' — I take them all as they are said." Thus Basil.¹⁰

...dicit, et paulo etiam illustriora. "Novi," ait, "Leges allegoriarum, etsi non a me inventas, ab aliis tamen elaboratas teneo: nam qui non acceptant sententias scripturae communes, hi aquam non ut aquam accipiunt, sed ut aliam quandam naturam, et piscem, et herbam, et alia ad id quod ipsis videtur suas retorquent interpretationes; similiter ut somniorum interpretes, qui ad id respicientes quod sibi proposuerunt somniorum interpretationes fingere solent. Ego vero cum faenum audio, faenum intelligo, et stirpem, et piscem, et feram, et iumentum, omnia ut dicta sunt ita accipio." Sic Basilius.

Et Beda super Exameron, exponens illa verba "In principio creavit Deus Caelum et terram," "Diligenter," inquit, "intuendum est, ut ita quisque sensibus allegoricis studium impendat, quatenus apertam historiae fidem allegorizando non derelinquat." Videtur etiam Augustinum censura haec, sane verissima, quodammodo attingere; siquidem is verba Mosis quae proprie significant res corporeas — ut Caelum, lux, tenebrae, dies, nox, mane, et vespera — a propria earum significatione ad expositionem et intelligentiam rerum spiritualium, quasi figurate accipi debeant, saepe traducit.

And Bede, on the Hexaemeron, expounding the words "In the beginning God created Heaven and earth," says: "It must be carefully observed that each one so devote his effort to the allegorical senses as not, by allegorizing, to abandon the plain trustworthiness of the history." This censure, surely most true, seems also in some way to touch Augustine; since he often carries over the words of Moses which properly signify corporeal things — such as Heaven, light, darkness, day, night, morning, and evening — from their proper signification to the exposition and understanding of spiritual things, as though they ought to be taken figuratively.¹¹

Adiicio unum hoc, velut clausulam huius regulae: si quae tradit Moses hoc loco non historice ac proprie, sed figurate et allegorice sint accipienda, fore ut ex Mose aut nullam, aut certe non stabilem ratam certamque habeamus de mundi origine et effectione doctrinam — cum tamen, quam ea de re tenet Ecclesia Catholica quamque in fidei articulos retulit, ex hoc potissimum libro Mosis acceperit. Etenim sensus Mysticus et allegoricus, praeterquam quod non est ad docendum quippiam probandumque satis idoneus et firmus, est etiam varius, multiplex, et incertus, tantaque in varietate constitutus quanta est hominum ad eos sensus fingendos solertia et ubertas ingenii.

I add this one thing, as a closing clause to this rule: if the things Moses hands down in this place are to be taken not historically and properly, but figuratively and allegorically, the result will be that from Moses we shall have either no teaching at all, or at any rate no stable, settled, and certain teaching about the origin and making of the world — whereas the teaching which the Catholic Church holds on this matter, and which she has set among the articles of faith, she has received chiefly from this book of Moses. For the mystical and allegorical sense, besides not being sufficiently apt and firm for teaching or proving anything, is also varied, manifold, and uncertain, set in as great a variety as is the cleverness and fertility of men's wit in devising such senses.

SECOND RULE. In treating and explaining this teaching of Moses, one must not resort without cause to miracles and to the absolute power of God.¹²

Secunda regula. In hac Mosis doctrina tractanda et explicanda non est sine causa recurrendum ad miracula et ad potentiam Dei absolutam.

...sicut inscienter et inepte faciunt nonnulli, qui cum opinionis suae rationem idoneam et probabilem reddere non possint, quasi ad asylum confugiunt ad miracula et omnipotentiam Dei. Etenim in prima rerum omnium molitione et mundi fabricatione nequaquam spectandum est quid simpliciter et absolute Deus facere potuerit, sed quid eum fecisse consentaneum sit eius sapientiae, et quid naturalis ipsarum rerum vis, dispositio, et convenientia deposcat. Hanc regulam, ut satis per se manifestam et cuivis sanae mentis probabilem, non aliter confirmabo quam unico Augustini testimonio: is enim initio libri secundi de Genesi ad litteram, de aquis quae super firmamentum sunt disputans, docet eos qui secundum allegoriam aquas esse posse negant non esse miraculis et omnipotentia Dei confutandos et tanquam increpandos. Sic enim ait:

...as some do, ignorantly and ineptly, who, when they cannot render a fit and probable reason for their opinion, flee to miracles and God's omnipotence as to a sanctuary. For in the first construction of all things and the fashioning of the world, one must by no means look at what God could simply and absolutely have done, but at what it was consonant with his wisdom for him to have done, and what the natural force, disposition, and fittingness of the things themselves requires. This rule, as sufficiently evident in itself and probable to anyone of sound mind, I shall confirm by no other than the single testimony of Augustine: for he, at the beginning of the second book of On Genesis according to the Letter, disputing about the waters that are above the firmament, teaches that those who deny (on the allegorical reading) that there can be [real] waters there are not to be refuted and as it were rebuked by appeal to miracles and the omnipotence of God. For he says thus:¹³

"Nor ought anyone to refute these men in such a way as to say that, according to the omnipotence of God, to whom all things are possible, we must believe that the waters above the heavens are such as those upon the earth. For now [the question] is how God established the natures of things, according to his Scriptures..."¹⁴

"Nec quisquam istos ita debet refellere, ut dicat secundum omnipotentiam Dei, cui cuncta sunt possibilia, oportere nos credere tales esse aquas super caelos quales sunt super terram. Nunc enim quemadmodum Deus instituerit naturas rerum, secundum scripturas eius..."

"...this it befits us to inquire, and not what he may will to work in them or from them as a miracle of his omnipotence."¹⁵

"...eius nos quaerere convenit, non autem quid ipse in eis vel ex eis ad miraculum omnipotentiae suae velit operari."

THIRD RULE. One must beware lest a man, with respect to an opinion he has once come to love and embrace, not only hold it tenaciously and defend it stubbornly, but even contend that it is so properly the meaning of Scripture that he cries out that any other opinion — whether opposed to his or merely different from it — is contrary to Scripture.¹⁶

Tertia regula. Cavendum est ne, quam quisque semel adamavit et amplexus est sententiam, eam non modo teneat mordicus et praefracte defendat, sed etiam contendat ita esse scripturae propriam ut aliam quamlibet, suae vel adversam vel diversam, clamet scripturae esse contrariam.

Male enim de scriptura merentur qui eam, quae per se latissime patet et variarum sententiarum atque interpretationum est capax, ad suae opinionis et ingenii angustias coarctare et coangustare volunt. Audiant isti Augustinum, in cap. 18 libri 1 de Genesi ad litteram ita scribentem:

For they deserve ill of Scripture who wish to cramp and confine within the narrowness of their own opinion and wit that which of itself lies most widely open and is capable of various opinions and interpretations. Let such men listen to Augustine, writing thus in ch. 18 of the first book of On Genesis according to the Letter:

"If some obscure and difficult passage of Scripture can admit various opinions and expositions while the Catholic faith is kept safe, none of them is to be held so rashly and obstinately as though it were the proper meaning of Scripture, that, if perhaps the truth, more diligently examined, rightly overturns it, we fall with it — fighting not for the meaning of Scripture but for our own, in such a way that we want our own to be Scripture's; whereas we ought rather to want that to be our own which is found to be Scripture's."¹⁷

"Si quis locus scripturae obscurus et difficilis varias sententias et expositiones salva fide Catholica potest admittere, nulla earum ita temere et obstinate tenenda est tanquam scripturae propria, ut, si forte diligentius discussa veritas eam recte labefactaverit, nos corruamus — non pro sententia scripturae, sed pro nostra ita dimicantes ut eam velimus scripturae esse quae nostra est; cum potius eam, quae scripturarum esse comperta fuerit, nostram esse velle debeamus."

FOURTH RULE. This too must be carefully guarded against and altogether avoided: that in treating the teaching of Moses we should not affirm and assert as our view anything that conflicts with manifest experience and with the reasonings of philosophy or of the other disciplines.¹⁸

Quarta regula. Illud etiam diligenter cavendum et omnino fugiendum est, ne in tractanda Mosis doctrina quicquam affirmate et asseveranter sentiamus et dicamus quod repugnet manifestae experientiae et rationibus philosophiae vel aliarum disciplinarum.

Namque cum verum omne semper cum vero congruat, non potest veritas sacrarum litterarum veris rationibus et experimentis humanarum doctrinarum esse contraria. Hoc et acute vidit Augustinus et admonere nos voluit: eodem enim illo libro quem proxime posui, cap. 21, ad hunc modum scribit:

For since everything true always agrees with what is true, the truth of the sacred writings cannot be contrary to the true reasonings and findings of the human disciplines. This Augustine saw acutely, and wished to warn us of it: for in that same book which I cited just now, ch. 21, he writes in this manner:

"This must be held without doubt: that whatever the wise of this world have been able truly to demonstrate about the nature of things, we should show is not contrary to our Scriptures; but whatever they teach in their books that is contrary to the sacred writings, we should believe, without any hesitation, to be utterly false, and, in whatever way we can, should also show it to be so; and so should hold the faith of our Lord, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom, that we be neither seduced by the loquacity of a false philosophy, nor terrified by the superstition of a feigned religion."¹⁹

"Hoc indubitanter tenendum est, ut quicquid sapientes huius mundi de natura rerum veraciter demonstrare potuerint, ostendamus nostris litteris non esse contrarium; quicquid autem illi in suis voluminibus contrarium sacris litteris docent, sine ulla dubitatione credamus id falsissimum esse, et quoquo modo possumus etiam ostendamus; atque ita teneamus fidem Domini nostri, in quo sunt absconditi omnes thesauri sapientiae, ut neque falsae Philosophiae loquacitate seducamur, neque simulatae religionis superstitione terreamur."

Ad hanc regulam si exigamus et expendamus nonnullas quorundam interpretum opiniones, plane respuendas atque reiiciendas esse intelligemus. Exempli causa: Origenes, Lactantius, Procopius Gazaeus, Chrysostomus, et quidam alii censent secundum scripturam caelum non esse rotundum, esse immobile; moveri stellas per caelum ut pisces per aquam et aves per aërem; non esse Antipodas; aquam maris esse multis partibus sublimiorem celsioremque etiam terrae montibusque: tamen falsa esse omnia manifestis experimentis necessariisque rationibus nunc constat.

If we test and weigh by this rule certain opinions of certain interpreters, we shall plainly understand that they must be rejected and cast aside. For example: Origen, Lactantius, Procopius of Gaza, Chrysostom, and certain others hold, on the basis of Scripture, that heaven is not round but immobile; that the stars move through the heaven as fish through water and birds through air; that there are no Antipodes; that the water of the sea is in many places higher and loftier even than the earth and its mountains. Yet that all these are false is now established by manifest observations and by necessary reasonings.²⁰

Ponam hic gravissimam ea de re Augustini sententiam: is Epistola 7 ad Marcellinum ita scribit: "Si ratio contra divinarum scripturarum auctoritatem redditur, quamlibet acuta sit, fallitur verisimilitudine; nam vera esse non potest. Rursus, si manifestae certae rationi velut sanctarum..."

Here I shall set down a most weighty opinion of Augustine on the matter; he writes thus in Letter 7 to Marcellinus: "If a reasoning is brought against the authority of the divine Scriptures, however acute it be, it is deceived by mere plausibility; for it cannot be true. Again, if against a manifest and certain reasoning the authority of the holy [Scriptures] is, as it were, set up..."²¹

"...the authority of the Scriptures [is set up against it], he who does this does not understand, and sets against the truth not the meaning of Scripture (which he was unable to penetrate) but rather his own; and opposes not what he finds in it, but what he finds in himself as though on its behalf." Thus Augustine.²²

"...scripturarum obiicitur auctoritas, non intelligit qui hoc facit, et non scripturae sensum (ad quem penetrare non potuit) sed suum potius obiicit veritati; nec quod in ea, sed quod in se ipso velut pro ea invenit opponit." Haec Augustinus.

Sed ut quidam sunt infensissimi Philosophiae ac bonis disciplinis, easque putant studio sacrarum litterarum prodesse nihil, obstare autem et obesse plurimum: ita ex adverso sunt alii usque adeo insani amatores et stupidi admiratores antiquorum poetarum et philosophorum, ut omnia eorum dicta existiment oracula, et quaecunque Moses in hoc libro Geneseos brevissime docuit ea contendant ab illis fuisse non obscure cognita, uberius etiam explicata ornatiusque tractata. Itaque Mosis sententias ad illorum dogmata confirmanda et persuadenda, et illorum dicta ad Mosis doctrinam illustrandam et exornandam, subtiliter et minutatim accommodare conantur.

But just as some are most hostile to philosophy and the good disciplines, and think them of no profit to the study of the sacred letters but rather a great hindrance and harm, so on the contrary there are others so insane in their love and so stupid in their admiration of the ancient poets and philosophers that they reckon all their sayings to be oracles, and contend that whatever Moses briefly taught in this book of Genesis was known to those men too, and not obscurely — indeed more fully explained and more elegantly handled. And so they try, subtly and minutely, to accommodate the opinions of Moses to confirming and recommending the doctrines of those men, and the sayings of those men to illustrating and adorning the teaching of Moses.²³

Equidem non sum nescius visum esse olim multis Ecclesiae Patribus et doctoribus veteres Gentilium poetas et Philosophos e fontibus Mosis hortos suos irrigasse — hoc est, plurima e scriptis eius in suos libros transtulisse — quae postea illi, vel ut furtum celarent vel quod ea non bene intelligerent, admixtis fabulis et erroribus deformarunt atque contaminarunt. Ego tamen (dicam enim libere quod sentio) nunquam probavi nimis curiosum studium et diligentiam eorum qui sententias Mosis quoquo modo trahunt et detorquent ad Philosophorum et poetarum vel decreta vel etiam fabulas, ut Orphei, Homeri, Mercurii Trismegisti, Pythagorae, Platonis, quin etiam Aristotelis. Hoc mihi quidem certe divinae scripturae dignitati et maiestati valde alienum et indecorum videtur: infuscat enim caelestem eius splendorem, puritatem inquinat, sanctitatemque profanat ac polluit, et fidem divinitatis eius non parum elevat.

I am indeed not unaware that it seemed to many of the Fathers and doctors of the Church, in former times, that the ancient pagan poets and philosophers watered their own gardens from the springs of Moses — that is, transferred very many things from his writings into their own books — which they afterward, whether to conceal the theft or because they did not well understand them, disfigured and contaminated by mixing in fables and errors. Yet I (for I will say freely what I think) have never approved the over-curious zeal and diligence of those who in any way drag and twist the opinions of Moses toward the doctrines or even the fables of philosophers and poets — as of Orpheus, Homer, Mercury Trismegistus, Pythagoras, Plato, and even Aristotle. This seems to me, certainly, very alien and unbecoming to the dignity and majesty of divine Scripture: for it darkens its heavenly splendor, stains its purity, profanes and pollutes its sanctity, and lessens not a little the credit of its divinity.

Atque hanc ob causam a multis minus probatur Augustinus Eugubinus in sua Cosmopoeia et in libris de Perenni Philosophia. In hanc bonorum et doctorum hominum offensionem atque reprehensionem incurrit etiam Ioannes Picus Mirandulanus, qui tertium et vigesimum natus annum super primum caput Geneseos Heptaplum composuit, in quo septem novas expositiones doctrinae Mosis de Operibus sex dierum — a nullo priorum scriptorum tentatas, a se autem primo cogitatas, inventas, elaboratas perfectasque — pertractavit. Sed liber ille habet quidem speciem prodigiosi ingenii et admirandae in illa aetate eruditionis; ad doctrinam autem Mosis interpretandam et intelligendam parum conducit.

And for this reason Agostino Steuco of Gubbio (Augustinus Eugubinus) is less approved by many, in his Cosmopoeia and in his books On Perennial Philosophy. Into this same offense and censure of good and learned men fell also Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, who, at the age of twenty-three, composed the Heptaplus on the first chapter of Genesis, in which he worked out seven new expositions of Moses' teaching on the works of the six days — attempted by none of the earlier writers, but first thought out, discovered, elaborated, and perfected by himself. But that book has, to be sure, the appearance of a prodigious genius and of an erudition admirable at that age; for interpreting and understanding the teaching of Moses, however, it is of little use.²⁴

Refert Sixtus Senensis in libro quarto Bibliothecae sanctae se, cum esset Romae, quaesisse ex Aloysio Lippomano, qui tum recens ediderat Catenam in Genesim, cur inter alios tam multos scriptores et interpretes libri Geneseos quos in illa Catena commemoraverat nullam Mirandulani fecisset mentionem; respondisse autem illum se in conficienda Catena eorum elegisse commentarios et interpretationes qui Mosis verba et sententias suis commentationibus explicare voluisse vide[rentur]...

Sixtus of Siena relates, in the fourth book of his Holy Library (Bibliotheca Sancta), that when he was at Rome he asked Aloysius Lippomanus — who had then recently published a Catena on Genesis — why, among so many other writers and interpreters of the book of Genesis whom he had cited in that Catena, he had made no mention of Mirandola; and that Lippomanus answered that, in compiling the Catena, he had chosen the commentaries and interpretations of those who seem[ed] to have wished to explain the words and meaning of Moses by their expositions...²⁵

...viderentur. Quoniam autem animadverterat Picum in eo uno laborasse, ut Pythagorae, Platonis, Aristotelis aliorumque Philosophorum inventa et dogmata, vel suas potius cogitationes, dictis et sententiis Mosaicis exprimeret et ornaret, statuisse nullam sibi illius viri in suo opere habendam esse rationem. Sed fuit nihilominus vir ille magnus et omni aevo admirandus, cui si longior vita contigisset, sicut maximam sui admirationem et expectationem commovit apud omnes, ita profecto et sibi gloriam immortalem et summum Italiae decus atque ornamentum, et optimis quibusque studiis et disciplinis ingentem utilitatem attulisset. Nolo plures regulas colligendo, cum praedictae satis esse possint, fatigare lectorem.

...seemed [to have wished to explain Moses]. But because he had observed that Pico labored at this one thing — to express and adorn, with Mosaic sayings and sentences, the inventions and dogmas of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and the other philosophers, or rather his own thoughts — he [Lippomanus] had decided that no account of that man was to be taken in his own work. Yet that man was nonetheless great and admirable for every age; and had a longer life befallen him, then, just as he stirred the greatest admiration and expectation of himself among all, so assuredly he would have brought to himself immortal glory, and to Italy its highest ornament and distinction, and to all the best studies and disciplines an immense usefulness. I do not wish, by gathering more rules — since the aforesaid can suffice — to weary the reader.

Ergo (ut locum hunc tandem concludam) cum multae ac variae interpretationes doctrinae Mosis se offerent lectori, eam ipse probabiliorem ceteris melioremque decernat quae est proposito et instituto Mosis accommodatior atque congruentior; quae magis inhaeret sententiae verborum, magisque conservat propriam vocabulorum significationem et usum; quae planior est et facilior ad intelligendum etiam non admodum doctis hominibus; quae congruit cum consuetudine loquendi scripturae, nec affingit Mosi locutiones in sacris litteris inusitatas; quae commode elicitur ex aliis scripturae locis ubi iisdem agitur de rebus eademque doctrina traditur; quae sine causa non confugit ad miracula et omnipotentiam Dei; quae nihil tradit alienum et dissentaneum sapientiae Dei et pietati nostrae fidei; quae nihil habet repugnans manifestis experimentis et rationibus quae in Philosophia ceterisque doctrinis humanis traduntur; quae talis est ut per eam universa doctrina Mosis bene sibi constare et pulchre secundum omnes partes suas cohaerere appareat; postremo quae non sit suspecta, tum propter novitatem, tum quod abhorreat ab interpretatione et sententia Patrum, ab antiqua traditione, a communi Ecclesiae et populi Christiani sensu.

Therefore (to conclude this section at last): when many and various interpretations of Moses' teaching present themselves to the reader, let him judge that one more probable and better than the rest which is more accommodated and agreeable to the purpose and design of Moses; which clings more to the sense of the words and better preserves the proper signification and use of the terms; which is plainer and easier to understand even for not very learned men; which agrees with Scripture's customary way of speaking, and does not foist upon Moses turns of phrase unusual in the sacred letters; which is conveniently drawn from other places of Scripture where the same matters are treated and the same teaching is handed down; which does not resort without cause to miracles and the omnipotence of God; which hands down nothing alien and discordant from the wisdom of God and the piety of our faith; which has nothing repugnant to the manifest findings and reasonings handed down in philosophy and the other human disciplines; which is such that through it the whole teaching of Moses appears to hold together well and to cohere beautifully in all its parts; and lastly, which is not suspect, whether on account of novelty, or because it shrinks from the interpretation and judgment of the Fathers, from ancient tradition, and from the common sense of the Church and of the Christian people.²⁶

In quo valde offendit doctos et pios viros quod Caietanus initio Commentariorum suorum in Genesim praefatur his verbis:

On which point Cajetan greatly offends learned and pious men, in that, at the beginning of his Commentaries on Genesis, he prefaces these words:

"If at any time some sense should occur that is consonant with the text, although foreign to the torrent of the Doctors, let the Reader show himself a fair judge, and let no one detest it on this ground, that it is discordant with the ancient doctors: for God did not bind the exposition of Scripture to the senses of the ancient doctors — otherwise the hope of expounding Scripture would be taken from us, except by transferring (as they say) from one leaf to another." Thus Cajetan.²⁷

"Si quando occurrerit aliquis sensus textui consonus, quamvis a torrente Doctorum alienus, Lector aequum se praebeat censorem, nullusque detestetur illum ex hoc quod dissonat a priscis doctoribus: non enim alligavit Deus expositionem Scripturae priscorum doctorum sensibus, alioquin spes nobis tolleretur exponendi Scripturam, nisi transferendo (ut aiunt) de lidio in quinternum." Sic Caietanus.

Qui quod praefatus est audacter praestitit abunde: quam etiam ob causam in huius libri expositione nonnullos in errores, et quidem graves, lapsus est.

And what he announced he carried out boldly and in full measure: for which reason, too, in his exposition of this book he fell into a number of errors — and grave ones at that.²⁸

In the beginning.²⁹

In principio.

Hoc multis et variis modis, sed duobus meo iudicio aptius et melius interpretari licet. Primo, ut "In principio" significet "ante alia omnia": quemadmodum cum aedificaturus domum, in principio et ante alia bonum substruit et supponit fundamentum, ita Deus in fabricando mundo in principio et ante alia condidit Caelum et terram, velut duas principes mundi partes, quae ceteras ordine naturae necessario antecedunt. Hac significatione non semel ea dictio usurpatur in scriptura, velut apud Davidem in Psalmo 101: "Initio tu, Domine, terram fundasti, et opera manuum tuarum sunt caeli"; et apud Salomonem, Proverb. 8: "Dominus possedit me in initio viarum suarum, antequam quicquam faceret."

This may be interpreted in many and various ways, but, in my judgment, more aptly and better in two. First, so that "In the beginning" means "before all else": just as a man about to build a house first and before all else lays a good foundation beneath, so God, in fashioning the world, first and before all else founded Heaven and earth, as the two chief parts of the world, which necessarily precede the rest in the order of nature. In this sense the expression is used more than once in Scripture, as in David, Psalm 101[102]: "In the beginning, O Lord, thou didst found the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands"; and in Solomon, Proverbs 8: "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made anything."³⁰

Altero modo hoc quod est "in principio" significat "ab aliquo initio temporis", ut significetur mundum non semper fuisse, Deumque fecisse ut mundus, qui ex aeternitate nullus fuerat, repente — tum nimirum quando ei libuit — primum esse inciperet. Et certe non solum multis apprime doctis et nobilibus scriptoribus haec placuit interpretatio, sed etiam tam olim Synagoga quam postea Ecclesia ex hoc loco Mosis intellexit et probavit novam fuisse et ab aliquo temporis initio generationem mundi. Ac licet utramque hanc interpretationem maxime probem, posteriorem tamen in praesentia subtilius tractandam mihi proposui.

In the other way, this phrase "in the beginning" means "from some beginning of time," so as to signify that the world did not always exist, and that God brought it about that the world — which from eternity had been nothing — should suddenly, namely when it pleased him, first begin to be. And certainly this interpretation has pleased not only many writers of the first rank in learning and distinction, but also both the Synagogue of old and the Church afterward understood and approved, from this passage of Moses, that the generation of the world was new and from some beginning of time. And although I most fully approve both interpretations, I have nonetheless proposed to myself to treat the latter more closely for the present.³¹

Ex qua duo elici observavit Basilius: alterum, ex hac doctrina Mosis perspicue intelligi mundum non esse aeternum sed aliquando ortus sui habuisse initium; alterum, etiam cognosci antiquitatem mundi, ut ratio iniri queat inveniendi quantum a nostra aetate mundi distet exordium, eius veluti aevi annos omnes retroactos computando. In utroque Ethnici aberrarunt a vero: etenim quidam censuerunt mundum esse sempiternum; alii coepisse quidem illum aliquando putaverunt, quamplurimas tamen myriades annorum et prope innumera retrolapsa saecula finxerunt. Utrumque errorem statui hoc loco, aliquot velut rationum machinis adhibitis, funditus demoliri; ac primo quidem ad priorem evertendum aggrediar.

From which Basil observed that two things are drawn: one, that from this teaching of Moses it is clearly understood that the world is not eternal, but at some time had the beginning of its origin; the other, that the antiquity of the world is also known, so that a method can be undertaken of finding how far the world's beginning is distant from our own age, by reckoning back, as it were, all the years of its lifetime. In both the heathen strayed from the truth: for some held that the world is everlasting; others thought that it did indeed once begin, yet imagined very many myriads of years and almost countless ages elapsed since. I have resolved in this place to demolish both errors from the foundations, applying, as it were, several engines of reasoning; and first I shall set about overthrowing the former.³²

Non fuit omni tempore una eademque omnium philosophorum atque gentium de mundi origine sententia. Alii mundi ortum et originem agnoverunt; alii, qualis nunc cernitur mundus talem fuisse in aeterno praeteriti temporis spatio existimaverunt. Quamobrem Aristoteles primo libro Topicorum quaestionem "utrum mundus sit aeternus nec ne" fecit problema Dialecticum, quod tum propter auctoritates contraria sentientium, tum propter contrariarum rationum probabilitatem in utramque partem probabiliter agitari et disceptari possit. Verumtamen paucissimi fuere propugnatores aeternitatis, si cum eius oppugnatoribus comparentur.

There was not at all times one and the same opinion among all philosophers and nations about the origin of the world. Some acknowledged the world's arising and origin; others reckoned that, just as the world is now seen to be, such it had been throughout an eternal span of past time. For this reason Aristotle, in the first book of the Topics, made the question "whether the world is eternal or not" a dialectical problem — one that can be debated and disputed with probability on either side, both because of the authorities holding contrary views and because of the probability of the contrary reasonings. Nevertheless the defenders of eternity were very few, if they be compared with its assailants.³³

Etenim mundum non semper fuisse, praeter unum philosophorum Aristotelem unamque Chaldaeorum gentem, concors fuit fere omnium sententia — non sapientum modo assensu, sed etiam indoctorum hominum quasi tacito naturae quodam sensu iudicioque comprobata. Quem omnium consensum (tanta est rei evidentia) ne Aristoteles quidem, qui obnixissime conatus est huic sententiae obsistere, inficiari potuit; namque is 1 lib. de Caelo, text. 102: "Omnes," inquit, "mundum generant." Atqui, ut ipsemet initio primi libri Topicorum docet, "Quod videtur omnibus, aut plurimis, aut sapientibus, id probabile esse censendum est."

For that the world did not always exist was — except for one philosopher, Aristotle, and one nation, the Chaldeans — the harmonious opinion of nearly all: approved not only by the assent of the wise, but also by the unlearned, as it were by a certain tacit sense and judgment of nature. This universal consensus (so great is the evidence of the matter) not even Aristotle, who tried most strenuously to resist this opinion, could deny; for he, in bk. 1 of On the Heavens, text 102, says: "All men generate the world" [i.e. give it a coming-to-be]. And yet, as he himself teaches at the beginning of the first book of the Topics, "What seems so to all, or to most, or to the wise, is to be reckoned probable."³⁴

Nec sane de nihilo est quod in hanc opinionem consensere omnes: tanta enim hominum consensio quid aliud est quam clarissima naturae vox? quam naturalis quaedam notio sensusque veritatis a Deo hominum animis mentibusque impressus, et certissimum eius argumentum, cuius fidem ne Aristoteles quidem, quamvis maxime vellet, elevare possit?

Nor indeed is it for nothing that all agreed in this opinion: for so great a consensus of men — what else is it than the clearest voice of nature? what else than a certain natural notion and sense of the truth, impressed by God upon the souls and minds of men, and a most certain proof of it, whose credit not even Aristotle, however much he might wish, could weaken?

Quippe ipsius Aristotelis sunt et feruntur in primis celebres illae sententiae: "Quod in omnibus aut in pluribus inest, id secundum naturam; quod est praeter haec, id praeter naturam aestimandum est." Hoc enim saepe usurpat ipse tam in libris Physicorum quam in libris de Caelo. In libro autem de Divinatione per somnia sic ait: "Quod omnes aut complures sentiunt aut dicunt, id falsum esse non est putandum." In libro autem 7 Ethicorum commendat poetae cuiusdam versus, qui Latine redditi hanc habent sententiam:

Indeed, these celebrated sayings are Aristotle's own and are reported as among the foremost: "What is present in all, or in most, is according to nature; what is besides these is to be reckoned contrary to nature." For he often employs this, both in the books of the Physics and in the books On the Heavens. And in the book On Divination through Dreams he says thus: "What all, or very many, perceive or say is not to be thought false." And in the seventh book of the Ethics he commends the verses of a certain poet, which, rendered into Latin, have this sense:³⁵

Not utterly does that report perish, which throughout the world / a multitude of men celebrates.³⁶

Non prorsus fama illa perit, quam multa per orbem / Turba hominum celebrat.

Postremo clarissimus est apud eundem locus ille in libro 10 Ethicorum: "Quod omnibus," inquit, "videtur, id esse affirmamus; qui vero hanc fidem tollit, is non multo probabiliora dicturus est."

Finally, there is that very clear passage in the same author, in the tenth book of the Ethics: "What seems so to all," he says, "that we affirm to be; but he who takes away this credence will not say anything much more probable."³⁷

Illud autem magno iudicio est verum esse hanc de nova mundi constructione sententiam, quod ea ad veri Dei cognitionem cultumque atque religionem animis hominum inserendam, fovendam et confirmandam plurimum valeat. Si enim persuasum alicui fuerit mundum, qui ex omni aeternitate nullus fuerat, ab aliquo initio temporis a Deo esse conditum, continuo eidem nullo negotio persuadebitur et esse Deum, et unum esse, et rerum omnium intelligentem conservantem ac moderantem esse causam, et infinita vi ac potestate pollere; nec ulla naturae necessitate, sed sua modo voluntate bonitateque ad fabricandum mundum esse adductum; ipsumque ex se ac se solo esse beatum, nec ad tuendam felicitatem suam ullius rei quae extra ipsum sit vel adminiculo vel consortio indigere. Haec omnia adeo ex primo illo apta nexaque pendent, ut quisquis illud concesserit ea negare non queat; contra vero qui mundum faciunt aeternum, vel negant ea quae diximus de Deo, vel certe tam evidenter et expedite probare non possunt.

And it is a great argument for the truth of this view about the new construction of the world, that it avails very much for implanting, fostering, and confirming in men's minds the knowledge, worship, and religion of the true God. For if anyone has been persuaded that the world — which through all eternity had been nothing — was founded by God from some beginning of time, he will at once and without difficulty be persuaded also that God exists, and is one, and is the knowing, preserving, and governing cause of all things, and is mighty with infinite power; that he was led to fashion the world by no necessity of nature, but only by his own will and goodness; and that he is blessed of himself and by himself alone, and needs nothing outside himself, neither support nor fellowship, to preserve his own happiness. All these things so aptly hang and are linked from that first point, that whoever has granted it cannot deny them; whereas, on the contrary, those who make the world eternal either deny the things we have said about God, or at any rate cannot prove them so evidently and readily.³⁸

Non est hic pro derelicto habendum quod Plinius, sane imprudens suaeque oblitus sententiae, tanquam...

Nor should we here pass over, as worthless, what Pliny — quite unawares, and forgetful of his own opinion — noted as though [an argument]...³⁹

...tanquam argumentum cur credamus mundum nec fuisse ex infinito tempore nec ad infinitum tempus permansurum, in cap. 16 lib. 7 annotavit: "In plenum," inquit, "cuncto mortalium generi minorem in dies fieri mensuram propemodum observatur, rarosque patribus proceriores, tanquam consumente ubertatem seminum exustione, in cuius vices nunc vergat aevum." Idem argumentum etiam auctor libri quarti Esdrae in cap. 5 eius libri tractavit.

...as an argument why we should believe that the world neither existed from infinite time nor will endure to infinite time, he noted in ch. 16 of book 7: "On the whole," he says, "it is observed that for the entire race of mortals the stature grows less from day to day, and that few are taller than their fathers — as though the conflagration toward whose turn the present age now inclines were consuming the fertility of the seeds." The author of the fourth book of Ezra treated the same argument in ch. 5 of his book.⁴⁰

Iam vero isti multis implicantur difficultatibus, quibus vix se, aut ne vix quidem, explicare possunt: nam vel auctore (qui naturae censorem et iudicem egit) Aristotele, verissima sunt illa philosophorum pronunciata: Unum infinitum non esse maius alio infinito; nihil vel magnitudine vel numero infinitum constare posse; infinitum nullo modo posse pertransiri; denique infinitum ratione atque intelligentia non posse comprehendi. Quae autem sunt his contraria, ea censet Aristoteles non falsa modo, sed etiam ἄλογα καὶ ἀδύνατα. Atqui ea omnia necessario admittenda et vel ingratis devoranda sunt aeternitatem mundi praefracte defendentibus.

But now these men are entangled in many difficulties, from which they can scarcely, or not even scarcely, extricate themselves: for, even on the authority of Aristotle (who acted as the censor and judge of nature), those pronouncements of the philosophers are most true — that one infinite is not greater than another infinite; that nothing can be infinite either in magnitude or in number; that the infinite can in no way be traversed; and finally that the infinite cannot be comprehended by reason and understanding. But the things contrary to these Aristotle judges to be not only false, but also "irrational and impossible" (ἄλογα καὶ ἀδύνατα). And yet all these must necessarily be admitted, and swallowed even against their will, by those who stubbornly defend the eternity of the world.⁴¹

Verum missa haec faciamus, quae ex interiori philosophia petuntur, eaque scholasticis philosophis ac Theologis subtilius disputanda relinquamus — in quibus philosophice tractandis nos etiam consumpsimus totum librum decimumquintum eius operis quod de Philosophia superioribus annis edidimus. Deducamus igitur orationem in liberiorem apertioremque campum, eaque dicamus quae vel populo probari queant: excutiamus omnem memoriam antiquitatis, et vetustissimarum rerum non monumenta solum sed etiam primordia investigemus, et hac ratione mundum non esse aeternum apertissime ostendamus.

But let us set these aside — the things drawn from the deeper philosophy — and leave them to be disputed more subtly by the scholastic philosophers and theologians; in treating which philosophically we ourselves also spent the whole fifteenth book of that work which we published in earlier years On Philosophy. Let us therefore bring our discourse down into a freer and more open field, and say things that can be proved even to the common people: let us shake out the whole memory of antiquity, and investigate not only the records but even the first beginnings of the most ancient things, and by this means show most plainly that the world is not eternal.⁴²

Omnis priscarum rerum memoria, quaecumque apud Gentiles sive in scriptis, sive in litteris seu litterarum figuris, sive in quarumlibet aliarum rerum monumentis extat, non solum exordio mundi quod tradit sacra scriptura, sed Noëtico etiam diluvio recentior esse deprehenditur. Plinius quidem in capit. 56 libr. 7 curiose persequitur diligenterque colligit primos omnium artium et disciplinarum omniumque rerum quae ad usus humanae vitae comparatae sunt inventores; quorum aetates sigillatim contemplantibus manifestum fit non modo mundum non fuisse aeternum, sed etiam eius originem non esse admodum antiquam. Et vero, si mundus aeternus esset, qui fieri posset ut nullius rei quae ante sex annorum millia in orbe fuerit ulla sit apud gentem aliquam memoria? Cuius rationis vim et probabilitatem etiam Lucretius, poeta gravis et doctus, et vidit animo et in libro 5 his versibus exposuit:

All the memory of ancient things — whatever survives among the Gentiles, whether in writings, or in letters and the shapes of letters, or in the monuments of any other things whatever — is found to be more recent not only than the beginning of the world which sacred Scripture hands down, but even than the flood of Noah. Pliny indeed, in ch. 56 of book 7, carefully pursues and diligently gathers the first inventors of all the arts and disciplines and of all things devised for the uses of human life; and to those who consider their dates one by one it becomes manifest that not only was the world not eternal, but that its origin is not even very ancient. And in truth, if the world were eternal, how could it come about that there is among any nation no memory of anything that existed in the world before six thousand years ago? The force and probability of this reasoning Lucretius too, a weighty and learned poet, both perceived in his mind and set forth in the fifth book in these verses:⁴³

Besides, if there was no birth-origin / of lands and sky, and they were always eternal, / why have not other poets sung of other deeds also, / beyond the Theban war and the destruction of Troy? / Whither have so many deeds of men so often fallen away? Nor anywhere...⁴⁴

Praeterea, si nulla fuit genitalis origo / Terrarum et caeli, semperque aeterna fuere, / Cur supra bellum Thebanum et funera Troiae / Non alias alii quoque res cecinere Poetae? / Quo tot facta virum toties cecidere? Nec usquam...

...do they flourish, set in eternal monuments of fame? But, as I think, the universe possesses newness, and the nature of the world is recent, nor did its beginnings start long ago.⁴⁵

...aeternis fama monimentis insita florent? Verum, ut opinor, habet novitatem summa, recensque natura est mundi, neque pridem exordia coepit.

Berosus certe Chaldaeos antiquissimam putatur scripsisse historiam, cuius tamen ipse (ut Iosephus refert priore libro contra Apionem) a diluvio sumpsit exordium. Trogus Pompeius, altissime repetens originem rerum quas historiae mandavit, orsus est scribere a Nino rege, qui annis post mundum conditum nongentis et mille primam quae in mundo fuit Assyriorum monarchiam fundavit. Eusebius lib. 9 de Praeparat. evangel. cap. 4 et lib. 10 capit. 3 multa colligit quae ad hoc argumentum spectant: inter alia tradit Dionysium Halicarnasseum, in libro quem de temporibus edidit, affirmare res Argolicas, quae ab Inacho coeperunt, omnium rerum Graecarum esse vetustissimas; Acusilaum item Phoronidem aliosque Graecos scriptores antiquissimum mortalium praedicare Phoroneum; M. etiam Varronem, acerrimum vetustatis aestimatorem, in sua historia nihil Ogygio diluvio antiquius agnoscere.

Berosus is thought to have written the most ancient history of the Chaldeans, yet even he (as Josephus reports in the first book Against Apion) took his beginning from the flood. Trogus Pompeius, tracing back as far as possible the origin of the matters he committed to history, began to write from King Ninus, who, one thousand nine hundred years after the founding of the world, established the first monarchy that existed in the world, that of the Assyrians. Eusebius, in book 9 of the Preparation for the Gospel, ch. 4, and book 10, ch. 3, gathers many things bearing on this argument: among others he relates that Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in the book he published on chronology, affirms that the affairs of Argos, which began from Inachus, are the oldest of all Greek matters; that Acusilaus likewise, in the Phoronis, and other Greek writers, proclaim Phoroneus the most ancient of mortals; and that Marcus Varro too, that most rigorous appraiser of antiquity, acknowledges in his history nothing older than the flood of Ogyges.⁴⁶

Atqui et Inachus et Phoronaeus atque Ogyges eiusdem aetatis fuere qua aetate vixit Iacob Patriarcha. Nec illud est in praeteritis relinquendum, fuisse post Cecropem (Mosis aequalem) omnia quae a Graecis de claris hominibus et Heroibus diisque suis aut veris historiis tradita aut fabulosis celebrata miraculis commemorantur. Quid plura? Belus, ex quo fluxit et originem traxit (ut visum est multis) omnis Idolorum cultus, pater fuit Nini Assyriorum regis, cuius temporibus Abraham natum esse accipimus. Ergo longe posteriora Noëtico sunt diluvio quaecumque apud gentes habentur vetustissima.

And yet Inachus and Phoroneus and Ogyges were of the same age in which the Patriarch Jacob lived. Nor must this be left out: that all those things which are related by the Greeks about famous men and heroes and their own gods, whether handed down in true histories or celebrated as fabulous miracles, came after Cecrops (the contemporary of Moses). Why say more? Belus — from whom, as many have held, flowed and took its origin all worship of idols — was the father of Ninus, king of the Assyrians, in whose time we understand Abraham to have been born. Therefore whatever is held most ancient among the nations is far later than the flood of Noah.⁴⁷

Non me fugit quemadmodum huic nostrae argumentationi olim conati sint occurrere Plato in Timaeo et Atlantico, Aristoteles in primo libro Meteororum, Theophrastus etiam (ut refert Philo in eo libro quem inscripsit "Quod mundus sit incorruptibilis" — si tamen Philo eius libri auctor fuit): propter crebras scilicet et ingentes eluviones atque deflagrationes, quas in variis terrarum regionibus, longinquis sed certis tamen et statis temporum intervallis, evenire necesse est, una cum ipsis gentibus aliarum quoque rerum usum, notitiam et memoriam interiisse; easdemque tum artes et disciplinas, tum hominum opiniones et inventa, infinities vicissitudine temporis occidisse atque revixisse.

It does not escape me how, in former times, Plato in the Timaeus and the Atlanticus (Critias), Aristotle in the first book of the Meteorologica, and Theophrastus too (as Philo reports in the book he entitled "That the World is Incorruptible" — if indeed Philo was the author of that book) tried to meet this argument of ours: namely, that on account of the frequent and vast floods and conflagrations, which must occur in various regions of the earth at intervals far apart but yet fixed and set, the use, knowledge, and memory of other things perished together with the peoples themselves; and that those same arts and disciplines, and the opinions and inventions of men, have fallen and revived an infinite number of times in the vicissitude of time.⁴⁸

Sed hoc ab illis temere et sine ratione ulla probabili dictum est. Cum enim nullus omnium hominum generalis interitus, nullumque terrarum omnium simul exitium (ut censent ipsi) esse queat, profecto reliquiae nominis vetustissimorum hominum unius gentis saltem apud aliam aliquam gentem servatae essent incolumes, atque hac ratione ad nostram quoque notitiam pervenisset. Nam et Aristoteles lib. primae Philosophiae 12 reliquias quasdam priscae Philosophiae ad suam usque aetatem permansisse affirmat. Verum adversus priorem errorem Gentilium, qui existimave[runt]...

But this was said by them rashly and without any probable reason. For since there can be no general destruction of all men, nor any simultaneous ruin of all lands (as they themselves hold), surely the remnants of the renown of the most ancient men of one nation would have been preserved intact at least among some other nation, and by this means would have reached our knowledge too. For Aristotle as well, in book 12 of First Philosophy (the Metaphysics), affirms that certain remnants of ancient philosophy persisted down to his own age. But against the former error of the Gentiles, who supposed [the world to be eternal]...⁴⁹

...runt mundum esse aeternum, satis a nobis sit in praesentia, tanquam in transcursu, disputatum. Quoniam igitur non semper fuisse mundum ostendimus, sequitur ut de eius origine et antiquitate dicamus: etenim non solum mundi primordia sacrae litterae aperuerunt, sed quantum etiam temporis a mundi ortu ad hodiernam diem excurrerit, quantaque sit retroacta humani generis aetas, et inquirendi et inveniendi viam rationemque tradiderunt. Qua in re vix dici potest quam fuerit omni tempore vaga, inconstans, erransque ac plane caeca gentilitas.

...[against those who supposed] the world to be eternal, let this much suffice for us to have disputed at present, as it were in passing. Since, therefore, we have shown that the world did not always exist, it follows that we should speak of its origin and antiquity: for the sacred writings have disclosed not only the first beginnings of the world, but also how much time has run from the world's origin to the present day, and how great is the elapsed age of the human race, and have handed down a way and method of inquiring and finding this out. In which matter it can scarcely be told how wandering, inconstant, erring, and utterly blind the heathen world has been at all times.⁵⁰

M. Varro, princeps senatus Romanorum sapientum, prope cunctis suffragiis renunciatus, cum omne mundi aevum (ut Censorinus est auctor) tria in tempora dispertiisset, primum designavit id quod praecessit primum cataclysmum; alterum, quod a cataclysmo fluit ad exordium Olympiadum; tertium, quod a prima Olympiade ad suam aetatem praeterierat. Atque hoc extremum confirmat subtili computatione temporum certoque annorum numero notatum et comprehensum haberi; medium autem ut non exacta ratione teneri, ita satis probabilibus coniecturis esse cognitum; primum vero illud omnino fugere nostram intelligentiam. Namque si mundus aeternus est, tempus illud, ut interminatum et immensum, esse mortalibus incomprehensibile; sin autem mundus initium habuit, nihilominus tamen subtiliter ac praefinito determinare annorum eius temporis numerum immensae difficultatis esse.

Marcus Varro — chief of the Roman senate of the wise, proclaimed such by almost all votes — when he had divided the whole age of the world (as Censorinus reports) into three periods, designated the first as that which preceded the first cataclysm; the second, that which runs from the cataclysm to the beginning of the Olympiads; the third, that which had passed from the first Olympiad to his own age. And this last he holds to be confirmed by a subtle computation of times and known by a definite number of years; the middle one to be held not by exact reckoning but known by sufficiently probable conjectures; but the first wholly escapes our understanding. For if the world is eternal, that time, as boundless and immense, is incomprehensible to mortals; but if the world had a beginning, it is nonetheless of immense difficulty to determine subtly and precisely the number of years of that time.⁵¹

Sed audiamus ea de re Aegyptiorum et Chaldaeorum portenta. Fuit semper Aegyptus prodigiosorum mendaciorum parens, altrix et magistra; haec, ut incredibili suae vetustati quam iactabat fidem faceret, innumera finxit mundi saecula. Dicebat enim (ut Diodorus, Pomponius Mela et Laërtius prodiderunt) ex quo tempore sunt Aegyptii, quater cursus suos vertisse sydera et bis solem occidisse unde nunc oritur; regesque Aegyptiorum, partim ex diis partim ex hominibus, usque ad novissimum regem Ptolemaeum patrem Cleopatrae, supra septuaginta annorum millia regnasse in Aegypto; postquam autem rationem syderum comprehendit Aegyptus, amplius quam centum annorum millia numerari. Plinius etiam libro 35 cap. 13 refert Aegyptios gloriari solitos artem pingendi sex millibus annorum floruisse in Aegypto priusquam ea transiret in Graeciam.

But let us hear the monstrous tales of the Egyptians and Chaldeans on this matter. Egypt was always the parent, nurse, and mistress of prodigious lies; and she, to lend credit to the incredible antiquity she boasted, invented countless ages of the world. For she said (as Diodorus, Pomponius Mela, and Laertius reported) that, since the time the Egyptians have existed, the stars have turned their courses four times and the sun has set twice where it now rises; and that the kings of the Egyptians, partly gods and partly men, reigned in Egypt above seventy thousand years down to the last king, Ptolemy the father of Cleopatra; and that, after Egypt grasped the science of the stars, more than a hundred thousand years are counted. Pliny too, in book 35, ch. 13, relates that the Egyptians were wont to boast that the art of painting flourished six thousand years in Egypt before it passed over into Greece.⁵²

O miram nugandi et mentiendi licentiam! Videlicet putarunt isti eo se liberius atque impudentius mentiri posse, quo difficilius credebant sua redargui posse mendacia. Sed bene habet, quod quae de sua vetustate mentiuntur, aliis ipsorum notioribus mendaciis confutantur. Scripsit Alexander Magnus epistolam ad matrem suam Olympiadem, cuius epistolae meminit Cyprianus in lib. de Idololatria et Augustinus lib. 12 de Civitate Dei cap. 10: in illa sic erat scriptum, narrasse Alexandro quendam sacerdotem Aegyptium, in sacris litteris et annalibus Aegyptiorum, tempora omnium regnorum subtili[ter]...

O marvelous license of trifling and lying! Evidently these men thought they could lie the more freely and shamelessly, the harder they believed their lies could be refuted. But it is well that the lies they tell about their own antiquity are confuted by other, better-known lies of their own. Alexander the Great wrote a letter to his mother Olympias — a letter mentioned by Cyprian in his book On Idolatry and by Augustine in book 12 of the City of God, ch. 10 — in which it was written thus: that a certain Egyptian priest had told Alexander that, in the sacred writings and annals of the Egyptians, the periods of all the kingdoms were sub[tly recorded]...⁵³

...ter annotata contineri; in his autem traditum esse regnum Assyriorum quinque annorum millia excessisse, Persarum autem et Macedonum imperium plusquam octo annorum millibus definiri. Quae falsa esse constat omnium scriptorum, tam Graecorum quam Latinorum, consensu. Regnum enim Assyriorum, qui longissime produxerunt, non longius quam mille trecentorum et sexaginta annorum, a primo rege Nino ad extremum regem Sardanapalum, constituerunt; tempus autem regni Macedonum usque ad mortem Alexandri quingentos annos non excessit; porro monarchiam Persarum, a primo eius fundatore Cyro ad Alexandrum eius eversorem, minus quadraginta et ducentis annis stetisse compertum est.

...subtly recorded; and that in them it was handed down that the kingdom of the Assyrians had exceeded five thousand years, while the empire of the Persians and Macedonians was bounded by more than eight thousand years. That these are false is established by the consensus of all writers, Greek and Latin alike. For those who extended the kingdom of the Assyrians to the utmost set it at no more than one thousand three hundred and sixty years, from the first king Ninus to the last king Sardanapalus; the duration of the Macedonian kingdom down to Alexander's death did not exceed five hundred years; and the monarchy of the Persians, from its first founder Cyrus to Alexander its destroyer, is found to have stood less than two hundred and forty years.⁵⁴

Ut igitur vera, scilicet, sunt quae de alienis regnis tradunt Aegyptii, ita vera esse credere convenit quae de sua ipsi vetustate nugantur. Ad quorum vanitatem contemnendam vel unius Varronis iudicium atque sententia satis esse deberet. Is namque in illa sua nobili historia prodidit (ut libri 18 capite 40 de Civitate Dei memorat Augustinus) Aegyptios paulo amplius duobus annorum millibus ante suam aetatem primo litteras, magistra Iside, didicisse — quamquam vetus opinio fuit eiusdem Varronis, Diodori Siculi, Plinii, Solini et Censorini, priscos Aegyptios brevioribus annis quam sunt nostrates, hoc est vel trimestribus vel etiam menstruis, esse usos. In Aegypto (inquit Censorinus) antiquissimum ferunt annum bimestrem fuisse, post a Pisone rege quadrimestrem factum, novissime ad tredecim menses et quinque dies esse productum.

Therefore, just as the things the Egyptians report about foreign kingdoms are "true," so it is fitting to believe equally "true" the trifles they tell about their own antiquity. To despise their vanity, the judgment and verdict of Varro alone ought to suffice. For he, in that noble history of his, reported (as Augustine recalls in book 18, ch. 40, of the City of God) that the Egyptians first learned letters, with Isis as their teacher, a little more than two thousand years before his own age — although there was an old opinion, held by this same Varro, by Diodorus Siculus, Pliny, Solinus, and Censorinus, that the ancient Egyptians used years shorter than ours, that is, of three months or even of one month. "In Egypt," says Censorinus, "the most ancient year is reported to have been of two months; afterward it was made of four months by King Piso; and most recently it was extended to thirteen months and five days."⁵⁵

Diodorus etiam narrat, cum traditum esset a veteribus priscos reges mille superque ducentis annis singulos regnasse, fidemque tanta summa non admitteret, pro certo habitum esse a plerisque cursus lunares (solaribus nondum plene inventis) tunc annos confecisse. Quamobrem non esse incredibile quae de tot annorum millibus vel ab Aegyptiis vel a Chaldaeis traduntur. Non tacebo hic aliam quorundam minime ineruditam nec improbabilem coniecturam: Aegyptios et Chaldaeos, ut syderalis doctrinae studio maxime deditos, uniuscuiusque planetae conversionem pro anno computasse; ita ut in triginta annis solaribus numerent unum Saturni annum, Iovis plures duobus, Martis quindecim, ferme triginta Mercurii totidemque Veneris, Lunae vero ad trecentos sexaginta; itaque in spatio triginta annorum solarium simul etiam reliquorum planetarum annos plures quadringentis recensebant.

Diodorus also narrates that, since it had been handed down by the ancients that the early kings reigned individually for more than one thousand two hundred years, and so great a sum found no credence, it was held as certain by most that lunar courses, the solar year not yet fully discovered, then made up their "years." For which reason what is reported of so many thousands of years, whether by the Egyptians or by the Chaldeans, is not incredible. Nor will I pass over here another conjecture of certain men, by no means unlearned or improbable: that the Egyptians and Chaldeans, being most given to the study of astral science, computed the revolution of each planet as a "year" — so that in thirty solar years they count one year of Saturn, more than two of Jupiter, fifteen of Mars, about thirty of Mercury and as many of Venus, but of the Moon about three hundred and sixty; and thus in the span of thirty solar years they reckoned together more than four hundred "years" of the various planets.⁵⁶

Venio ad Chaldaeorum deliramenta. Gloriabantur illi habere se syderum rerumque caelestium scientiam, non minus quam septuaginta et quadringentorum mille annorum observationibus experimentisque comparatam atque comprobatam. O futiles homines et mendaciorum prodigos! Enimvero belle in istos quadrat quod quidam dixit: "Qui semel verecundiae fines transierit, eum bene et gnaviter oportere esse impudentem." Sic reor istos Chaldaeos, quia mentiri iuvabat, immodice atque incredibiliter mentiri voluisse. Atqui Por[phyrius]...

I come to the ravings of the Chaldeans. They boasted that they possessed the science of the stars and of celestial things, acquired and confirmed by no less than four hundred and seventy thousand years of observations and experiments. O futile men, prodigal of lies! And indeed there fits them nicely what someone said: "He who has once crossed the bounds of modesty ought to be thoroughly and actively shameless." Thus I think these Chaldeans, since lying pleased them, chose to lie without measure and beyond belief. And yet Por[phyry]...⁵⁷

...phyrius auctor est (ut memorat Ioannes Picus Mirandulanus in lib. 11 eius operis quod adversus Astrologos acute docteque composuit) Callisthenem, discipulum et nepotem Aristotelis comitemque bellorum Alexandri magni, cum Babylone omnia Chaldaeorum arcana et monumenta excussisset curioseque scrutatus esset, reperisse observationes rerum caelestium quae omnium erant vetustissimae non amplius quam nongentorum et mille annorum fuisse. Hypparchus quoque et Ptolemaeus, primi syderalis sapientiae antistites, Astronomicarum observationum antiquitatem non altius repetunt quam a temporibus Nabuchodonosoris Chaldaeorum regis (Iudaeorum calamitatibus nobilitati), qui circa primam et trigesimam Olympiadem regnare coepit.

...Porphyry is the authority (as Giovanni Pico della Mirandola records in book 11 of the work he composed, acutely and learnedly, against the Astrologers) that Callisthenes — disciple and kinsman of Aristotle and a companion in the wars of Alexander the Great — when he had sifted and curiously examined at Babylon all the secrets and records of the Chaldeans, found that the observations of celestial things, which were the most ancient of all, were not more than one thousand nine hundred years old. Hipparchus too and Ptolemy, the first masters of astral wisdom, trace the antiquity of astronomical observations no higher than the times of Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Chaldeans (made notorious by the calamities of the Jews), who began to reign around the thirty-first Olympiad.⁵⁸

Sed dicet aliquis Plinium lib. 30 Eudoxi et Aristotelis testimonio confirmare Zoroastem, Astronomiae (ut ferunt) parentem, sex annorum millibus fuisse ante Platonis obitum. Verum Diodorus Siculus, Iustinus et alii graves et probati scriptores mendacium hoc aperte refellunt; quippe Zoroastrem aequalem faciunt Nini regis, a quo et bello victus est regnoque spoliatus; a Nino autem ad obitum Platonis paulo plures septingentis et mille annis numerantur. Eodem loco habendum est quod narrat Plinius libro 6 esse in monimentis Indorum, a Libero patre (qui primus in Indiam arma intulit) ad Alexandrum Magnum fuisse reges Indorum centum quinquaginta tres, per annos sex mille quadringentos duosque, additis praeterea mensibus tribus.

But someone will say that Pliny, in book 30, on the testimony of Eudoxus and Aristotle, confirms that Zoroaster, the reputed father of Astronomy, lived six thousand years before the death of Plato. But Diodorus Siculus, Justinus, and other grave and approved writers openly refute this lie; for they make Zoroaster a contemporary of King Ninus, by whom he was both defeated in war and despoiled of his kingdom; and from Ninus to the death of Plato a little more than one thousand seven hundred years are reckoned. In the same case is what Pliny narrates in book 6 to be in the records of the Indians: that from Father Liber (who first brought arms into India) to Alexander the Great there were one hundred and fifty-three kings of the Indians, over six thousand four hundred and two years, with three months added besides.⁵⁹

Namque a peritissimis et diligentissimis chronographis animadversum est, post mortem Mosis (Iosue Hebraeorum imperatore cum Chananaeis felicissime bellum gerente) Indiam a Libero patre esse debellatam, et ab eo tempore ad Alexandrum Magnum annos duntaxat septuaginta et centum milleque recenseri. Similia sunt illa Platonis in Timaeo figmenta: narrasse Soloni sacerdotem quendam Aegyptium Athenas novem millibus annorum ante Solonis aetatem fuisse conditas, omnesque totius tractus illius temporis res insigniores in sacris libris Aegyptiorum subtiliter annotatas contineri. Ita ne iuvit tantum philosophum in dialogo omnium gravissimo nugari, et pulcherrimam de mundo disputationem anilibus fabulis et mendaciis contaminare? An latere potuit Platonem (quod a multis Graeciae scriptoribus erat proditum) Cecropem fuisse primum Athenarum conditorem, qui aetatem Solonis vix mille annis antecessit?

For it has been observed by the most skilled and diligent chronographers that, after the death of Moses (while Joshua, leader of the Hebrews, was waging war most successfully against the Canaanites), India was subdued by Father Liber, and that from that time to Alexander the Great only one thousand one hundred and seventy years are reckoned. Like these are those fictions of Plato in the Timaeus: that a certain Egyptian priest told Solon that Athens had been founded nine thousand years before Solon's age, and that all the more notable affairs of that whole stretch of time were subtly recorded in the sacred books of the Egyptians. Did it then profit so great a philosopher to trifle in the weightiest of all his dialogues, and to contaminate a most beautiful disputation about the world with old wives' tales and lies? Could it have escaped Plato — what was reported by many writers of Greece — that Cecrops was the first founder of Athens, who preceded Solon's age by scarcely a thousand years?⁶⁰

Verum haec atque alia eius generis commenta risu magis et contemptu Graecae vanitatis explodenda sunt quam argumentis confutanda. Haec igitur in praesentia adversus duos Gentilium errores, doctrinae Mosis quae hoc loco traditur omnino contrarios — alterum de aeternitate Mundi, alterum de nimia eius antiquitate — breviter disputare volui: ut in aperto esset omnibus non modo mundum non esse aeternum, sed etiam, cum ab eius ortu ad hodiernam diem non plures quam sexcenti et quinquies mille anni praeterierint,...

But these and other fancies of that kind are to be hissed off the stage with laughter and contempt for Greek vanity, rather than refuted with arguments. These things, then, I wished to dispute briefly for the present against two errors of the Gentiles, wholly contrary to the teaching of Moses handed down in this place — the one about the eternity of the World, the other about its excessive antiquity — so that it might be plain to all, not only that the world is not eternal, but also that, since from its origin to the present day no more than five thousand six hundred years have passed,...⁶¹

...praeterierint, nullam esse tamen apud Gentiles vel fuisse unquam huius rei memoriam quae (exclusis fabulosis) revera quater mille annorum vetustatem, hoc est, Noëtici diluvii tempus excedat. Quo licet intelligere, cum sacrarum literarum historia res gestas in mundo per annos mille sex centos quinquaginta sex ante diluvium Noé fideliter vereque litteris proditas complectatur, sacram scripturam (ut aliis rebus) sic etiam vetustate cunctis omnium gentium scriptis et monimentis anteire.

...there is nonetheless among the Gentiles no memory of this matter, nor was there ever any, that (setting aside fabulous tales) truly exceeds an antiquity of four thousand years — that is, the time of the flood of Noah. Whence one may understand that, since the history of the sacred letters faithfully and truly comprehends in writing the deeds done in the world over the one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years before the flood of Noah, sacred Scripture surpasses all the writings and monuments of all nations in antiquity, as in other things.⁶²

Sed difficultatem aliquam habet quod paulo supra, auctore B. Basilio, docuimus, numerum annorum ab exordio mundi ad hodiernam diem compertum nobis atque cognitum esse posse. Etenim initio libri Ecclesiastici sic est scriptum: "Arenam maris et pluviae guttas et dies saeculi quis dinumeravit?" Quibus verbis dupliciter significatur annos mundi mortalibus esse incomprehensibiles: tum quod interrogatio illa "Quis" saepenumero in sacris litteris vim habet negandi, idemque pollet atque "nullus" (exempla passim sunt obvia, velut in Cantico Mosis: "Quis similis tui in fortibus, Domine?"; et in psalmis: "Quis est homo qui vivet et non videbit mortem?"; et apud Iob: "Quis restitit Deo et pacem habuit?"); tum etiam quod trium rerum quae hic ponuntur par ducitur ratio: at priores duae, hoc est "Arena maris et gutta pluviae", quanto numero contineantur non potest a quoquam hominum sciri; ergo nec tertia res quae adiungitur, "Dies saeculi", potest nobis esse cognita.

But there is some difficulty in what we taught a little above, on the authority of the blessed Basil — that the number of years from the beginning of the world to the present day can be ascertained and known by us. For at the beginning of the book of Ecclesiasticus it is written thus: "The sand of the sea, and the drops of rain, and the days of the world (the ages) — who has numbered them?" By which words it is doubly signified that the years of the world are incomprehensible to mortals: first, because that interrogative "Who?" very often in the sacred writings has the force of denial, and means the same as "no one" (examples are everywhere obvious, as in the Song of Moses: "Who is like thee among the mighty, O Lord?"; and in the Psalms: "What man is he that shall live and not see death?"; and in Job: "Who has resisted God and had peace?"); and second, because the same reckoning is drawn for the three things here set down: but the first two — "the sand of the sea and the drop of rain" — cannot be known by any man in their number; therefore neither can the third thing adjoined, "the days of the ages," be known to us.⁶³

Haec difficultas varie solvitur: quam varietatem hic breviter exponam. Quidam respondent dies saeculi non posse sciri ab homine, videlicet humana ratione, posse tamen sciri per revelationem Dei, sacris litteris expressam nobisque traditam. Nicolaus de Lyra locum illum explanans et huic difficultati occurrens ait annos mundi haberi cognitos ratione quadam probabili, non tamen certitudine infallibili.

This difficulty is variously resolved, and I shall here briefly set out the variety. Some answer that the days of the ages cannot be known by man — that is, by human reason — yet can be known through the revelation of God, expressed in the sacred writings and handed down to us. Nicholas of Lyra, expounding that passage and meeting this difficulty, says that the years of the world are known by a certain probable reckoning, yet not with infallible certitude.⁶⁴

Scriptores enim tam sacri quam profani varie describunt tempora et recensent annos quibus aliquis aut vixit aut regnavit: nonnulli enim solos annos integros et expletos memorant, inchoatos autem tacent; alii non modo numerant inchoatos, sed eos etiam pro integris recensent; sunt etiam qui integros ut integros et inchoatos ut inchoatos computant, quae est limatissima chronographiae ratio. Exempli causa: si quis vixit aut regnavit quadraginta annos et septem menses, dicet aliquis precise regnasse hunc quadraginta annos; alius unum et quadraginta annos, illos septem menses pro anno uno computans; alii subtili computatione usi dicent regnasse annos quadraginta superque septem menses.

For writers, sacred and profane alike, describe times variously and reckon the years in which someone either lived or reigned: some record only whole, completed years, and are silent about the begun ones; others not only count the begun years, but reckon them even as whole; and there are also those who compute whole years as whole and begun years as begun, which is the most refined method of chronography. For example: if someone lived or reigned forty years and seven months, one person will say that he reigned precisely forty years; another, forty-one years, counting those seven months as one year; while others, using a subtle computation, will say that he reigned forty years and seven months besides.⁶⁵

Atque, ut hoc quod dixi breviter latius et enucleatius dicam, animadvertendum est quatuor esse res quae supputationem annorum ab exordio mundi adeo variam et discrepantem, ob idque dubiam et incertam faciunt, ut Sixtus Senensis lib. quinto Bibliothecae sanctae...

And, to say at greater length and more distinctly what I have stated briefly: it must be observed that there are four things which make the reckoning of the years from the beginning of the world so varied and discrepant — and, on that account, doubtful and uncertain — that Sixtus of Siena, in the fifth book of the Holy Library...⁶⁶

...[Bibliothecae] sanctae prope triginta supputationes annorum ab ortu mundi ad Domini nostri adventum collegerit, omnes inter se discrepantes, a bonis tamen auctoribus traditas. Et vero, si omnes voluisset persequi, ad quinquaginta recensere potuisset. Primo igitur dubitationem affert magna illa varietas et discrepantia chronologiae ab initio mundi ad ortum Abrahae, quam reperimus in libris Hebraeis nostrisque Latinis atque in Graecis codicibus LXX Interpretum: nam cum in illis tempus illud non nisi mille nongentos et quadraginta octo annos contineat, in his continet ter mille trecentos et quatuordecim, nempe plures illis annos mille quadringentos sexaginta octo. Verum de hac chronologiae varietate diligenter et accurate disputabimus infra, libro septimo horum commentariorum.

...[Sixtus of Siena, in the fifth book of the Holy Library, has] collected nearly thirty reckonings of the years from the world's origin to the coming of our Lord — all discrepant among themselves, yet handed down by good authors. And indeed, had he wished to pursue them all, he could have listed up to fifty. The first doubt, then, is raised by that great variety and discrepancy of chronology from the beginning of the world to the birth of Abraham, which we find in the Hebrew books and in our Latin ones, and in the Greek codices of the Seventy Translators (LXX): for whereas in the former that period contains only one thousand nine hundred and forty-eight years, in the latter it contains three thousand three hundred and fourteen — namely, one thousand four hundred and sixty-eight years more than the former. But about this variety of chronology we shall dispute carefully and accurately below, in the seventh book of these commentaries.⁶⁷

Deinde multi, secuti LXX Interpretes et beatum Lucam, inter Arphaxad et Sale interponunt generationem Cainam, hoc est, triginta annos: quamobrem a diluvio ad ortum Abrahae numerant annos duos et viginti atque trecentos; plerique autem omnes, Hebraeos et Latinos secuti libros, in quibus generatio Cainam omittitur, totum illud tempus ducentis modo et nonaginta duobus annis definiunt. Ad hoc, ratio quorundam temporum non satis liquet, nec in confesso est apud omnes: exempli causa, utrum Abraham natus sit septuagesimo anno Thare, quae ferme omnium est opinio et quod ipse Moses capite undecimo Geneseos indicare videtur; an vero natus sit centesimo et trigesimo anno Thare, quod ex aliis scripturae locis quidam non ignobiles auctores satis probabiliter argumentantur.

Next, many, following the Seventy Translators and the blessed Luke, interpose between Arphaxad and Shelah (Sale) the generation of Cainan — that is, thirty years; and so from the flood to the birth of Abraham they count three hundred and twenty-two years; but most of all, following the Hebrew and Latin books, in which the generation of Cainan is omitted, set that whole time at only two hundred and ninety-two years. Besides, the reckoning of certain periods is not sufficiently clear, nor agreed by all: for example, whether Abraham was born in the seventieth year of Terah (which is the opinion of almost everyone, and which Moses himself seems to indicate in the eleventh chapter of Genesis), or whether he was born in Terah's hundred and thirtieth year, which from other passages of Scripture certain not undistinguished authors argue with sufficient probability.⁶⁸

Ratio etiam temporum a Mosis obitu ad Davidem perplexa est et obscura. Septuaginta item anni captivitatis Babylonicae, unde initium et ubi finem habuerint, valde controversum est. Postremo tempora quae a liberatione captivitatis Babylonicae ad Domini nostri adventum et ortum transacta sunt, in sacris litteris non traduntur, sed ea ex profanis ethnicorum historiis et chronographiis petenda sunt; quae tamen non unius modi sunt, nec aequalis fidei atque auctoritatis: quidam enim probatas et fide dignas sequuntur, alii vero commentitias et mendaces, quales sunt annales Ioannis Annii Viterbiensis, speciosis titulis Berosi, Metasthenis, Manethonis et Philonis subornati et fucati, qui multis memoriae nostrae, ceteroqui doctis viris, non tamen antiquitatis litteratae peritis, imposuerunt.

The reckoning of times, too, from the death of Moses to David is perplexed and obscure. Likewise, as to the seventy years of the Babylonian captivity — whence they took their beginning and where they had their end — there is great controversy. Finally, the periods that elapsed from the liberation of the Babylonian captivity to the coming and birth of our Lord are not handed down in the sacred writings, but must be sought from the profane histories and chronicles of the heathen; which, however, are not of one kind, nor of equal trustworthiness and authority: for some follow approved and trustworthy sources, others fictitious and lying ones — such as the annals of Giovanni Nanni of Viterbo (Annius Viterbiensis), got up and falsely colored under the specious titles of Berosus, Metasthenes, Manetho, and Philo, which imposed upon many of our own age — otherwise learned men, but not skilled in literary antiquity.⁶⁹

Restat ultimum ad difficultatem initio positam responsum: namque auctor libri Ecclesiastici non ait "Annos saeculi quis dinumeravit?" sed "Dies saeculi": non igitur de annis, sed de diebus loquitur. Permagni autem interest [de quibus loquamur]: quemadmodum enim annos in Chronologia tam sacri quam profani scriptores diligenter commemorare solent, ita minutias dierum, qui vel explendo anno desunt vel supersunt expleto, recensere supersedent.

There remains the last reply to the difficulty posed at the outset: for the author of the book of Ecclesiasticus does not say "Who has numbered the years of the age?" but "the days of the age": therefore he speaks not of years, but of days. And it makes a very great difference [which of the two we speak of]: for just as writers, sacred and profane alike, are wont to record the years diligently in chronology, so they forbear to reckon the small counts of days, which are either lacking to complete a year or remain over when it is completed.⁷⁰

Et quo res sit illustrior, unum ponamus exemplum. Dicitur Adam, cum esset centum et triginta annorum, genuisse Seth, obiisse vero triginta et nongentos natum annos. An putamus necessario esse nobis credendum eodem die genuisse Seth quo praecise centesimum et trigesimum annum Adamus expleverat, aut quo die complevit trigesimum et nongentesimum annum, eodem excessisse? Ergo numerus annorum mundi teneri potest, dierum autem non potest. Vel si haec interpretatio propterea cuiquam non probatur, quia vocabulum diei hoc loco non proprie pro die, ut ab anno et mense distinguitur, positum sit, sed more sacrarum litterarum pro tempore: dicemus illud "Dies saeculi" non esse dictum de diebus vel temporibus ab ortu mundi usque adhuc transactis, sed de futuris usque ad mundi finem et diem Iudicii — quod tempus proculdubio mortalibus plane incompertum est, velut in extremo hoc libro copiose dicturi sumus.

And that the matter may be clearer, let us set down one example. Adam is said to have begotten Seth when he was a hundred and thirty years old, and to have died at nine hundred and thirty years of age. Are we to think we must necessarily believe that he begot Seth on the very day on which Adam had precisely completed his hundred and thirtieth year, or that he died on the very day on which he completed his nine hundred and thirtieth? Therefore the number of years of the world can be held, but not of the days. Or, if this interpretation does not satisfy someone — on the ground that the word "day" here is put not properly for a day (as distinguished from year and month), but, in the manner of the sacred writings, for "time" — we shall say that the phrase "days of the age" is said not of the days or times elapsed from the world's origin until now, but of those to come, up to the end of the world and the day of Judgment; which time is undoubtedly quite unknown to mortals, as we shall discuss at length at the very end of this book.⁷¹

He created.⁷²

Creavit.

Hoc verbum Hebraeum ברא (Bara), quod est hoc loco — nec Graecum ἐποίησεν quo utuntur LXX Interpretes, nec Latinum "Creavit" — proprie significat tantum productionem rei ex nihilo, ad quam solam denotandam scholastici Philosophi et Theologi nomen creationis et verbum creandi accommodare solent; certe divina scriptura promiscue id verbi usurpat in qualibet productione. Namque Moses paulo infra hoc ipso verbo creandi utitur, ubi agit de ceterorum et hominis generatione, quas res constat non esse ex nihilo conditas.

This Hebrew word ברא (Bara), which is in this place — not the Greek ἐποίησεν which the Seventy Translators use, nor the Latin "He created" — properly signifies only the production of a thing from nothing, to denote which alone the scholastic philosophers and theologians are wont to apply the name of "creation" and the verb "to create." Certainly the divine Scripture uses that word indiscriminately for any production whatever; for Moses, a little below, employs this very verb "to create" where he treats of the generation of the other things and of man — things which, it is agreed, were not founded from nothing.⁷³

Beatus Hieronymus in Commentariis super illa verba Pauli quae sunt in capite secundo Epistolae ad Ephesios — "Ipsius enim sumus factura, creati in CHRISTO IESU in operibus bonis" — annotavit nomen conditionis et creationis ad magna eximia opera fere adaptari: dicimus enim urbem Romam conditam esse a Romulo; et Virgilius, "Tanta molis erat Romanam condere gentem." Et Moses inquit "In principio Deum creasse caelum et terram." Verum quicquid sit de propria huius vocis notione et significatione, certe operatio Dei qua is fecit caelum et terram revera productio fuit ex nihilo.

The blessed Jerome, in his Commentaries on those words of Paul in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians — "For we are his workmanship, created in CHRIST JESUS unto good works" — noted that the words "founding" and "creation" are generally fitted to great and exceptional works: for we say that the city of Rome was founded by Romulus; and Virgil, "So vast a labor it was to found the Roman race." And Moses says that "in the beginning God created heaven and earth." But whatever be the proper notion and signification of this word, certainly the operation of God by which he made heaven and earth was truly a production from nothing.⁷⁴

Etenim sive intelligamus per caelum et terram (ut placet multis) corpus ipsum caeleste et elementare, sive (ut visum est aliis) materiam informem et naturam Angelicam: necesse est fateri eas res conditas esse ex nihilo, vel quod primae omnium sunt conditae, vel quod eiusmodi sunt ut ex materia fieri non possint. Ac licet verus fuerit et fere commune Philosophorum omnium decretum "Ex nihilo nihil posse fieri", quin etiam Plato, qui Deum fecit mundi opificem, senserit mundum ex materia aeterna et ingeni[ta]...

For whether we understand by "heaven and earth" (as many prefer) the celestial and elemental body itself, or (as it seemed to others) unformed matter and the Angelic nature, it must be admitted that those things were founded from nothing — either because they are the first of all things founded, or because they are of such a kind that they cannot be made from matter. And although it was a true, and almost universal, decree of all the philosophers that "from nothing nothing can be made," and even Plato, who made God the world's craftsman, held that the world was [made] from eternal and ungener[ated] matter...⁷⁵

...[ex materia aeterna et ingeni]ta esse a Deo factum: nos tamen sacris litteris (quae non sane magis quam auctor earum Deus mentiri possunt) eruditi doctique veritatem, nihil praeter Deum censemus aeternum, et quidquid est quod Deus non est ab aliquo temporis initio factum esse — aut ex nihilo, aut ex alia re quae tamen ipsa ex nihilo facta fuerit — pro certo habemus. Hoc enim cum alibi, tum perspicue in posterioris libri Machabaeorum capite septimo scriptum testatumque reperimus: nam mater illa septem filiorum martyrum, et ipsa octies martyr, sic unum de filiis affatur: "Peto a te, nate, ut aspicias ad caelum et terram et ad omnia quae in eis sunt, et intelligas quia ex nihilo fecit illa Deus," et cetera.

...[that the world] was made by God from eternal and ungenerated matter; we, however, instructed by the sacred writings (which surely can no more lie than God their author) and taught the truth, deem nothing eternal except God, and hold for certain that whatever exists which is not God was made from some beginning of time — either from nothing, or from some other thing which itself was made from nothing. For we find this written and attested both elsewhere and clearly in the seventh chapter of the latter book of Maccabees: for that mother of the seven martyr sons, herself an eightfold martyr, thus addresses one of her sons: "I beseech thee, my son, look upon heaven and earth and all that is in them, and understand that God made them out of nothing," and the rest.⁷⁶

Non esse autem materiam aeternam et ingenitam copiose disputat adversus Hermogenem haereticum Tertullianus, et Lactantius lib. 2 Divinarum Institut. cap. 8. Eusebius autem in lib. 7 de Praeparatione Evangel. capite octavo etiam Philonis, Dionysii et Maximi ea de re argumentationes prolixe commemorat. Nos quoque libro quinto nostri operis quod de Philosophia edidimus, possibilem esse Deo hanc rationem producendi res ex nihilo et multis argumentis confirmavimus, et contrarias Philosophorum rationes dissolvimus.

That matter is not eternal and ungenerated, Tertullian disputes copiously against the heretic Hermogenes, as does Lactantius in book 2 of the Divine Institutes, ch. 8. And Eusebius, in book 7 of the Preparation for the Gospel, ch. 8, recounts at length the arguments of Philo, Dionysius, and Maximus on the matter. We too, in the fifth book of our work which we published On Philosophy, both confirmed by many arguments that this manner of producing things from nothing is possible for God, and dissolved the contrary arguments of the philosophers.⁷⁷

Basilius ex eo quod Moses scribit Deum fecisse caelum et terram totumque mundum, putat concludi potuisse ab eo fieri complures alios mundos: quemadmodum enim artifex eadem arte et potestate qua unum opus facit potest etiam complura alia eiusdem generis efficere, ita Deus, qua potestate et arte fecit mundum, eadem potuisset, et vero posset, etiamnum complures mundos condere. Verum huic rationi occurrit Aristoteles in primo de Caelo, text. 94, affirmans causam cur plures mundi esse nequeant non provenire ex defectu artis vel potestatis opificis, nec ex ingenio mundanae formae (quae, ut est materialis, ita quoque est multiplicabilis), sed ex defectu materiae: quam, cum unus hic mundus universam in se sit complexus, nihil materiae reliquum esse factum ex qua alius mundus fabricari queat.

Basil, from the fact that Moses writes that God made heaven and earth and the whole world, thinks it could be concluded that several other worlds could have been made by him: for just as a craftsman, by the same art and power by which he makes one work, can also make several others of the same kind, so God, by the same power and art by which he made the world, could have founded — and indeed still could found — several worlds. But Aristotle meets this argument in the first book On the Heavens, text 94, affirming that the reason why there cannot be several worlds arises not from a defect of the craftsman's art or power, nor from the nature of the worldly form (which, being material, is also multipliable), but from a defect of matter: since this one world has embraced all matter in itself, no matter has been left over from which another world could be fashioned.⁷⁸

Verumtamen Aristoteles in hac sua argumentatione pro certo sumit id quod nos negamus, nempe mundum hunc et materiam eius non esse a Deo ex nihilo conditam: namque si hoc ipse credidisset, non fuisset ei incredibile Deum et aliam materiam et alium mundum ex nihilo posse facere. Observabit etiam Basilius illis verbis "Fecit DEUS caelum et terram" aperte declarari mundum vere ac proprie factum esse a Deo, hoc est Dei consilio et libera voluntate, non autem ex necessitate naturae.

Nevertheless, Aristotle in this argument of his takes as certain the very thing we deny — namely, that this world and its matter were not founded by God from nothing: for if he himself had believed this, it would not have been incredible to him that God could make both another matter and another world from nothing. Basil will also observe that by those words "GOD made heaven and earth" it is openly declared that the world was truly and properly made by God — that is, by God's design and free will, and not by any necessity of nature.⁷⁹

De mundi porro effectione variae olim fuere philosophorum sententiae variique errores. Epicurei dixerunt mundum fortuita atomorum cohaesione et coagmentatione extitisse; Strato Lampsacenus nullum agnovit mundi molitorem, sed mundum suapte natura, vi ac potestate, qualis nunc est talem etiam ex omni aeterni[tate]...

Concerning the making of the world, moreover, there were of old various opinions of the philosophers and various errors. The Epicureans said that the world came into being by a fortuitous cohesion and aggregation of atoms; Strato of Lampsacus acknowledged no builder of the world, but held that the world, by its own nature, force, and power, was such from all etern[ity] as it now is...⁸⁰

...[ex omni aeterni]tate fuisse existimavit. Peripatetici mundum a Deo ex necessitate naturae profectum censuerunt, similiter ut ex corpore illuminato existit umbra, et radius ex Sole, et in speculo imago. Plato satis aperte et diserte in Timaeo docet mundum esse a Deo factum, id quod putat Eusebius (libro undecimo de Praeparatione Evangelica capite decimo quinto) ex hoc loco Mosis Platonem accepisse. Verum ille veritatem hanc mox aspersa erroris labe foedavit, dixit enim Caelum esse factum a Deo, non autem terram et alia elementa; Deumque rerum modo immortalium effectorem fuisse, ceterarum autem mortalium rerum effectionem diis secundis demandasse.

...[Strato] thought [the world] was such from all eternity. The Peripatetics held that the world proceeded from God by necessity of nature, just as a shadow arises from an illuminated body, a ray from the Sun, and an image in a mirror. Plato teaches clearly and plainly enough in the Timaeus that the world was made by God — which Eusebius (in the eleventh book of the Preparation for the Gospel, ch. 15) thinks Plato took from this passage of Moses. But Plato soon defiled this truth by sprinkling it with the stain of error: for he said that Heaven was made by God, but not the earth and the other elements; and that God was the maker only of immortal things, but committed the making of the other, mortal things to the secondary gods.⁸¹

Anaxagoras vero (primus omnium Philosophorum, ut in primo libro Metaphysicorum testatur Aristoteles, et Plato in Theaeteto) causam efficientem rerum omnium fecit intellectum, qui, quae erant incomposita et inordinata apte componens et in ordinem adducens, mundum hunc maximum atque ornatissimum effecit.

Anaxagoras, however (the first of all the Philosophers, as Aristotle attests in the first book of the Metaphysics, and Plato in the Theaetetus), made Mind (intellect) the efficient cause of all things — which, fitly composing the things that were uncomposed and disordered and bringing them into order, made this greatest and most adorned world.⁸²

Scitum est quod tradit Plinius in praefatione sui operis: veteres pingendi fingendique nobilissimos artifices opera sua, etiam absolutissima illa et quae posteri mirando nunquam satiantur, pendenti titulo sic inscripsisse: "APELLES FACIEBAT," vel "POLYCLETUS," non autem "FECIT"; ea re insinuantes opera esse inchoata nec omnino perfecta, et quod in eis desiderari posset se quidem emendaturos fuisse, nisi morte essent intercepti. Tria tantum opera reperiuntur absolute inscripta "FECIT," tanquam in illis summa artis securitas artifici placuerit; quae tamen omnia magnae hominum invidiae fuerunt obnoxia — caute illi quidem ac prudenter, quorum non est omni vitio carere.

It is well known what Pliny relates in the preface of his work: that the most noble ancient artists of painting and sculpture inscribed their works — even those most finished ones, at which posterity never tires of marveling — with a tentative title, thus: "APELLES WAS MAKING [this]," or "POLYCLETUS," but not "MADE"; insinuating thereby that the works were begun and not entirely perfected, and that whatever might be found wanting in them they would indeed have corrected, had they not been cut off by death. Only three works are found inscribed outright "HE MADE," as if in them the supreme confidence of his art had pleased the artist; yet all these were exposed to great human envy — cautiously and prudently inscribed thus, indeed, by men, whose lot it is not to be free from every fault.⁸³

De Deo autem, cuius perfecta sunt opera et exquisita secundum omnes voluntates eius, et quibus nemo potest quicquam addere vel detrahere, non erat consentaneum dicere "Deus faciebat mundum" sed "fecit" — scilicet tanquam opus omnibus suis partibus expletum, cunctisque numeris absolutum atque consummatum, et iudicio ipsius opificis (cuius est infinita sapientia) comprobatum. "Vidit enim Deus cuncta quae fecerat, et erant valde bona."

But of God, whose works are perfect and exquisite according to all his wishes, and to which no one can add or take away anything, it was not fitting to say "God WAS MAKING the world," but "He MADE [it]" — namely, as a work complete in all its parts, absolute and consummate in all its measures, and approved by the judgment of the Maker himself, whose wisdom is infinite. "For God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good."⁸⁴

Rupertus libro primo de Trinitate et operibus eius capite quarto ponit quaestionem cur in creatione ceterarum rerum adhibeatur vox et praeceptum Dei, hoc est "Dixit" et "Fiat", non autem in creatione Caeli et terrae: cur enim Deus non dixit "Fiat caelum" et factum est, sicut dixit "Fiat lux" et facta est lux. Auctor (quicumque ille fuit) libri quarti Esdrae in capite sexto, hanc ipsam Mosis de Creatione mundi historiam commemorans, ait Deum dixisse "Fiat Caelum et Fiat terra" et facta esse; sed hoc a narratione Mosis plane discrepat. Rupertus ad quaestionem a se propositam tripliciter respondet: verba eius subiiciam. "Primo," inquit, "cum ipsum principium, in quo facta sunt omnia, sit..."

Rupert (of Deutz), in the first book On the Trinity and his works, ch. 4, poses the question why in the creation of the other things the voice and command of God is employed — that is, "He said" and "Let there be" — but not in the creation of Heaven and earth: for why did God not say "Let there be heaven," and it was made, as he said "Let there be light," and light was made? The author (whoever he was) of the fourth book of Ezra, in ch. 6, recalling this very history of Moses about the creation of the world, says that God said "Let there be Heaven, and Let there be earth," and they were made; but this plainly disagrees with the narration of Moses. Rupert answers the question he has posed in three ways; I shall subjoin his words. "First," he says, "since the very beginning, in which all things were made, is..."⁸⁵

...sit Dei verbum, superfluum (ut ineptum) fuisse dici "In principio dixit Deus." Deinde verbum imperativum "Fiat" supponit aliquid cui imperetur vel praeceptum ponatur; effectionem autem caeli et terrae, cum ipsa sint ex nihilo condita, nihil praecessit ad quod Dei vox et praeceptum dirigeretur. Postremo sic dicere voluit Moses, ne quispiam suspicaretur Deum quidem species et formas rerum omnium designasse ac perfecisse, verum Hylem, id est materiam primam de qua cuncta sunt facta, non a Deo esse factam, sed Deo semper fuisse coaeternam. Igitur quo modo dici debuit, sic dictum est, quia "In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram." Sic Rupertus.

...[since the very beginning, in which all things were made,] is the Word of God, it would have been superfluous — and even unfitting — to say "In the beginning God said." Next, the imperative verb "Let there be" presupposes something to which a command may be given or a precept set; but the making of heaven and earth — since they themselves were founded from nothing — had nothing preceding it toward which God's voice and command might be directed. Finally, Moses wished to speak thus lest anyone should suspect that God indeed designed and perfected the species and forms of all things, but that Hyle — that is, the prime matter from which all things were made — was not made by God, but was always coeternal with God. Therefore it was said in the way in which it ought to have been said: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." Thus Rupert.⁸⁶

Cuius sententia, in eo quod ait vocem et imperium Dei non referri ac dirigi ad nihilum, sed ad id quod est, vereor ne non satis congruat cum doctrina Pauli, qui in 4 capite Epistolae ad Romanos de Deo loquens ait: "Vocat ea quae non sunt, tanquam ea quae sunt." Et David Psalmo 32: "Verbo Domini caeli firmati sunt." Et in Psalmo 148: "Laudate Dominum omnes Angeli eius, laudate eum omnes virtutes eius," etc., "quia ipse dixit, et facta sunt; ipse mandavit, et creata sunt." Ergo, Davidi, tam caeli quam Angeli omnes verbo et imperio Dei creati sunt, videlicet ex nihilo. Vide quo modo hanc ipsam quaestionem B. Augustinus in libro primo de Genesi ad literam ponat atque dissolvat.

But his opinion — in saying that the voice and command of God are not referred and directed to nothing, but to that which is — I fear may not sufficiently agree with the teaching of Paul, who, in the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, speaking of God, says: "He calls the things that are not, as though they were." And David, in Psalm 32 [33]: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were established." And in Psalm 148: "Praise the Lord, all his Angels; praise him, all his hosts," etc., "for he spoke, and they were made; he commanded, and they were created." Therefore, for David, both the heavens and all the Angels were created by the word and command of God — namely, from nothing. See in what way the blessed Augustine poses and resolves this very question in the first book of On Genesis according to the Letter.⁸⁷

God.⁸⁸

Deus.

Hebraice est אלהים (Elohim), in numero plurali: quae vox in scriptura non modo tribuitur Deo, sed etiam Angelis, Iudicibus ac Principibus: proprie enim significat eos qui, propter magnam auctoritatem et potestatem — praesertim autem puniendi et vindicandi quam habent — sunt aliis metuendi et terribiles.

In Hebrew it is אלהים (Elohim), in the plural number: which word in Scripture is attributed not only to God, but also to Angels, to Judges, and to Princes; for it properly signifies those who, on account of the great authority and power — and especially of punishing and avenging — which they have, are to others fearsome and terrible.⁸⁹

Mirum autem videri potest, cum vox "Elohim" sit numeri pluralis, cur Moses eam vocem iunxerit cum ברא ("Bara") numeri singularis: similiter, ut si Latine dicatur "Dii creavit." Auget etiam admirationem quod nomen Elohim habet singulare Eloha, et reperitur in scriptura apud Iob cap. duodecimo, ibi: "Invocavit Deum, et exaudiet eum"; et cap. tricesimo sexto, in illis verbis "Adhuc habeo quod pro Deo loquar"; et in Habacuc capite primo, "Haec est fortitudo eius Dei sui"; et apud eundem cap. tertio, "Deus ab Austro veniet."

Now it may seem strange that, since the word "Elohim" is of the plural number, Moses joined that word with ברא ("Bara"), which is of the singular number — just as if in Latin one were to say "Gods created." The wonder is increased by the fact that the noun Elohim has a singular, Eloha, and is found in Scripture in Job, chapter twelve, there: "He called upon God, and he will hear him"; and in chapter thirty-six, in those words "I have yet something to speak on God's behalf"; and in Habakkuk, chapter one, "This his strength is of his God"; and in the same prophet, chapter three, "God will come from the South."⁹⁰

Quare inscienter Caietanus in Commentario huius loci dixit nomen Elohim apud Hebraeos carere singulari. Si ergo Elohim habet singulare Eloha, cur Moses dixit אלהים ברא ("Elohim bara"), iungens plurale cum singulari, ac non potius "Eloha bara" — praesertim cum alias non raro Elohim inveniatur in sacris litteris iunctum cum verbo numeri pluralis, veluti Genes. 30, ubi nos legimus "Apparuit illi Deus," Hebraice est "Apparuerunt ei Dii"; et cap. 20 eiusdem libri, pro eo quod Latina versio habet "Eduxit me Deus de domo patris mei," in Hebraeo Codice est "Eduxerunt me dii." Habet igitur singulare, et saepe...

Wherefore Cajetan, in his Commentary on this passage, said ignorantly that the name Elohim among the Hebrews lacks a singular. If, then, Elohim has the singular Eloha, why did Moses say אלהים ברא ("Elohim bara"), joining a plural with a singular, and not rather "Eloha bara" — especially since elsewhere Elohim is not rarely found in the sacred writings joined with a verb of the plural number, as in Genesis 30 [35:7], where we read "God appeared to him," in Hebrew it is "Gods appeared to him"; and in chapter 20 of the same book [20:13], where the Latin version has "God brought me out of my father's house," in the Hebrew Codex it is "Gods brought me out." Therefore it does have a singular, and often...⁹¹

...saepe iungitur verbo numeri pluralis. Quare non levis se ingerit nobis causa dubitandi et inquirendi cur Moses hoc loco, contra leges grammaticae, nomen pluralis numeri copulaverit cum verbo singularis numeri. Huiusmodi dubitationem et admirationem tollunt multi sane pii ac docti viri, eius rei causam fuisse dicentes quod Moses, fidei nostrae praecipua mysteria abunde praedoctus a Deo, voluerit in ipso scripturae suae exordio praeiacere velut semina quaedam Christianae doctrinae quam de mysterio sanctae Trinitatis habemus. Namque per nomen plurale אלהים (Elohim) multitudinem divinarum personarum, per verbum ברא (Bara) numeri singularis unitatem divinae essentiae insinuavit. Ita sensit Magister libro 2 Sentent. dist. 1, quem Scholastici Theologi prorsus omnes secuti sunt; cum quibus consentit Paulus Burgensis, Nicolaus de Lyra, Petrus Galatinus, Augustinus Eugubinus, Ambrosius Catharinus, aliique quam plurimi.

...is often joined with a verb of the plural number. Wherefore no slight cause of doubting and inquiring presents itself to us: why Moses, in this place, against the rules of grammar, coupled a noun of the plural number with a verb of the singular number. This doubt and wonder many truly pious and learned men remove, saying that the reason was that Moses — abundantly forelearned by God in the chief mysteries of our faith — wished, at the very opening of his Scripture, to lay down beforehand, as it were, certain seeds of the Christian doctrine which we hold concerning the mystery of the Holy Trinity. For by the plural noun אלהים (Elohim) he insinuated the multitude of the divine persons, and by the singular verb ברא (Bara) the unity of the divine essence. So thought the Master (Peter Lombard) in book 2 of the Sentences, dist. 1, whom absolutely all the Scholastic Theologians have followed; with whom agree Paul of Burgos, Nicholas of Lyra, Pietro Galatino, Agostino Steuco of Gubbio, Ambrosius Catharinus, and very many others.⁹²

Catharinus autem, et hoc loco et libro 4 Animadversionum in Caietani scripta, acerbe eum insectatur, tanquam non satis pie de mysterio sanctae Trinitatis sentientem, propterea quod in commentario huius loci negaverit coniunctionem nominis pluralis cum verbo singulari esse adhibitam a Mose ad significandum mysterium Trinitatis, neque ex hoc modo loquendi Mosis posse Christianos argumentari esse multas personas divinas in una essentia, adversus Iudaeos. Verumtamen si hoc crimen est, non est profecto unius Caietani crimen proprium, sed cum aliis doctissimis et antiquioribus viris commune. Etenim centum annis ante Caietanum idem censuit Tostatus, et scriptum reliquit in commentario huius loci; in quodam autem suo Tractatu, quem de Trinitate edidit, pro eadem sententia adversus Nicolaum de Lyra pugnavit acerrime.

But Catharinus, both here and in book 4 of his Animadversions on Cajetan's writings, bitterly attacks him as not thinking piously enough about the mystery of the Holy Trinity, because in his commentary on this passage he denied that the joining of a plural noun with a singular verb was employed by Moses to signify the mystery of the Trinity, and [denied] that from this manner of Moses' speaking Christians can argue, against the Jews, that there are many divine persons in one essence. But if this is a crime, it is surely not the peculiar crime of Cajetan alone, but one shared with other most learned and more ancient men. For a hundred years before Cajetan, Tostatus held the same, and left it written in his commentary on this passage; and in a certain Treatise of his which he published on the Trinity, he fought most fiercely for the same view against Nicholas of Lyra.⁹³

Et vero multis nec sane invalidis rationibus probari posset nullum in eiusmodi modo loquendi Mosis latere mysterium. Principio, omnium primus Magister sententiarum sensit in hoc loco Mosis recte significari mysterium Trinitatis: merito autem possumus mirari neminem priorum scriptorum — saltem Origenem et Hieronymum, Hebraice scientissimos et omnium scripturae vocum Hebraearum (praesertim autem quae ad mysteria nostrae fidei confirmanda vel illustranda faciunt) curiosissimos et observantissimos — nullum hoc loco mysterium contineri esse subodoratos.

And indeed it could be proved by many — and by no means invalid — reasons that no mystery lies hidden in this manner of Moses' speaking. In the first place, the Master of the Sentences was the very first of all to hold that in this passage of Moses the mystery of the Trinity is rightly signified; but we may justly wonder that none of the earlier writers — at least Origen and Jerome, most skilled in Hebrew and most curious and observant of all the Hebrew words of Scripture (and especially of those that serve to confirm or illustrate the mysteries of our faith) — caught any scent of a mystery being contained in this place.⁹⁴

Deinde, discrepantia illa inter Elohim numeri pluralis et Bara numeri singularis non habet mysterium, sed idiomatismum linguae Hebraeae, in qua frequentes sunt eiusmodi discrepantiae: exempli causa, Isa. decimonono legitur "Tradam Aegyptum in manum Dominorum crudelium"; Hebraice est "Dominorum duri, seu fortis." Et Iosue cap. ultimo scriptum est "Non poteritis servire Deo: Dominus enim sanctus est"; Hebraice legitur "Quia Dii sancti ipse." Neque haec discrepantia reperitur tantum cum de Deo loquitur scriptura, sed etiam...

Next, that discrepancy between Elohim, of the plural number, and Bara, of the singular number, holds no mystery, but an idiom of the Hebrew tongue, in which such discrepancies are frequent: for example, in Isaiah 19 we read "I will deliver Egypt into the hand of cruel lords"; in Hebrew it is "of a hard, or strong, lords." And in Joshua, the last chapter [24:19], it is written "You shall not be able to serve God, for he is a holy Lord"; in Hebrew it reads "For he is a holy Gods." Nor is this discrepancy found only when Scripture speaks of God, but also...⁹⁵

...etiam cum de aliis [loquitur]: veluti Genes. 42, ubi nos legimus "Locutus est Dominus terrae dure," Hebraei codices sic habent "Dixit nobis domini terrae." In Exodo quoque capite vigesimo sic est "Non habebis Deos alienos," pro quo Hebraice est "Non erit tibi Dii alieni." Et capite 21 Latina versio habet "Sin autem Dominus dederit illi uxorem," Hebraice vero est "Si domini eius dederit illi uxorem." Ex his palam est praedictam discrepantiam numeri singularis atque pluralis carere mysterio, cum Hebraice usitata sit, sive de Deo sive aliis de rebus sermo habeatur.

...also when it speaks of other things: as in Genesis 42, where we read "The lord of the land spoke to us harshly," the Hebrew codices have "The lords of the land said to us"; in Exodus too, chapter twenty, it stands thus, "You shall not have strange gods," for which in Hebrew it is "There shall not be to you strange gods"; and in chapter 21 the Latin version has "But if his master give him a wife," whereas in Hebrew it is "If his masters give him a wife." From these it is plain that the aforesaid discrepancy of singular and plural number holds no mystery, since it is customary in Hebrew whether the discourse is about God or about other things.⁹⁶

Ad hoc, si Moses huiusmodi locutione indicare voluisset mysterium Trinitatis, profecto admodum improprie locutus esset: non enim congrue dicitur de personis divinis quod sint Dii; alioquin etiam posset dici quod sint multi Dii, vel tres Dii: quod tamen et in scriptura damnatur, et in Symbolo Athanasii. Nec iudicio Theologorum recte loqueretur si quis diceret "Personae divinae, vel Pater, Filius et Spiritus sanctus, creavit mundum," sed dici debet "crearunt": sicut non recte dicitur "Pater et Filius spirat Spiritum sanctum," sed "spirant."

Besides, if Moses had wished by such an expression to indicate the mystery of the Trinity, he would surely have spoken quite improperly: for it is not fitting to say of the divine persons that they are "Gods"; otherwise it could even be said that there are many Gods, or three Gods — which, however, is condemned both in Scripture and in the Athanasian Creed. Nor, by the judgment of theologians, would one speak rightly who said "The divine persons, or the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, created [singular] the world," but one must say "created [plural]": just as it is not rightly said "the Father and the Son breathes the Holy Spirit," but "breathe."⁹⁷

Praeterea, si hic modus loquendi insolens et inusitatus fuisset in lingua Hebraea, novus et admirandus Hebraeis accidisset; quare Rabbini aliquid circa hoc fuissent commenti, nec tanto silentio rem tanti momenti plenamque mysterii et admirationis suppressissent. Quod si ob eam causam Moses iunxit nomen Elohim numeri pluralis cum verbo Bara numeri singularis, ut denotaret divinarum personarum pluralitatem cum unitate essentiae divinae, cur alias de Deo loquens (velut Genes. 20 et trigesimo quinto, quos locos paulo superius commemoravimus) coniunxit nomen Elohim cum verbis numeri pluralis? Sic enim et personarum divinarum multitudo et diversitas naturae divinae significari videbatur. Nec profecto bene consultum fuisset Iudaeorum ruditati atque tarditati, et ad idololatriam proclivitati: hinc enim illi occasionem cepissent existimandi multos esse Deos.

Moreover, if this manner of speaking had been strange and unusual in the Hebrew tongue, it would have struck the Hebrews as new and astonishing; wherefore the Rabbis would have devised something about it, and would not have suppressed in such silence a matter of such moment, full of mystery and wonder. And if for that reason Moses joined the plural noun Elohim with the singular verb Bara, to denote the plurality of the divine persons together with the unity of the divine essence, why, elsewhere speaking of God (as in Genesis 20 and 35, passages we mentioned a little above), did he join the noun Elohim with verbs of the plural number? For thus both the multitude of the divine persons and a diversity of the divine nature would seem to be signified. And it would surely not have been well advised, given the rudeness and slowness of the Jews and their proneness to idolatry: for from this they would have taken occasion to suppose that there are many Gods.⁹⁸

Haec ego non eo disputavi ut pios et doctos homines, qui ex hoc etiam loco mysterium Trinitatis elicere studuerunt, reprehenderem, eorumque religiosum studium atque diligentiam damnarem; nec ut lectorem ab ea sententia deducerem: sed ut nimiam Catharini in reprehendendo Caietano aviditatem reprimerem, quin etiam nimiam eius asperitatem acerbitatemque mitigarem, et virum de mysteriis fidei nostrae bene sentientem, de Theologia vero optime meritum, ab ea suspicione quam Catharinus adversus eum immerito commovit purgarem atque vindicarem.

These things I have argued not in order to reprehend the pious and learned men who strove to draw the mystery of the Trinity even from this place, nor to condemn their religious zeal and diligence, nor to lead the reader away from that opinion; but in order to restrain Catharinus's excessive eagerness in reprehending Cajetan, and indeed to mitigate his excessive harshness and bitterness, and to clear and vindicate, from the suspicion which Catharinus undeservedly stirred up against him, a man who thinks rightly about the mysteries of our faith and has deserved most excellently of Theology.⁹⁹

Sed revertamur ad contemplationem illius vocis "Deus," quae primum omnium hic nominatur in scriptura, quamvis id nominis primus omnium enunciasse legatur serpens, qui tentans Evam dixit "Cur praecepit vobis Deus," etc. Ex hoc loco apparet vere dici posse inde incipere doctrinam Christianorum ubi terminatur...

But let us return to the contemplation of that word "God," which here is named first of all in Scripture — although the serpent is read to have been the first of all to utter that name, who, tempting Eve, said "Why has God commanded you," etc. From this place it appears that it can truly be said that the doctrine of Christians begins where [the wisdom of the Gentiles] ends...¹⁰⁰

...[termina]tur sapientia Gentilium: haec autem est cognitio Dei, in cuius investigatione ac perceptione maxima quaeque ingenia, omnibus saeculis, acerrimo studio et incredibili diligentia laborarunt atque desudarunt. Scire quispiam avet quis mundum hunc architectatus et fabricatus sit: ecce tibi Moses in exordio sui voluminis uno id verbo expedit, dicens "In principio creavit Deus Caelum et terram"; quasi diceret: Nemo putet mundum ex se suaque vi constare, nemo cogitet eum casu et fortuito extitisse; non enim aliter quam ab aliquo sapientissimo opifice, summo consilio et ratione, effici potuit: hic autem opifex Deus est.

...the wisdom of the Gentiles ends: and this [where Christian doctrine begins] is the knowledge of God, in the investigation and perception of which the greatest minds of every age have toiled and sweated with the keenest zeal and incredible diligence. Does someone long to know who architected and built this world? Behold, Moses at the opening of his volume settles it in a single word, saying "In the beginning God created Heaven and earth"; as if he said: Let no one think the world consists of itself and by its own power; let no one imagine that it came to be by chance and accident; for it could not have been made otherwise than by some most wise craftsman, with supreme design and reason — and this craftsman is God.¹⁰¹

Etenim, si qui videbant sphaeram illam Archimedis vel Posidonii, multorum praedicatione nobilitatam, in qua omnium Caelestium orbium conversiones, ut in Caelo fiunt, itidem ad unum omnes perfecte repraesentabantur, dubitare non poterant quin opus illud a summo ingenio et excellenti doctrina esset perfectum: quanto minus nobis, Caelum, terram totumque mundum contemplantibus, fas est dubitare eius operis designatorem et effectorem fuisse Deum! Recte igitur Scriptura quodam loco inquit "Qui creavit omnia, Deus est"; et Paulus de Deo loquens "Ex ipso," inquit, "et per ipsum et in ipso sunt omnia"; et Ioannes "Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil."

For if those who beheld that famous sphere of Archimedes or of Posidonius, ennobled by the praise of many — in which the revolutions of all the celestial orbs, as they occur in the heaven, were likewise all perfectly represented in one [device] — could not doubt that that work had been perfected by a supreme genius and excellent learning, how much less is it permitted to us, contemplating heaven, earth, and the whole world, to doubt that the designer and maker of this work was God! Rightly, therefore, does Scripture say in a certain place "He who created all things is God"; and Paul, speaking of God, says "From him, and through him, and in him are all things"; and John, "All things were made through him, and without him was made nothing."¹⁰²

Sed enim, cum dicitur Deus fecisse mundum, satis ostenditur solum Deum fuisse eius conditorem, nec fuisse multos qui ad eum fabricandum simul operas suas viresque contulerint. Ad hanc enim removendam opinionem valet quod per Isaiam capite quadragesimo quarto ait Deus: "Ego sum Dominus faciens omnia, extendens Caelos solus, stabiliens terram, et nullus mecum."

But indeed, when God is said to have made the world, it is sufficiently shown that God alone was its founder, and that there were not many who together contributed their labors and strength to fashioning it. For toward removing this opinion [of many makers] it avails that God says through Isaiah, chapter forty-four: "I am the Lord, who make all things, who stretch out the Heavens alone, who establish the earth, and there is none with me."¹⁰³

Porro, licet opificium mundi tantum sit quantum nullius mortalium intelligentia comprehendi queat, comparatione tamen Dei nihil est. Si enim terra cum Caelo collata instar puncti obtinet, quanti aestimari debet mundus cum Deo comparatus? Momentum staterae et gutta roris antelucani respectu Dei orbis terrae appellatur in capite 9 libri Sapientiae. Non igitur Deus efficiendo mundo exhausit potentiam suam, sed eo condito nihilominus integra et efficax fuit eius vis et potestas ad alios mundos condendos: non enim mundus effectus est adaequatus suae causae, hoc est, ut maximus sit, non tamen adaequatur cum Dei potentia.

Moreover, although the fabric of the world is so great that no mortal's understanding can comprehend it, yet in comparison with God it is nothing. For if the earth, set beside the Heaven, holds the place of a point, at how much should the world be valued when compared with God? In comparison with God the globe of the earth is called "the tipping of a balance and a drop of the morning dew," in chapter 9 of the book of Wisdom. Therefore God did not exhaust his power in making the world, but, it being founded, his force and power remained nonetheless whole and effective for founding other worlds: for the world is not an effect adequate to its cause — that is, though it be the greatest [of things], yet it is not commensurate with the power of God.¹⁰⁴

Solet autem scriptura hoc maxime insigni praedicare et magnificare Deum, quod is fecerit Caelum et terram. Sic Abraham Geneseos 14: "Levo manum meam ad Dominum Deum excelsum, possessorem Caeli et terrae"; et ibidem Melchisedec: "Benedictus Abraham a Deo excelso, qui creavit Caelum et terram"; et David: "Adiutorium nostrum in nomine Domini, qui fecit caelum et terram"; Ionas etiam propheta sciscitantibus ex eo nautis respondit: "Hebraeus ego sum, et Dominum Deum caeli ego timeo, qui fecit mare et aridam. Et timuerunt viri timore magno," etc. Hieremias vero cap. 10 hac nota vult nos internoscere verum Deum a falsis diis: "Sic dicetis eis: Dii qui caelos et terram non fecerunt, pereant de terra, et de his quae sub [caelo sunt]."

Now Scripture is wont to proclaim and magnify God especially by this notable [title]: that he made Heaven and earth. So Abraham, in Genesis 14: "I lift up my hand to the Lord God most high, the possessor of Heaven and earth"; and there too Melchizedek: "Blessed be Abraham by the most high God, who created Heaven and earth"; and David: "Our help is in the name of the Lord, who made heaven and earth"; the prophet Jonah too, when the sailors questioned him, answered: "I am a Hebrew, and I fear the Lord God of heaven, who made the sea and the dry land. And the men feared with a great fear," etc. And Jeremiah, in chapter 10, wishes us to distinguish the true God from false gods by this mark: "Thus shall you say to them: Let the gods that have not made the heavens and the earth perish from the earth, and from under [the heaven]."¹⁰⁵

...[sub] Caelo sunt. Et in cap. 32 ex eo quod Deus fecit Caelum et terram concludit nihil difficile illi esse posse: "Domine Deus, ecce tu fecisti Caelum et terram in fortitudine tua magna, et in brachio tuo extento: non erit tibi difficile omne verbum." Nec vero Deus mundum condidit eumque postea deseruit, et conservandum regendumque aliis tradidit, quemadmodum parentes ex se genitos aliis nutriendos educandosque committunt; ipse enim quem condidit perpetuo regit et conservat. Et ut ab alio quam a Deo mundus non potuit effici, ita nec ab alio conservari aut gubernari potest. Audi Iob, qui in 34 capite sic ait: "Quem constituit alium super terram? aut quem posuit super orbem quem fabricatus est?" Et Paulus, "Qui portat omnia verbo virtutis suae." Et auctor libri Sapientiae, "Quomodo posset aliquid permanere nisi tu voluisses? aut quod a te vocatum non esset, conservaretur?" Quod etiam pluribus verbis persequitur David in illo psalmo, cum ait: "Omnia a te expectant, ut des illis escam in tempore," et reliqua quae sequuntur.

...are [under] heaven. And in chapter 32 [Jeremiah], from the fact that God made Heaven and earth, he concludes that nothing can be difficult for him: "Lord God, behold thou hast made Heaven and earth by thy great power and by thy outstretched arm: no word shall be difficult for thee." Nor indeed did God found the world and then desert it, handing it over to others to be preserved and governed — as parents commit the children born of them to others to be nourished and brought up; for he himself perpetually rules and preserves what he founded. And just as the world could not be made by any other than God, so neither can it be preserved or governed by any other. Hear Job, who in chapter 34 says thus: "Whom did he appoint as another over the earth? or whom did he set over the world which he made?" And Paul: "Who upholds all things by the word of his power." And the author of the book of Wisdom: "How could anything endure unless thou hadst willed it? or what was not called by thee be preserved?" Which David too pursues at greater length in that psalm, when he says: "All things wait upon thee, that thou give them food in due season," and the rest that follows.¹⁰⁶

Heaven and earth.¹⁰⁷

Caelum et terram.

Quatuor esse animadverto nobiliores horum verborum interpretationes. Prima interpretatio est Mosem his verbis noluisse docere Caelum et terram esse condita ante primum diem, nec eorum effectionem tradere hoc loco, sed nomine Caeli et terrae totum hunc mundum corporeum (id quod fit crebro in sacris litteris) significare voluisse; ita ut consilium Mosis fuerit strictim et summatim veluti ante oculos ponere universum mundi opificium, deinde per sex dies ipsum particulatim explicare, quid quoquo die a Deo sit factum sigillatim enarrando: ut, si quis ita loquatur, "Hic architectus fabricatus est ingens hoc et magnificum palatium, et primo quidem altissimum firmissimumque iecit fundamentum ex magnis firmisque saxis compactum, tum amplissimos celsissimosque parietes excitavit," ceterasque deinceps partes eius palatii ab illo affabre designatas sigillatim exponeret. Haec interpretatio apprime placet Chrysostomo: memoratur etiam nec improbatur ab Augustino in capite tertio libri secundi contra Manichaeos, et libro undecimo de Civitate Dei capite 33. Basilius vero in homilia 3 super Genesim ait eam fuisse a maioribus traditam, sibi tamen non probari.

I observe that there are four nobler interpretations of these words. The first interpretation is that Moses by these words did not wish to teach that Heaven and earth were founded before the first day, nor to relate their making in this place, but wished by the name of "Heaven and earth" to signify this whole corporeal world (as is often done in the sacred writings); so that Moses' intent was, briefly and summarily, to set before the eyes, as it were, the whole fabric of the world, and then through six days to explain it part by part, narrating one by one what was made by God on each day — as if someone were to say, "This architect built this huge and magnificent palace, and first indeed laid a most deep and firm foundation, compacted of great firm stones, then raised up most ample and lofty walls," and should then set forth one by one the other parts of that palace skillfully designed by him. This interpretation pleases Chrysostom especially; it is also mentioned, and not disapproved, by Augustine in chapter 3 of the second book against the Manichees, and in book 11 of the City of God, chapter 33. But Basil, in the third homily on Genesis, says it was handed down by the ancients, yet is not approved by him.¹⁰⁸

Et vero nec mihi admodum probatur: connexio enim et continuatio verborum Mosis eam respuere videtur. Nam cum Moses dixisset "In principio creavit Deus Caelum et terram," subdit "terra autem erat inanis et vacua": in qua sententia illa particula "autem" copulativa arguit proxime ante creationem terrae fuisse positam. Et certe Mosem his verbis tradere creationem Caeli et terrae non obscure videtur David indicare in psalmo 101, qui hunc ipsum Mosis locum spectans ait: "Initio tu, Domine, terram fundasti, et opera manuum tuarum sunt Caeli."

And indeed neither do I much approve it: for the connection and continuation of Moses' words seems to reject it. For when Moses had said "In the beginning God created Heaven and earth," he adds "but the earth was void and empty": in which sentence that copulative particle "but" shows that [the creation of heaven and earth] was set down just before the creation of the earth [i.e., as a real prior act, not a mere summary]. And surely David seems to indicate not obscurely that Moses by these words relates the creation of Heaven and earth, in Psalm 101 [102], who, looking to this very passage of Moses, says: "In the beginning thou, O Lord, didst found the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands."¹⁰⁹

Altera interpretatio est Augustini in libro duodecimo Confessionum cap. septimo: is enim per caelum interpretatur naturam Angelicam, per terram materiam informem omnium corporum; ut a principio Deus res duas condiderit, velut duo totius entis creati extrema: alterum summum et prope Deum, qui est Angelus; alterum infimum et prope nihil, quae est materia prima. Verum hanc interpretationem non esse litteralem manifeste constat eo argumento, quod haec Mosis doctrina et narratio omnino est historica (ut supra docuimus cum regulas quasdam traderemus). Si autem est historica, proculdubio verba illius proprie, non figurate sunt accipienda: quid autem magis est praeter propriam et usitatam vocum significationem, aut magis extra communem loquendi consuetudinem, quam caeli nomine naturam Angelicam, terrae autem vocabulo materiam informem appellare?

The second interpretation is Augustine's, in book twelve of the Confessions, chapter seven: for he interprets "heaven" as the Angelic nature, and "earth" as the unformed matter of all bodies; so that in the beginning God founded two things, as the two extremes of the whole created being — the one highest and near to God, which is the Angel; the other lowest and near to nothing, which is prime matter. But that this interpretation is not the literal one is manifestly established by this argument: that this teaching and narration of Moses is wholly historical (as we taught above, when we laid down certain rules). And if it is historical, undoubtedly his words are to be taken properly, not figuratively; and what is more beyond the proper and customary signification of words, or more outside the common usage of speaking, than to call the Angelic nature by the name of "heaven," and unformed matter by the word "earth"?¹¹⁰

Quod si verba Mosis a propria eorum significatione ad figuratam et mysticam detorqueantur, cum eiusmodi significationes et interpretationes mysticae sint admodum variae et multiplices, nullam profecto ex hoc loco stabilem et certam de mundi creatione doctrinam et sententiam Mosis eruere possemus.

But if the words of Moses are wrested from their proper signification to a figurative and mystical one, then — since such mystical significations and interpretations are quite various and manifold — we could surely draw from this passage no stable and certain teaching and judgment of Moses concerning the creation of the world.¹¹¹

Tertia interpretatio est eiusdem Augustini, qui in priori volumine de Genesi contra Manichaeos tam per caelum quam per terram significari putat materiam primam, ex qua constant quidem omnia corpora, sed primo et principaliter caelum et terra, ut ob eam causam eorum nominibus ea sit a Mose nuncupata. Sed haec Augustini sententia, quo planius intelligatur, ipsa eius verba hic subiiciam, quae sunt in capite septimo eius libri:

The third interpretation is of the same Augustine, who, in the earlier volume on Genesis against the Manichees, thinks that by both "heaven" and "earth" is signified prime matter — of which indeed all bodies consist, but first and principally heaven and earth, so that for that reason it was named by Moses with their names. But, that this opinion of Augustine may be understood more plainly, I shall here subjoin his own words, which are in the seventh chapter of his book:¹¹²

"That unformed matter, which God made from nothing, was first called heaven and earth: not because it already was this, but because it could be this; for heaven too is written to have been made afterward. Just as, if, considering the seed of a tree, we should say that there are in it roots and trunk and branches and fruits and leaves — not because they already are, but because they are to come to be from it. By this kind of speech the Lord too speaks, when he says: 'I will no longer call you servants, for the servant knows not what his Lord does; but you I have called friends, because all things whatsoever I have heard from my Father I have made known to you' — not because it had already been done, but because it most certainly was to be. For a little after he says to them: 'I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.' Why, then, had he said 'All things that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you,' except because he knew that he was going to do this?" Thus Augustine.¹¹³

"Informis illa materia, quam de nihilo Deus fecit, appellata est primo caelum et terra: non quia iam hoc erat, sed quia hoc esse poterat; nam et caelum scribitur postea factum. Quemadmodum, si semen arboris considerantes dicamus ibi esse radices et robur et ramos et fructus et folia: non quia iam sunt, sed quia inde futura sunt. Isto genere locutionis etiam Dominus loquitur, cum dicit: 'Iam non dicam vos servos, quia servus nescit quid faciat Dominus eius; vos autem dixi amicos, quia omnia quaecumque audivi a Patre meo nota feci vobis': non quia iam factum erat, sed quia certissime futurum erat. Nam post paululum dicit illis: 'Adhuc multa habeo vobis dicere, sed non potestis portare modo.' Ut quid ergo dixerat 'Omnia quae audivi a Patre meo nota feci vobis,' nisi quia se sciebat hoc esse facturum?" Haec Augustinus.

Sed expositio haec iisdem argumentis, quibus quae proxime a nobis confutata est, refelli potest. Praeterea vero, nimis durum et insolens videtur materiam primam appellari nomine caeli et terrae, quod haec corpora formanda essent ex illa: pari enim ratione appellari potuisset et aqua, et aër, et ignis, et quodlibet aliorum corporum. Nec fit credibile Mosem, haec scribentem Hebraeis rudibus et indoctis, voluisse eos docere materiam primam, quam vix satis docti et acu[ti]...

But this exposition can be refuted by the same arguments by which the one just confuted by us [was refuted]. Moreover, it seems too harsh and unusual that prime matter should be called by the name of heaven and earth on the ground that these bodies were to be formed from it: for by equal reasoning it could also be called water, and air, and fire, and any of the other bodies. Nor is it credible that Moses, writing these things for the rude and unlearned Hebrews, wished to teach them prime matter — which scarcely men sufficiently learned and acu[te]...¹¹⁴

...et acuti philosophi intelligentia comprehendere potuerunt. Remotum etiam a ratione videtur divinam Scripturam, quae toties Deum eo praedicat et magnificat quod creaverit caelum et terram (id quod sine dubio ex hoc Mosis loco accepit), significare voluisse Deum fecisse materiam primam: cum enim ea sit infima et vilissima rerum omnium a Deo conditarum, non ob eius creationem toties et tantopere Deum laudandum et praedicandum esse existimasset.

...and acute philosophers could comprehend by their understanding. It also seems far from reason that divine Scripture — which so often proclaims and magnifies God because he created heaven and earth (which it undoubtedly took from this passage of Moses) — should have wished to signify that God made prime matter: for since prime matter is the lowest and basest of all things founded by God, [Scripture] would not have thought that God was to be so often and so greatly praised and proclaimed on account of its creation.¹¹⁵

Quarta interpretatio est pervulgata apud Theologos, iam enim annis abhinc nongentis a plerisque Theologorum recepta et probata est. In ea enim fuit Beda, Alcuinus, Rabanus, Magister sententiarum, et eius vestigia persequentes Scholastici Theologi, itemque Nicolaus de Lyra, et Magister historiae scholasticae, Tostatus quoque, atque Catharinus. Horum communis est opinio nomine Caeli hoc loco intelligendum esse tantummodo caelum Empyreum, multis rebus maxime diversum a ceteris caelis.

The fourth interpretation is widespread among the theologians, for it has now for nine hundred years been received and approved by most of them. In it were Bede, Alcuin, Rabanus (Maurus), the Master of the Sentences (Peter Lombard), and the Scholastic theologians who follow in his footsteps; likewise Nicholas of Lyra, and the Master of the Scholastic History (Peter Comestor), Tostatus too, and Catharinus. Their common opinion is that by the name of "Heaven" in this place is to be understood only the Empyrean heaven, in many respects most different from the other heavens.¹¹⁶

Verum de hoc caelo empyreo, Augustini Eugubini non falsam modo, sed etiam perabsurdam, et a Christiana disciplina valde abhorrentem sententiam, velut in transcursu perstringere ac refellere non alienum duco. Is igitur in sua Cosmopaeia, inter alia quaedam paradoxa, hoc etiam tradidit, idemque repetiit in tractatu quem fecit de Naturis incorporeis: Caelum empyreum esse quippiam aeternum et increatum, hoc est, esse lucem et claritatem quandam manantem ex Dei essentia, in qua Deus est, et ad cuius participationem atque fruitionem tam boni Angeli quam viri iusti admittuntur.

But concerning this empyrean heaven, I think it not amiss to touch upon and refute in passing the opinion of Agostino Steuco of Gubbio (Eugubinus) — an opinion not only false, but even utterly absurd and greatly abhorrent to Christian teaching. For he, in his Cosmopoeia, among certain other paradoxes, handed down this too (and repeated it in the treatise he made On Incorporeal Natures): that the empyrean heaven is something eternal and uncreated — that is, that it is a certain light and brightness emanating from the essence of God, in which God is, and to the participation and enjoyment of which both the good Angels and just men are admitted.¹¹⁷

"Haec enim est," inquit, "illa aeterna lux et claritas Dei, quae in scriptura toties iustis hominibus pro mercede laborum promittitur": de qua intelligendum putat illud quod de Deo in Psalmo centesimo tertio canit David, "Amictus lumine sicut vestimento"; et illud Pauli, "Qui lucem habitat inaccessibilem"; et illud Domini apud Ioannem, "Clarifica me tu, Pater, claritate quam habui priusquam mundus fieret apud te." Huius lucis specimen quoddam datum est in transfiguratione Domini nostri, et in rubo Mosis, et in eius vultu ex colloquio et consuetudine cum Deo habita supra humanum obtutum resplendente.

"For this," he says, "is that eternal light and brightness of God, which in Scripture is so often promised to just men as the reward of their labors": of which he thinks is to be understood what David sings of God in Psalm 103, "Clothed with light as with a garment"; and Paul's words, "Who dwells in light inaccessible"; and the Lord's words in John, "Glorify thou me, Father, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." A certain specimen of this light was given in the Transfiguration of our Lord, and in the bush of Moses, and in his face, shining beyond human gaze from the converse and intimacy he had with God.¹¹⁸

Hanc opinionem confirmat Eugubinus testimonio Basilii, qui homilia secunda super Genesim inquit arbitrari se ante molitionem huius mundi corporei fuisse lucem et claritatem quandam inenarrabilem, in qua versabantur Angeli, et quae iustis hominibus in divina scriptura crebro promittitur. Existimat hoc etiam vidisse Homerum quasi per nebulam, cum sedem et domicilium Deorum appellavit Olympum, hoc est, totum splendentem atque collucentem. Atque haec fuit Eugubini opinio: quam ego non tam refellendam, quam omnino explodendam atque execrandam, ac si fieri posset sempiterna oblivione sepeliendam iudico. Cuius enim ani[mus]...

Eugubinus confirms this opinion by the testimony of Basil, who in the second homily on Genesis says that he thinks there was, before the construction of this corporeal world, a certain ineffable light and brightness, in which the Angels dwelt, and which is often promised to just men in divine Scripture. He thinks that Homer too saw this, as if through a mist, when he called the seat and dwelling of the Gods "Olympus," that is, wholly shining and resplendent. And this was the opinion of Eugubinus: which I judge must not so much be refuted as utterly exploded and execrated, and, if it could be done, buried in everlasting oblivion. For whose mind...¹¹⁹

...[ani]mus non horreat audire rem esse aliquam quae Deus non est, Deo tamen ipsi coaeternam et increatam? Quid magis contrarium scripturae dici potest? cuius illae sunt tot in locis tam illustres sententiae: "Omnia per ipsum facta sunt"; et "Qui omnia creavit, Deus est"; et rursus "Creavit ut essent omnia"; apud Paulum etiam in primo capite Epistolae ad Colossenses, et in Symbolo fidei, "Deus pronunciatur ac declaratur conditor omnium rerum visibilium et invisibilium." Vix autem possum existimare quae fuerit Eugubini de suo illo empyreo Caelo mens, qui sensus, quae cogitatio. Ait esse lucem et claritatem quandam: sed qualis est ista lux? num accidens solitarium, et per se cohaerens? At repugnat hoc naturae accidentis, nec sine miraculo fieri potest.

...[whose] mind would not shudder to hear that there is something which is not God, yet coeternal with God himself and uncreated? What more contrary to Scripture could be said? — Scripture, whose are those illustrious sayings in so many places: "All things were made through him"; and "He who created all things is God"; and again "He created that all things might be"; and, in Paul, in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians, and in the Creed, "God is proclaimed and declared the founder of all things visible and invisible." But I can scarcely conceive what Eugubinus's mind was about that empyrean Heaven of his, what his understanding, what his thought. He says it is a certain light and brightness: but what sort of light is this? Is it a solitary accident, cohering by itself? But this is repugnant to the nature of an accident, nor can it come to be without a miracle.¹²⁰

An dicet esse substantiam? Sed utram? num corpoream? Verum qualis erit ista natura corporea, et ex quo genere corporum? Fuit igitur corpus aliquod ante mundi huius molitionem? Num incorpoream? Erit igitur spiritus aliquis et natura intelligens. Praeterea, si manat ista lux ex natura et maiestate Deitatis, haud dubie manabit ex necessitate naturae, hoc est tanta quanta est vis Divinitatis: erit igitur infinita; quo quid absurdius et incredibilius dici potest? Denique quocumque se verset Eugubinus, mille implicabitur et irretietur laqueis, nec se ulla ratione extricare poterit.

Or will he say it is a substance? But which? a corporeal one? But what sort of corporeal nature will it be, and of what kind of bodies? Was there, then, some body before the construction of this world? Or an incorporeal one? Then it will be some spirit and an intelligent nature. Moreover, if that light emanates from the nature and majesty of the Deity, it will doubtless emanate by necessity of nature — that is, as great as is the power of the Divinity: therefore it will be infinite; than which what more absurd and incredible could be said? In short, wherever Eugubinus turns, he will be entangled and ensnared in a thousand snares, nor will he be able to extricate himself by any reasoning.¹²¹

At enim vero dicet aliquis Eugubinum satis modeste hanc opinionem suam prodidisse, subiecisse enim eam iudicio et censurae Ecclesiae, paratum, si ab Ecclesia damnetur, eam quoque damnare. Recte istud quidem: sed quanto satius fuisset tam perversum et impium dogma non evulgare, quam cum istiusmodi correctione relinquere in scriptis, quod lectori non admodum cauto et erudito errandi praebeat occasionem? Itaque vere dici potuisset Eugubino, quod in quendam scite dixit Cato: "Quare," inquit, "culpam deprecari, quam ea carere maluisti?"

But indeed someone will say that Eugubinus put forth this opinion of his modestly enough, for he submitted it to the judgment and censure of the Church, prepared, if it be condemned by the Church, to condemn it himself. That, indeed, is right: but how much better it would have been not to publish so perverse and impious a dogma, than to leave it in his writings with a correction of this sort, which gives a not very cautious and learned reader occasion to err? And so it could truly have been said to Eugubinus what Cato cleverly said to a certain man: "Why," he says, "have you preferred to beg pardon for a fault, rather than to be free of it?"¹²²

Lux autem illa et claritas supercaelestis, in qua Deus esse dicitur, et qua beati omnes perfruuntur, vel est ipsemet Deus, cuius inenarrabilis decor, pulchritudo, et vis illuminandi et laetificandi tam hominum quam Angelorum mentes similitudine ac nomine lucis exprimitur; vel est vita aeterna iustis hominibus promissa, quae, eo quod habet in se clarissimam Dei cognitionem cum summa laetitia et gaudio coniunctam, lux rite nominatur; vel est claritas qua caelum empyreum omni ex parte mirabiliter collucet, simul cum ipso caelo condita. Ex quo perspicuum fit, propter supradictas scripturae sententias quae commemorantur ab Eugubino, non modo esse absurdum, sed etiam ridiculum, caelum empyreum esse lucem quandam coaeternam Deo prorsus increatam, et ex Dei natura et maiestate naturaliter manantem, arbitrari.

But that supercelestial light and brightness, in which God is said to be, and which all the blessed fully enjoy, is either God himself — whose ineffable comeliness, beauty, and power of illuminating and gladdening the minds both of men and of Angels is expressed by the likeness and name of light; or it is the eternal life promised to just men, which, because it has in itself the clearest knowledge of God joined with the highest joy and gladness, is rightly named "light"; or it is the brightness with which the empyrean heaven marvelously shines on every side, founded together with the heaven itself. From which it becomes clear that, on account of the aforesaid sayings of Scripture cited by Eugubinus, it is not only absurd but even ridiculous to think that the empyrean heaven is a certain light coeternal with God and wholly uncreated, naturally emanating from the nature and majesty of God.¹²³

Sed omisso Eugubini figmento, videamus quale esse velint caelum empyreum supradicti Theologi, quod hoc loco a Mose caeli vocabulo significari arbitrantur. Affirmant esse corpus totius mundi altissimum...

But, leaving aside Eugubinus's fiction, let us see what sort the aforesaid theologians wish the empyrean heaven to be — which they think is signified in this place by Moses by the word "heaven." They affirm that it is the highest body of the whole world...¹²⁴

...altissimum et amplissimum, penitus immobile et impassibile, totum lucens — non luce densa quae radios fundat et quae sit oculis mortalium conspicua, sed luce tali qualis esse dicitur in elemento ignis, quod supra aërem orbi lunae subsidet. Porro Caelum empyreum dicunt a principio creatum esse, plenum ornatumque atque distinctum novem Angelorum ordinibus, et Divinae potentiae claritate atque maiestate, supra quam dici aut etiam cogitari possit, decorari atque illustrari. Hic Deum suam essentiam clarissime videndam beatis mentibus aperire; huc evolare iustorum animos, corpore solutos nullaque peccati macula infectos; hic denique post resurrectionem omnes iustos simul cum corporibus suis commoraturos.

...the highest and most ample body, utterly immobile and impassible, wholly shining — not with a dense light that pours forth rays and is visible to mortal eyes, but with such a light as is said to be in the element of fire, which lies above the air, beneath the orb of the moon. Moreover, they say the empyrean Heaven was created from the beginning, full and adorned and distinguished with the nine orders of Angels, and decorated and illumined with the brightness and majesty of Divine power beyond what can be said or even thought. Here God opens his essence to be most clearly seen by the blessed minds; hither fly the souls of the just, freed from the body and stained by no spot of sin; here, finally, after the resurrection, all the just will dwell together with their bodies.¹²⁵

Putant etiam Caelum hoc significari a scriptura, quotiescumque ea dicit "Caelum Caeli" vel "Caeli Caelorum": veluti cum David ait "Caelum caeli Domino," et "Laudate Dominum caeli caelorum"; et Moses, "Domini caelum est, et caelum caeli." Atque hoc Caelum Damascenus, libro secundo de Fide orthodoxa capite sexto, existimat esse tertium illud Caelum, ad quod Paulus 2 Corinth. 12 raptum se esse dicit: ut per primum Caelum intelligatur aëreum, per secundum id omne quod est sydereum, per tertium vero ipsum empyreum, quod etiam in scriptura vocatur Terra viventium et Regio vivorum. David enim dixit "Portio mea in terra viventium," et "Placebo Domino in regione vivorum"; quin etiam simpliciter dicitur Terra, Dominus enim dixit "Beati mites, quoniam ipsi possidebunt terram."

They think also that this Heaven is signified by Scripture, as often as it says "the Heaven of Heaven" or "the Heavens of Heavens": as when David says "The heaven of heaven [is] for the Lord," and "Praise the Lord, you heavens of heavens"; and Moses, "Behold, the heaven is the Lord's, and the heaven of heaven." And this Heaven, Damascene (in the second book of On the Orthodox Faith, ch. 6) thinks is that third Heaven to which Paul (2 Cor. 12) says he was caught up: so that by the first Heaven is understood the aerial, by the second all that is starry, and by the third the empyrean itself — which in Scripture is also called "the land of the living" and "the region of the living." For David said "My portion is in the land of the living," and "I will please the Lord in the region of the living"; nay, it is even called simply "the earth/land," for the Lord said "Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the earth."¹²⁶

Tum quod, sicut inter elementa sola terra est immobilis, ita inter Caelos empyreum; tum quod quemadmodum terra nunc est domicilium hominum mortalem vitam viventium, ita post resurrectionem Caelum empyreum erit sedes iustorum hominum beatam vitam perpetuo aevo degentium.

Both because, as among the elements the earth alone is immobile, so among the Heavens [the immobile one is] the empyrean; and because, just as the earth is now the dwelling of men living the mortal life, so after the resurrection the empyrean Heaven will be the seat of the just, who will pass the blessed life for eternity.¹²⁷

Quod autem Moses hoc loco nomine Caeli empyrei Caeli creationem tradere voluerit, tribus argumentis confirmant. Primum argumentum petitur ex ipsa scriptura, quae in hac narratione Mosis distinguit Caelum a firmamento et aquis supra firmamentum factis secundo die, et a sole et luna ceterisque astris quae quarto die sunt condita. Cum igitur per firmamentum intelligatur octava sphaera, per aquas supra firmamentum locatas nonum Caelum (quod vocant crystallinum), per solem autem lunamque et astra septem orbes planetarum: relinquitur per caelum in principio factum non aliud posse intelligi quam caelum empyreum; cumque scriptura toties praedicet hoc Caelum, ut supra diximus, non est credibile eius creationem praetermissam esse a Mose, sed cum sit primum omnium, primo etiam loco esse traditam.

Now that Moses in this place, by the name of "Heaven," wished to hand down the creation of the empyrean Heaven, they confirm by three arguments. The first argument is drawn from Scripture itself, which in this narration of Moses distinguishes "Heaven" from the firmament and the waters above the firmament made on the second day, and from the sun and moon and the other stars founded on the fourth day. Since, therefore, by the firmament is understood the eighth sphere, by the waters placed above the firmament the ninth Heaven (which they call the crystalline), and by the sun and moon and stars the seven orbs of the planets — it remains that by the "heaven" made in the beginning nothing else can be understood than the empyrean heaven; and since Scripture so often proclaims this Heaven (as we said above), it is not credible that its creation was passed over by Moses, but, since it is the first of all, it was handed down in the first place too.¹²⁸

Alterum argumentum ductum est ex quadam convenientia et congruentia: si enim Deus propter statum hominis mortalis, et ad huius brevis vitae usus et commoda, tot Caelos condidit qui irrequieta conversione circumagantur, quanto magis consentaneum fuit facere Caelum aliquod quod esset statui hominis post resurrectionem, animo...

The second argument is drawn from a certain fitness and congruity: for if God, for the sake of the state of mortal man and for the uses and conveniences of this brief life, founded so many Heavens that are whirled about in restless revolution, how much more fitting was it to make some Heaven that would suit the state of man after the resurrection — [a state in which man], in soul...¹²⁹

...animo simul et corpore beatam et immortalem vitam agentis maxime congruens domicilium? Si quaerat quispiam quid opus fuerit Caelum empyreum creari in exordio mundi, cuius futurus non erat usus nisi post saeculi consummationem: respondent isti creari debuisse a principio, tum quod sit corpus incorruptibile, omnia autem corpora incorruptibilia ab initio sunt facta; tum quod huiusmodi Caelum est conditum propter statum gloriae iustorum. Duplex autem gloria expectatur, altera spiritualis, corporalis altera, non solum in humani corporis glorificatione, sed in totius etiam mundi renovatione, ut Paulus docet in capite octavo Epistolae quam scripsit ad Romanos.

...[man] living, in soul and body together, the blessed and immortal life, [would have] a most fitting dwelling? If someone should ask what need there was for the empyrean Heaven to be created at the beginning of the world, whose use was not to be until after the consummation of the age: they answer that it had to be created from the beginning, both because it is an incorruptible body, and all incorruptible bodies were made from the beginning; and because such a Heaven was founded for the state of the glory of the just. Now a twofold glory is awaited, the one spiritual, the other corporeal — [consisting] not only in the glorification of the human body, but also in the renovation of the whole world, as Paul teaches in the eighth chapter of the Epistle he wrote to the Romans.¹³⁰

In exordio autem mundi gloria spiritualis inchoata est in sanctis et beatis Angelis, quorum aequalitas in Evangelio promittitur iustis: quare conveniebat ut etiam gloria corporalis a principio inchoaretur in aliquo corpore, quod esset velut exemplar eius gloriae quam universa creatura corporalis post iustorum resurrectionem expectat. Vide sanctum Thomam 1 parte, quaestione 66, articulo tertio.

And at the beginning of the world the spiritual glory was begun in the holy and blessed Angels, equality with whom is promised to the just in the Gospel: wherefore it was fitting that the corporeal glory too should be begun from the beginning in some body, which would be, as it were, the exemplar of that glory which the whole corporeal creation awaits after the resurrection of the just. See St. Thomas, part 1, question 66, article 3.¹³¹

Tertium argumentum nititur veterum et nobilium scriptorum, qui hoc idem senserunt, auctoritate; et, ut tacitus praeteream quos supra nominavi, certe ante nongentos annos Beda primus omnium perspicuis et disertis verbis hanc huius loci Mosaici intelligentiam et sententiam tradit in suo Hexamero, brevi quidem sed vere aureo libello, qui superioribus annis sub nomine et inscriptione Iunilii Afri falso est evulgatus, cum certis argumentis constet auctorem eius fuisse Bedam. In eo igitur libello Beda prope initium ita scribit:

The third argument rests on the authority of ancient and noble writers who held this same view; and, to pass over in silence those I named above, certainly nine hundred years ago Bede, first of all, in clear and eloquent words, hands down this understanding and interpretation of this Mosaic passage in his Hexameron — a brief but truly golden booklet, which in former years was falsely published under the name and title of Junilius Africanus, although by certain arguments it is established that its author was Bede. In that booklet, then, Bede near the beginning writes thus:¹³²

"The Heaven which Moses writes that God made in the beginning is that higher Heaven, which, set apart from all the whirling state of this world, remains ever at rest in the presence of the divine glory. For concerning our Heaven, in which are placed the lights necessary for this age, Scripture in what follows declares how and when it was made: that higher Heaven, then — which is inaccessible to the sight of all mortals — was not created empty and void, as the earth was, which in its first creation produced none of the green sprouts or of the living animals; because, doubtless, when created it was at once filled with its inhabitants, that is, with the most blessed hosts of the Angels." Thus Bede, in which place he also cites the blessed Jerome as a supporter of this opinion.¹³³

"Caelum, quod in principio Deum fecisse scribit Moses, ipsum est Caelum superius, quod, ab omni huius mundi volubili statu secretum, divinae gloriae praesentia manet semper quietum. Nam de nostro Caelo, in quo sunt posita luminaria huic saeculo necessaria, in sequentibus scriptura quomodo vel quando sit factum declarat: non ergo superius illud Caelum, quod mortalium omnium est inaccessibile conspectibus, inane creatum est et vacuum, ut terra, quae nil in prima sua creatione virentium germinum vel viventium produxit animantium; quia nimirum suis incolis mox creatum, hoc est beatissimis Angelorum agminibus impletum est." Haec Beda, quo loco etiam Beatum Hieronymum laudat huius sententiae suffragatorem.

Praeterea citatur in eandem sententiam Basilius, qui in secunda et tertia homilia super Genesim affirmat Caelum in principio factum esse diversum a firmamento, quod factum est secundo die: illud enim esse supremum, super quod sit lux inenarrabilis, in qua tam Angeli quam animi hominum beati versantur. Similia quaedam scribit Theodoretus in Quaestionibus suis super Genesim, quaestione undecima et decimaquarta. In Catena vero Lippomani ponitur sententia Diodori, Episcopi Tharsensis, quem Chrysostomi magistrum fuisse ferunt; is ait non esse hoc loco nomine Caeli intelligendum Caelum quodcumque est oculis mortalium...

Moreover, Basil is cited for the same opinion, who in the second and third homilies on Genesis affirms that the Heaven made in the beginning is different from the firmament that was made on the second day: for that [first heaven] is the supreme one, above which is the ineffable light, in which both the Angels and the blessed souls of men dwell. Theodoret writes some similar things in his Questions on Genesis, questions 11 and 14. And in Lippomanus's Catena is placed the opinion of Diodore, Bishop of Tarsus (whom they report to have been Chrysostom's teacher); he says that in this place, by the name of "Heaven," no heaven that is [visible] to the eyes of mortals is to be understood...¹³⁴

...[Caelum quodcumque est oculis] mortalium aspectabile, sed superius quoddam et divinius, quod Caelum Caeli vocatur in scriptura. Damascenus autem libro secundo de Fide orthodoxa capite sexto, idem ferme scribens de hoc caelo, inquit esse ipsum mundi supremum terminum, sedem Angelorum, et sublimius omni Caelo sydereo, quod in sacris litteris appellatur Caelum Caeli, et a Paulo Tertium Caelum. Subiungit praeterea Caelum hoc cognitum fuisse a sapientibus huius mundi et memoriae proditum: vocari enim ab ipsis ἄναστρον, hoc est instellatum (starless), quae Mosis propria sunt sua facientibus dogmata.

...[any heaven that is] visible to the eyes of mortals, but a certain higher and more divine one, which in Scripture is called "the Heaven of Heaven." And Damascene, in the second book of On the Orthodox Faith, ch. 6, writing almost the same about this heaven, says it is the supreme boundary of the world, the seat of the Angels, and more sublime than all the starry Heaven — which in the sacred writings is called "the Heaven of Heaven," and by Paul "the Third Heaven." He adds besides that this Heaven was known to the wise of this world and recorded in memory: for it is called by them ἄναστρον (anastron), that is, "starless" — they making the things proper to Moses their own dogmas.¹³⁵

Quin enim Ioannes Picus Mirandulanus, in suo Heptaplo capite primo secundae expositionis, duos nominat Hebraeorum sapientes, Abraham Hispanum insignem Astrologum, et Isaac in Philosophia nobilem, quorum uterque tradidit Caelum empyreum: Isaac vero putavit eum orbem esse adumbratum ab Ezechiele per sapphirum in similitudinem throni, ut color sapphiri lucis nitorem, throni autem similitudo stabilitatem et immobilitatem eius Caeli declaret. Quid igitur praedicti scriptores putaverint per Caelum hoc loco intelligendum esse, satis est expositum.

Indeed, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, in his Heptaplus, ch. 1 of the second exposition, names two Hebrew sages — Abraham the Spaniard, a distinguished Astrologer, and Isaac, noble in Philosophy — both of whom handed down [the doctrine of] the empyrean Heaven: and Isaac thought that this orb was adumbrated by Ezekiel through the "sapphire" in the likeness of a throne, so that the color of sapphire declares the splendor of light, and the likeness of a throne the stability and immobility of that Heaven. What, then, the aforesaid writers thought is to be understood by "Heaven" in this place has been sufficiently expounded.¹³⁶

Nomine autem terrae censent significari a Mose materiam primam, vel informem omnino (ut videtur sensisse beatus Augustinus, sicut paulo supra diximus, et ex scholasticis in secunda Sent. Marsilius et Gabriel), vel non quidem omnino informem, sed habentem tantummodo generalem quandam formam corporis, velut corpulentam quandam massam, quae totum illud vacuum quod est intra Caeli empyrei ambitum occupabat et implebat; et ab initio erat corpulenta quaedam massa rudis et indigesta, ex qua deinceps corpora omnia, tam caelestia quam sublunaria, composita et conformata sunt.

But by the name of "earth" they think prime matter is signified by Moses — either wholly unformed (as the blessed Augustine seems to have held, as we said a little above, and among the scholastics, on the second [book] of the Sentences, Marsilius [of Inghen] and Gabriel [Biel]); or not indeed wholly unformed, but having only a certain general form of body, like a corpulent mass, which occupied and filled all that void within the compass of the empyrean Heaven; and from the beginning it was a corpulent mass, rude and unsorted, out of which afterward all bodies, both celestial and sublunary, were composed and formed.¹³⁷

Existimant autem ruditatem et informitatem huiusmodi materiae fuisse adumbratam a Mose tripliciter: primo, nomine terrae, quod ut terra subiacet aliis omnibus elementis et est locus omnium mistorum, sic materia subiecta est omnibus formis quae ex eius quasi utero gignuntur et in eius sinu et gremio continentur. Deinde insinuari vocabulo aquae, cum dicitur "Spiritus Domini ferebatur super aquas": propterea quod, quemadmodum aqua est maxime formabilis et quoquo modo figurabilis, ita est materia tractabilis et flexibilis a quolibet agente, et ad quamvis formam accipiendam facile comparari et accommodari potest. Postremo significari eam vocabulo Abyssi, illis verbis "Et tenebrae erant super faciem abyssi." Vox enim Abyssi significat profunditatem quandam visu impenetrabilem; non est autem dissimilis huius materiae natura, quippe non est per se comprehensibilis, sed, auctore Platone, spuria tantum et adulterina notione cognoscitur. Aristoteli autem placet eius notitiam capi ex analogia ad materiam rerum artificialium. Hanc opinionem memorat Lyranus, et probat Tostatus, et [...] tribuitur...

Now they think that the rudeness and formlessness of such matter was adumbrated by Moses in three ways: first, by the name of "earth," because, as earth lies beneath all the other elements and is the place of all compound things, so matter is subject to all the forms which are generated, as it were, from its womb, and are contained in its bosom and lap. Next, it is insinuated by the word "water," when it is said "the Spirit of the Lord was borne over the waters": because, just as water is most formable and shapeable in any way, so matter is tractable and flexible by any agent, and can easily be procured and accommodated to receive any form whatever. Finally, it is signified by the word "Abyss," in those words "And darkness was over the face of the abyss." For the word "Abyss" signifies a certain depth impenetrable to sight; and the nature of this matter is not unlike it, for it is not comprehensible in itself, but (on Plato's authority) is known only by a spurious and adulterate notion. Aristotle, however, holds that the knowledge of it is grasped by analogy to the matter of artificial things. This opinion Nicholas of Lyra mentions, and Tostatus approves, and [...] it is attributed...¹³⁸

...tribuitur ea Bedae, Strabo, Hugoni, sed male. Porro hanc illi opinionem confirmant etiam testimonio scripturae, quae in capite undecimo libri Sapientiae tradit fecisse Deum orbem terrarum ex materia invisa, seu (ut est in codicibus Graecis, et ita solet usurpari ab Augustino) ex materia informi. "Si mundus," inquiunt, "ex materia informi est conditus, eius materiam ante alia in principio esse conditam, eiusque effectionem a Mose primo loco esse traditam, maxime consentaneum est."

...it is attributed to Bede, [Walafrid] Strabo, and Hugh [of St. Victor], but wrongly. Moreover, they confirm this opinion also by the testimony of Scripture, which in the eleventh chapter of the book of Wisdom relates that God made the world "from unseen matter" — or (as it is in the Greek codices, and as Augustine is wont to use it) "from formless matter." "If the world," they say, "was founded from formless matter, it is most fitting that its matter was founded before other things in the beginning, and that its making was handed down by Moses in the first place."¹³⁹

Est autem huius sententiae perquam affine et simillimum quod docet Philastrius Episcopus Brixiensis in catalogo haereseon: insimulat enim haereseos eos qui dicunt Mosem nomine terrae in principio creatae significare voluisse terram hanc nostram elementarem, cum a Mose significetur alia quaedam terra, quae est velut matrix omnium rerum, quae in scriptura vocatur Hyle, hoc est materia invisibilis et incomposita, quae a Deo facta est in principio: haec autem nostra terra facta est, deinde et fundata super aquam, sicut dixit David "Qui firmavit terram super aquas." Illa vero matrix omnium rerum terra immensa est, et aquam et terram vi sua continens. Haec Philastrius.

And very akin and most similar to this opinion is what Philastrius, Bishop of Brescia, teaches in his catalogue of heresies: for he charges with heresy those who say that Moses, by the name of the "earth" created in the beginning, wished to signify this our elemental earth — whereas by Moses some other "earth" is signified, which is, as it were, the matrix of all things, which in Scripture is called Hyle, that is, invisible and uncomposed matter, which was made by God in the beginning; but this earth of ours was made afterward, and founded upon the water, as David said "Who established the earth above the waters." But that earth which is the matrix of all things is immense, containing both water and earth by its own power. Thus Philastrius.¹⁴⁰

Ceterum nomine terrae non esse intelligendam materiam informem, quae primo et ante alia creata fuerit a Deo, sanctus Thomas prima parte, quaestione sexagesima sexta, articulo primo, ad hunc modum argumentatur: per materiam primam per se creatam ante alia omnia, vel intelligunt isti vere materiam primam nudam omni forma — at cum huiusmodi materia sit ens in pura potentia, existentiam (qua est) omnem a forma accipiens, non potest sine forma creari aut existere: efficeretur enim ut actu esset sine ullo actu, et existeret sine ulla existentia; vel per materiam informem intelligunt non materiam primam, sed materiam generali quadam forma corporis tantum praeditam — at contendit beatus Thomas talem non fuisse productam a Deo in principio mundi.

But that by the name of "earth" formless matter — created first and before other things by God — is not to be understood, St. Thomas, in the first part, question sixty-six, article one, argues in this way: by "prime matter created of itself before all other things," these men either truly understand prime matter bare of all form — but since such matter is being in pure potency, receiving the whole existence by which it [exists] from form, it cannot be created or exist without form (for it would be brought about that it should be in act without any act, and exist without any existence); or by "formless matter" they understand not prime matter, but matter endowed only with a certain general form of body — but the blessed Thomas contends that such was not produced by God at the beginning of the world.¹⁴¹

Etenim subiectum generationis substantialis est ens in potentia, et non hoc aliquid, ut docet Aristoteles in quinto libro Physicorum; nec in uno composito potest esse nisi una duntaxat forma substantialis, quocirca ex illa materia corporea nullum aliud corpus formari et generari potuisset. Sed has beati Thomae rationes multi et docti viri (quorum ego sententiae libenter subscribo) infirmas iudicant: nam nihil prohibet, quin etiam fortasse necessarium est, in quibusdam corporibus multas esse formas substantiales; nec materia prima est proximum subiectum generationis praeterquam elementorum: in generatione enim mistorum, elementa ipsa proximae materiae ac subiecti vicem implent, sicut semen in generatione animalium. Nec est probabile materiam primam a formis accipere existentiam qua est actu in mundo, sed eam, cum sit per se ingenerabilis et incorruptibilis, habere quoque existentiam naturae suae convenientem, ne, cum millies quotidie formas induat et exuat, necesse sit eam millies etiam quotidie exi[stentiam]...

For the subject of substantial generation is being in potency, and not "this something," as Aristotle teaches in the fifth book of the Physics; nor in one composite can there be more than a single substantial form, wherefore from that corporeal matter no other body could have been formed and generated. But these arguments of the blessed Thomas many learned men (whose opinion I gladly subscribe to) judge weak: for nothing prevents — nay, perhaps it is even necessary — that in certain bodies there be several substantial forms; nor is prime matter the proximate subject of generation, except of the elements: for in the generation of compounds, the elements themselves fill the place of the proximate matter and subject, just as seed in the generation of animals. Nor is it probable that prime matter receives from forms the existence by which it is actual in the world, but rather that it, being of itself ingenerable and incorruptible, has also an existence suited to its own nature — lest, since it puts on and off forms a thousand times daily, it be necessary for it a thousand times daily also [to lose and reacquire] its exi[stence]...¹⁴²

...[exi]stentiam suam deperdere, et denuo acquirere: quo nihil improbabilius dici potest. Verum hanc controversiam in quinto libro nostro de Philosophia longa nos et accurata disputatione tractavimus.

...lose its own existence and acquire it anew: than which nothing more improbable can be said. But this controversy we have treated, in the fifth book of our work On Philosophy, with a long and careful disputation.¹⁴³

Expectat, opinor, lector, ut quid ego sentiam de hac quarta interpretatione tam vulgata, tam multis probata, et a nobis tam fuse et diligenter adhuc exposita, paucis aperiam. Equidem cum istius opinionis auctoribus partim consentio, partim dissentio: assentior esse Caelum empyreum quale propemodum ab istis describitur, et esse in principio mundi factum, et fortasse hoc loco nomine caeli a Mose comprehensum.

The reader expects, I think, that I should briefly disclose what I myself think about this fourth interpretation, so widespread, approved by so many, and hitherto so fully and diligently expounded by us. For my part, I partly agree and partly disagree with the authors of that opinion: I agree that there is an empyrean Heaven, much as it is described by them, and that it was made at the beginning of the world, and perhaps in this place was comprehended by Moses under the name of "heaven."¹⁴⁴

Quamquam illuc adduci non possum ut credam eiusmodi caelum fuisse ab antiquis et ethnicis Philosophis non modo cognitione perceptum, sed etiam scriptis proditum: eius namque caeli natura non solum fugit hominis sensus, sed etiam humanam rationem excedit; quippe cum nec motu, nec lumine, nec proprio aliquo effectu et defluxu nobis possit innotescere, his autem solis tribus viis gentiles Philosophi naturam Caeli et investigarunt et compertam habuerunt. Nam caelum illud ἄναστρον positum ab antiquis non fuit empyreum, ut putavit Damascenus, sed nonum caelum primo deprehensum a Ptolemaeo, tantae tarditatis in motu ut centum annis non amplius quam unum gradum absolvat.

Yet I cannot be brought to believe that such a heaven was, by the ancient and pagan Philosophers, not only perceived by knowledge but even recorded in writings: for the nature of that heaven not only escapes man's senses, but also exceeds human reason; since it can become known to us neither by motion, nor by light, nor by any proper effect and emanation — and by these three ways alone did the gentile Philosophers investigate and ascertain the nature of the Heaven. For that heaven called ἄναστρον (starless), posited by the ancients, was not the empyrean (as Damascene thought), but the ninth heaven, first detected by Ptolemy, of such slowness in motion that in a hundred years it completes no more than a single degree.¹⁴⁵

Non assentior autem istis nomine caeli hoc loco unum duntaxat caelum empyreum significari: etenim consilium et propositum Mosis in hac doctrina tradenda id profecto fuit, ut aperiret Hebraeis originem et primordia, molitoremque ac opificem rerum omnium corporearum, quas illi et cernebant et propter earum magnitudinem, pulchritudinem, vim atque efficientiam magnopere mirabantur; et doceret eas res non esse deos, nec divino cultu et honore dignas esse, sed esse veri Dei opera, quae, cum ex aeternitate nulla fuissent, aliquando primum ex nihilo a Deo sunt facta: ut hac ratione et Hebraeos deduceret ab errore Gentilium huiusmodi res pro diis colentium atque venerantium, et per earum rerum aspectum atque contemplationem ad unius Dei, omnium conditoris, notitiam, amorem, cultumque eorum animos excitaret atque subveheret.

But I do not agree with these men that by the name of "heaven" in this place only the empyrean heaven is signified: for the design and purpose of Moses in handing down this teaching was assuredly this — to open to the Hebrews the origin and beginnings, and the builder and maker, of all corporeal things, which they both beheld and at whose magnitude, beauty, power, and efficacy they greatly marveled; and to teach them that these things are not gods, nor worthy of divine worship and honor, but are the works of the true God, which, since they had been nothing from eternity, were at some time first made from nothing by God: so that by this reasoning he might both lead the Hebrews away from the error of the Gentiles, who worship and venerate such things as gods, and, through the sight and contemplation of these things, rouse and raise their minds to the knowledge, love, and worship of the one God, the founder of all.¹⁴⁶

Huic autem consilio et proposito Mosis valde alienum et dissentaneum erat statim in principio suae historiae tradere Hebraeis caelum empyreum, quod non modo humanis sensibus est incompertum, sed etiam humana ratione vel sapientissimis Philosophis fuit incomprehensibile. Sanctus praeterea Hieronymus in Epistola centesima trigesima nona ad Cyprianum scribit Mosem in libro Geneseos creationem tantum rerum visibilium exposuisse. Deinde David, Mosem aemulatus, hanc eius sententiam "In principio creavit Deus Caelum et terram" ferme eisdem verbis expressit in Psalmo 101, dicens: "Initio tu, Domine, terram fundasti, et opera manuum tuarum sunt caeli"; quod autem per caelum non intellexerit Da[vid]...

But to this design and purpose of Moses it was very alien and discordant to hand down to the Hebrews, right at the beginning of his history, the empyrean heaven — which is not only unknown to human senses, but was also incomprehensible to human reason, even to the wisest Philosophers. Moreover, St. Jerome, in the Epistle one hundred thirty-nine, to Cyprian, writes that Moses in the book of Genesis expounded only the creation of visible things. Then David, emulating Moses, expressed this opinion of his — "In the beginning God created Heaven and earth" — in almost the same words in Psalm 101 [102], saying: "In the beginning, O Lord, thou didst found the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands"; but that David did not understand by "heaven" [the empyrean]...¹⁴⁷

...[David] caelum tantummodo empyreum [non intellexerit], aperte declarant praedictis verbis proxime consequentia, subiunxit enim de caelis: "Ipsi peribunt, tu autem permanes; et omnes sicut vestimentum veterascent. Et sicut opertorium mutabis eos, et mutabuntur." Haec autem in caelum empyreum nulla ratione convenire possunt, utpote quod secundum Theologos sit prorsus impassibile et immutabile, nec post consummationem saeculi ullo modo innovandum atque commutandum. Suffragatur etiam huic sententiae Basilius, quippe in homilia secunda super Genesim ait Caelum, quod in principio factum est, similiter ut terram, esse ab initio factum incompositum et inornatum, postea vero esse decoratum luce, et Sole, Luna, omnibusque astris mirabiliter distinctum et exornatum. Ex quo intelligitur Caelum in principio factum Basilio videri id quod postea luce et syderibus est illustratum, quod de Caelo empyreo dici non potest.

...that David [did not understand] by "heaven" only the empyrean, the words immediately following clearly declare; for he subjoined about the heavens: "They shall perish, but thou remainest; and all of them shall grow old like a garment. And as a vesture thou shalt change them, and they shall be changed." But these things can in no way fit the empyrean heaven, inasmuch as, according to the Theologians, it is wholly impassible and immutable, and is in no way to be renewed and changed after the consummation of the age. Basil also supports this opinion, for in the second homily on Genesis he says that the Heaven made in the beginning was, like the earth, made at first uncomposed and unadorned, but afterward was decorated with light, and marvelously distinguished and adorned with the Sun, Moon, and all the stars. From which it is understood that the Heaven made in the beginning seemed to Basil to be that which afterward was illumined with light and stars — which cannot be said of the empyrean Heaven.¹⁴⁸

Ego igitur arbitror nomine caeli hoc loco intelligendum esse universum corpus caeleste, cunctos orbes complectens: ita ut in principio Deus creaverit substantiam et numerum omnium caelorum, sine luce tamen, motu, et distinctione syderum; postea vero tribuit eis lucem, et suum cuique caelo motum, et accendit in eis sydera, magna vi et potestate ad agendum pollentia. Itaque corpus caeleste factum est ab initio perfectum, quod attinet ad substantiam, numerum, ordinem seu dispositionem, magnitudinem, figuram, denique partium densitatem et raritatem; deinde vero multa sunt illis addita primo et quarto die, hoc est, suus cuique orbi Angelus motor, proprius cuiusque motus, decor lucis, et astrorum distinctio, denique singularis et mira cuiusque caeli vis et potentia agendi.

I therefore think that by the name of "heaven" in this place is to be understood the whole celestial body, embracing all the orbs: so that in the beginning God created the substance and number of all the heavens, yet without light, motion, and the distinction of the stars; but afterward he gave them light, and to each heaven its own motion, and kindled in them the stars, mighty with great force and power to act. And so the celestial body was made perfect from the beginning, as regards substance, number, order or arrangement, magnitude, figure, and finally the density and rarity of its parts; but afterward many things were added to them on the first and fourth days — that is, to each orb its motor Angel, its proper motion, the beauty of light, and the distinction of the stars, and finally the singular and wondrous force and power of acting of each heaven.¹⁴⁹

Atque hoc et intellectu facilius et creditu promptius erit, postquam secundi diei opificium fuerit expositum: tunc enim ostendemus per firmamentum non posse intelligi aut octavam sphaeram solam, aut eam una cum subiectis ipsi septem planetarum orbibus; nec per aquas super firmamentum locatas intelligi debere nonum Caelum, crystallinum vulgo appellatum.

And this will be both easier to understand and readier to believe after the work of the second day has been expounded: for then we shall show that by the "firmament" cannot be understood either the eighth sphere alone, or it together with the seven planetary orbs subject to it; nor that by the "waters placed above the firmament" the ninth Heaven, commonly called the crystalline, ought to be understood.¹⁵⁰

Porro nomine Terrae interpretor et intelligo id quod nomen ipsum prae se fert et significat — verum, inquam, terrae elementum: cum enim doctrina haec Mosis (ut saepe diximus) historica sit, verba eius proprie, non figurate seu allegorice sunt accipienda; namque ob hanc potissimum causam Tertullianus valde reprehendit Hermogenem, quod quam Moses vocat terram inanem et vacuam, is proprias vocum notiones depravans dixerit esse materiam primam.

Furthermore, by the name of "Earth" I interpret and understand what the name itself presents and signifies — truly, I say, the element of earth: for since this teaching of Moses (as we have often said) is historical, his words are to be taken properly, not figuratively or allegorically; for it was chiefly for this reason that Tertullian greatly reproved Hermogenes, because what Moses calls "earth void and empty," he (depraving the proper notions of the words) said was prime matter.¹⁵¹

Nec aliter quam nos Basilius, Ambrosius, Theodoretus, Chrysostomus, Beda in Hexamero, denique quotquot memini me legisse scriptores Graecos et Latinos ante Augustinum, nomine terrae interpretati sunt. Et vero huic opinioni magnam fidem astruit quod Moses eodem nomine terrae, in opere tertii et sexti diei enarrando, pro vero elemento terrae (ut fatentur omnes) utitur; nec...

And no otherwise than we do, Basil, Ambrose, Theodoret, Chrysostom, Bede in the Hexameron — and, finally, as many Greek and Latin writers before Augustine as I remember having read — interpreted [it] by the name of "earth." And indeed great credence is added to this opinion by the fact that Moses uses this same name "earth," in narrating the work of the third and sixth days, for the true element of earth (as all confess); nor...¹⁵²

...[eodem nomine terrae pro vero elemento terrae uti]tur; nec est verisimile tam parvo intervallo nomen terrae tam ambigue et obscure usurpasse, hoc est, primo pro materia informi, deinde vero pro elemento terrae. Ad hoc, terram fuisse initio mundi factam declaravit David, cum dixit "Initio tu, Domine, terram fundasti"; pro illa autem voce Latina "Initio," Hebraice est vox proprie significans "prius et ante alia." Quod si terra non est facta in principio, quando igitur est facta, aut ubi eius effectio narratur a Mose? Respondent tertio die esse factam: at eo die legimus dixisse Deum, non ut terra fieret, sed ut appareret arida, hoc est, ut quae erat obruta aquis extaret, et ex siccata idonea fieret sedes et locus generationis et habitationis, tam stirpium quam animantium.

...[Moses uses this same word "earth"] for the true element of earth; nor is it likely that within so small a space he used the name "earth" so ambiguously and obscurely — that is, first for formless matter, then for the element of earth. Besides, that the earth was made at the beginning of the world David declared, when he said "In the beginning, O Lord, thou didst found the earth"; and for that Latin word "In the beginning," the Hebrew has a word properly signifying "first and before other things." But if the earth was not made in the beginning, when, then, was it made, or where is its making narrated by Moses? They answer that it was made on the third day: but on that day we read that God said, not that the earth should be made, but that the dry land should appear — that is, that what was overwhelmed by waters should stand out, and, being dried, should become a suitable seat and place of generation and habitation, both of plants and of living things.¹⁵³

Quid quod non sit credibile aquam esse productam ante terram, legimus autem ante tertium diem separatas esse aquas superiores ab inferioribus, quin etiam ante primum diem audimus Mosem dicentem "Spiritus Domini ferebatur super aquas"? Postremo, durissimum est, et quod animus respuat credere, Mosem per omnia illa verba — "Terra erat inanis et vacua, et tenebrae erant super faciem abyssi, et Spiritus Domini ferebatur super aquas" — non aliud quam materiam primam nobis insinuare voluisse. Sententiam autem illam productam ex libro Sapientiae, "Creavit Deus orbem terrarum ex materia invisa seu informi," ita reor intelligendam esse ut eam Beda in Hexameron interpretatur: ait enim significari congeriem illam corporum indigestam et inornatam — videlicet caeli, terrae, et aquae — in exordio mundi ante alia conditam; haec enim appellatur materia, quod ex his, vel in his corporibus, facta sunt quaecumque postea per sex dies facta memorantur.

Furthermore, it is not credible that water was produced before the earth; yet we read that before the third day the upper waters were separated from the lower, and even before the first day we hear Moses saying "the Spirit of the Lord was borne over the waters." Finally, it is most harsh, and a thing the mind shrinks from believing, that Moses by all those words — "The earth was void and empty, and darkness was over the face of the abyss, and the Spirit of the Lord was borne over the waters" — wished to insinuate to us nothing but prime matter. And that opinion drawn from the book of Wisdom, "God created the world from unseen or formless matter," I think is to be understood as Bede interprets it in the Hexameron: for he says there is signified that unsorted and unadorned heap of bodies — namely of heaven, earth, and water — founded at the beginning of the world before other things; for this is called "matter," because from these, or in these, bodies were made all the things that afterward, over the six days, are recorded to have been made.¹⁵⁴

Dicitur autem materia invisa vel informis, quod eiusmodi corpora initio facta sunt sine luce et sine eo decore, formositate, et ornatu quem postmodum acceperunt. Sic etiam exponit ea verba Glossa interlinearis; et hoc ipsum innuit Sanctus Paulus ad Hebraeos undecimo, cum dixit "Fide intelligimus aptata esse saecula verbo Dei, ut ex invisibilibus visibilia fierent": invisibilia vocat caelum, terram, et aquam, prout erant ab initio ante primam diem. Sic autem esse hoc loco accipiendum terrae vocabulum, ut nos diximus, censent Basilius, Ambrosius, Chrysostomus, et omnes Graeci, et Beda in Hexameron, atque Hugo in suis Annotationibus in Hexameron, et in principio primi libri de Sacramentis.

And it is called "unseen" or "formless" matter, because such bodies were made at the beginning without light, and without that comeliness, beauty, and adornment which they afterward received. So too the interlinear Gloss expounds those words; and St. Paul intimates this very thing, in Hebrews 11, when he said: "By faith we understand that the ages were framed by the word of God, so that from things invisible the visible should come to be" — he calls "invisible" the heaven, earth, and water, as they were from the beginning before the first day. And that the word "earth" is to be taken in this place as we have said is the view of Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and all the Greeks, and of Bede in the Hexameron, and of Hugh [of St. Victor] in his Annotations on the Hexameron and at the beginning of the first book On the Sacraments.¹⁵⁵

Ac licet Moses hoc loco duorum tantummodo elementorum explicate faciat mentionem, terrae nimirum et aquae, reliqua duo tacitus praeteriens, attamen simul facta esse omnia quattuor elementa censet Basilius homilia secunda, et Damascenus libro secundo capite quinto, Beda item in Hexameron. Quin Basilius, inquit (eumque secutus Beda): "Etiamnum videre est reliqua tria elementa multifariam intra terram contineri: namque ignem latere intra terram — perpetua eructatio flammarum et ignium velut ex monte Aethna aliisque locis, et complurium..."

And although Moses in this place makes explicit mention of only two elements — namely earth and water — silently passing over the other two, nevertheless that all four elements were made at the same time is the view of Basil (homily 2), and of Damascene (book 2, ch. 5), and likewise Bede in the Hexameron. Indeed Basil — and Bede following him — says: "Even now one may see the other three elements contained in manifold ways within the earth: for fire lurks within the earth (the perpetual belching of flames and fires, as from Mount Etna and other places), and of many..."¹⁵⁶

...[et] complurium aquarum igneo calore ferventium eruptio ex terra satis indicat. Quantum aëris intra sua viscera terra cohibeat, frequentes terraemotus propter spiritum intus agitatum atque conflictatum sunt indices, ut omittam interiores cavernas et specus terrae multo aëre completos. Quanta vero aquarum vis interiori complexu terrae contineatur, perennes fontium scaturigines et fluminum origines, necnon effosio puteorum, aperte ostendunt. Quare nemini mirandum accidat Mosem nomine terrae reliqua etiam elementa comprehendisse. Quamquam sunt qui putent non obscure indicatum a Mose aërem illis verbis "Spiritus Domini ferebatur super aquas," ut non aliud sit Spiritus quam agitatus aër.

...[and] the eruption from the earth of many waters boiling with fiery heat sufficiently indicates it. How much air the earth holds within its bowels, frequent earthquakes — caused by the spirit (wind) stirred and conflicting within — are tokens, to say nothing of the inner caverns and caves of the earth filled with much air. And how great a force of water is contained in the inner embrace of the earth, the perennial springs of fountains and the origins of rivers, and also the digging of wells, plainly show. Wherefore let it be no wonder to anyone that Moses comprehended the other elements too under the name of "earth." Although there are those who think that air was not obscurely indicated by Moses in those words "the Spirit of the Lord was borne over the waters," so that the "Spirit" is nothing but agitated air.¹⁵⁷

Elementum vero ignis esse praeteritum a Mose, quis miretur, qui sciat nec paucos nec ignobiles Philosophos addubitasse num sit aliquod elementum ignis supra aërem, Lunae globo subiectum, quosdam vero etiam audacter negasse? Nec est non verisimile, quod quidam graves auctores tradiderunt, Mosem rudi populo scribentem duo tantummodo elementa exposuisse, terram et aquam, quod haec sola sub aspectum cadant, et ex ipsis cetera corpora et manifeste et magna ex parte composita sint, et in ipsis tanquam in loco naturali commorentur.

But that the element of fire was passed over by Moses — who would wonder, who knows that not a few, and not undistinguished, Philosophers doubted whether there is any element of fire above the air, beneath the globe of the Moon, and some even boldly denied it? Nor is it improbable, as certain weighty authors have handed down, that Moses, writing for a rude people, expounded only two elements, earth and water, because these alone fall under sight, and from them the other bodies are both manifestly and for the most part composed, and abide in them as in their natural place.¹⁵⁸

Aristoteles libro secundo de Caelo, textu decimo septimo, ex eo quod caelum sempiterna conversione circumagitur, argumentatur opus illi fuisse centro quodam immobili — non quidem Mathematico, sed Physico — circa quod caelum volvatur: hoc autem aliud quam terram esse non posse; posita autem terra, alia quoque elementa necessario ponenda esse. Etenim natura non fert unum contrarium sine altero, ne, si unum dumtaxat fuerit, trahat ad se omnia et in se unum convertat, sed utrumque contrarium facit, ut mutua concertatione utriusque vis eorum temperetur atque moderetur: quare si est terra corpus gravissimum et infimum, erit quoque ignis levissimus corporum, supremumque locum appetens; haec si fuerint extrema, necesse est alia duo, quae sunt intermedia, non deesse, praesertim cum secundum qualitates activas aqua sit contraria igni, terra vero aëri. Simili ferme ratione in Timaeo de necessitate quattuor elementorum philosophatur Plato.

Aristotle, in the second book On the Heavens, text 17, from the fact that the heaven is turned around in eternal revolution, argues that it needed some immobile center — not indeed a Mathematical one, but a Physical one — about which the heaven might revolve; and that this can be nothing other than the earth; and the earth being posited, the other elements too must necessarily be posited. For nature does not bear one contrary without the other, lest, if there be only one, it draw all things to itself and convert them into itself alone; but it makes both contraries, so that by the mutual contention of the two their force may be tempered and moderated: wherefore if earth is the heaviest and lowest body, fire too will be the lightest of bodies, seeking the highest place; and if these be the extremes, the other two, which are intermediate, must necessarily not be lacking — especially since, according to active qualities, water is contrary to fire, and earth to air. By almost the same reasoning Plato philosophizes, in the Timaeus, about the necessity of the four elements.¹⁵⁹

Est autem hoc loco intelligendum, quae vel Astrologi vel Philosophi de terra (ingenti nominis sui gloria) subtiliter et docte tradiderunt, ea vel omnia, vel certe praecipua, plurimis ante saeculis in Sacra Scriptura inveniri tradita. Et primo quidem, terram factam esse a Deo in loco suo naturali, ubi nunc est, non debet in dubio verti: existimandum enim est Deum ita fecisse res omnes ut naturis earum maxime congruebat, nec fecisse quicquam in statu violento et contra eius naturam; est autem contra naturam terrae, eique violentum, esse extra locum suum naturalem. Nec sane potuisset tanta terrae moles extra locum suum naturalem, nisi miraculose velut suspensa, teneri. Atque hoc aperte docet nos Scriptura:...

But it is here to be understood that whatever the Astrologers or Philosophers (with great glory to their name) have subtly and learnedly handed down about the earth — these things, either all or at least the chief, are found handed down in Sacred Scripture many ages before. And first, that the earth was made by God in its own natural place, where it now is, ought not to be called into doubt: for it must be thought that God so made all things as best suited their natures, and made nothing in a violent state and against its nature; but it is against the nature of the earth, and violent to it, to be outside its natural place. Nor indeed could so great a mass of earth be held outside its natural place, except miraculously, as if suspended. And this Scripture plainly teaches us:...¹⁶⁰

...quippe Psalmo 118 sic ait, "Fundasti terram, et permanet." Utrumque verbum profecto — et Fundandi et Permanendi — arguit terram in suo loco naturali esse a Deo factam; extra illum enim nec vere diceretur fundata, nec permanere potuisset. Ob eandem etiam causam, cum de creatione terrae agit Scriptura, alicubi dicit eam fuisse a Deo creatam et formatam, alibi vero fundatam et firmatam sive stabilitam, haud dubie indicans factam esse in suo loco, extra quem nec bene fundari nec firmari poterat. Huc etiam pertinet elegans illa descriptio fundationis terrae, quam metaphorice — ab aedificatione ingentis et magnifici cuiusdam palatii sumptam — tradit Iob in capite trigesimo octavo: "Ubi eras," inquit, "quando ponebam fundamenta terrae? Quis posuit mensuras eius, si nosti? vel quis tetendit super eam lineam? super quo bases illius solidatae sunt? aut quis demisit lapidem angularem eius?"

...for in Psalm 118 [119] it says thus, "Thou hast founded the earth, and it abideth." Both words indeed — "to found" and "to abide" — argue that the earth was made by God in its natural place; for outside it, it would neither truly be said to be founded, nor could it have abided. For the same reason too, when Scripture treats of the creation of the earth, in one place it says it was created and formed by God, in another founded and made firm or stable, doubtless indicating that it was made in its place, outside which it could neither be well founded nor made firm. To this also belongs that elegant description of the founding of the earth which Job, in chapter 38, sets forth metaphorically, taken from the building of some huge and magnificent palace: "Where wast thou," he says, "when I laid the foundations of the earth? Who determined its measurements, if thou knowest? or who stretched the line upon it? upon what are its bases made fast? or who laid its cornerstone?"¹⁶¹

Terram autem esse immobilem optimis argumentis probat Aristoteles lib. 2 de Caelo, textu 90. Sed hoc ipsum, annis ante Aristotelem septingentis, in sacris litteris proditum reperimus. David enim psalmo 92 dixit "Firmavit Deus orbem terrae, qui non commovebitur"; et in Psalmo 103, "Fundasti terram super stabilitatem suam, non inclinabitur in saeculum saeculi"; et Salomon initio libri Ecclesiastae, "Terra autem in aeternum stat"; et in prioris libri Paralipomenon cap. 16, "Deus fundavit orbem immobilem." Eandem vero terrae immobilitatem metaphorice describit David in Psalmo 74, cum inducit Deum de terra dicentem "Ego confirmavi columnas eius," ea similitudine declarans naturalem terrae gravitatem, per quam in medio mundi collocata firma et immobilis permanet.

That the earth is immobile, Aristotle proves with the best arguments in book 2 On the Heavens, text 90. But this very thing, seven hundred years before Aristotle, we find handed down in the sacred writings. For David said in Psalm 92 [93], "God has made firm the globe of the earth, which shall not be moved"; and in Psalm 103 [104], "Thou hast founded the earth upon its stability; it shall not be inclined for ever and ever"; and Solomon at the beginning of Ecclesiastes, "But the earth stands for ever"; and in the first book of Paralipomenon, ch. 16, "God founded the immovable globe." And David describes this same immobility of the earth metaphorically in Psalm 74 [75], when he brings in God saying of the earth, "I have made firm its columns," by that likeness declaring the natural heaviness of the earth, by which, placed in the middle of the world, it remains firm and immobile.¹⁶²

Sed enim quispiam fortasse opponet nobis quod scriptum est apud Iob c. 9 de Deo, "Qui transtulit montes, qui commovet terram de loco suo." Verum hoc solvitur: eo enim loco Scriptura loquitur non de motu totius elementi terrae, sed aliquarum eius partium, qualis fieri solet in terraemotu, in quo terra, incluso intus spiritu concussa et tremefacta, commovetur.

But indeed someone will perhaps object to us what is written in Job, ch. 9, of God: "Who removed the mountains, who moves the earth out of its place." But this is resolved: for in that place Scripture speaks not of the motion of the whole element of earth, but of some of its parts, such as is wont to happen in an earthquake, in which the earth, shaken and made to tremble by the spirit (wind) shut up within, is moved.¹⁶³

Esse autem terram in medio mundi loco (quod vocant centrum) locatam, et Mathematici docent, et confirmat Aristoteles in 2 libro de Caelo text. 98; et multo ante traditum est in Scriptura. Nam apud Philosophos sursum et deorsum ita disponuntur in mundo (qui rotundus est), ut sursum quidem ponant in caelo lunae, deorsum autem in centro mundi: quippe centrum, comparatione totius circumferentiae, est locus infimus, et undique a circumferentia maxime distans. At divina Scriptura, sicut sursum assignat caelo, ita deorsum affigit terrae, quo indicat eam esse in centro mundi locatam. Salomon enim Proverb. 25, "Caelum," inquit, "sursum, et terra deorsum"; et Moses capite quarto Deuteronomii ita scribit, "Dominus ipse est Deus in Caelo sursum et in terra deorsum"; David quoque, cum in Psalmo 102 exprimere vellet maximam quandam distantiam, dixit "secundum altitudinem Caeli a terra," etc. Non esset autem maxima distantia inter Caelum et terram, nisi terra in medio mundi loco esset posita...

That the earth is placed in the middle place of the world (which they call the center) both the Mathematicians teach and Aristotle confirms in book 2 On the Heavens, text 98; and it was handed down long before in Scripture. For among the Philosophers, "up" and "down" are so arranged in the world (which is round) that they put "up" in the heaven of the moon, but "down" at the center of the world: for the center, in comparison with the whole circumference, is the lowest place, and farthest distant on all sides from the circumference. But divine Scripture, as it assigns "up" to heaven, so attaches "down" to the earth, whereby it indicates that the earth is placed at the center of the world. For Solomon, Proverbs 25, says "Heaven above, and the earth beneath"; and Moses, in the fourth chapter of Deuteronomy, writes thus, "The Lord himself is God in Heaven above and on the earth beneath"; David too, when in Psalm 102 [103] he wished to express a certain greatest distance, said "according to the height of Heaven from the earth," etc. But there would not be the greatest distance between Heaven and earth, unless the earth were placed in the middle place of the world...¹⁶⁴

...[esset posi]ta. Ad extremum, terram esse sphaericam multis rationibus demonstratum est a Mathematicis, et ab Aristotele in libro 2 de Caelo text. 104; quod etiam non obscure indicat sacra Scriptura, quae toties appellat orbem terrae: vox enim illa "Orbis" ostendit terram esse rotundam, et in figuram orbis conglobatam. Idem quoque intelligitur ex illis verbis quae sunt apud Isaiam capite 40, "Qui sedet super gyrum terrae," vel ut habet Hebraica lectio "Qui sedet super globum terrae"; Septuaginta autem verterunt "Qui tenet gyrum terrae." Ex quo liquet futiles et commentitias fuisse veterum quorumdam opiniones de figura terrae: Anaximander enim dixit eam esse columnarem, Anaximenes mensae similem, Leucippus tympano, Democritus disco.

...[unless the earth were placed in the middle]. Finally, that the earth is spherical has been demonstrated by many arguments by the Mathematicians, and by Aristotle in book 2 On the Heavens, text 104; which sacred Scripture too indicates not obscurely, since it so often calls [it] "the orb (globe) of the earth": for that word "Orbis" shows that the earth is round, and gathered into the figure of a globe. The same is also understood from those words in Isaiah, ch. 40, "Who sits upon the circle of the earth," or, as the Hebrew reading has, "Who sits upon the globe of the earth"; but the Seventy [LXX] rendered, "Who holds the circle of the earth." From which it is clear that the opinions of certain ancients about the figure of the earth were futile and fabricated: for Anaximander said it was column-shaped, Anaximenes like a table, Leucippus like a drum, Democritus like a disc.¹⁶⁵

Porro, quidam olim mirati sunt, hodieque mirantur, super quo fundata et firmata terra tanto aevo perstet immota: non enim in animum inducere possunt tantam terrae molem et pondus, nulla re subnixum firmatumque, velut suspensum teneri posse, ne in aliquam partem propendens moveatur. Quamobrem existimarunt nonnulli eius rei non aliam reddi posse rationem quam omnipotentiam Dei miraculose terrae molem ita sustinentis. Aristoteles in libro secundo de Caelo, text. 78, sex vel septem commemorat opiniones veterum de causa firmitatis et stabilitatis terrae, quarum antiquissima est opinio Thaletis, terram fundatam esse super aquas, et veluti insidentem et innatantem aquis sustentari: quam et ipse reprobat et confutat Seneca libro sexto Naturalium quaest. capite sexto.

Furthermore, some of old wondered, and today still wonder, upon what the earth, founded and made firm, stands unmoved through so long an age: for they cannot bring themselves to believe that so great a mass and weight of earth, propped and made firm by nothing, can be held as if suspended, lest, inclining to some side, it be moved. Wherefore some thought that no other reason for this could be given than the omnipotence of God, miraculously sustaining the mass of the earth thus. Aristotle, in book 2 On the Heavens, text 78, records six or seven opinions of the ancients about the cause of the earth's firmness and stability, of which the most ancient is the opinion of Thales — that the earth was founded upon the waters, and is sustained as resting and floating upon the waters: which Seneca too rejects and confutes, in book 6 of the Natural Questions, ch. 6.¹⁶⁶

Nam, ut multa praetermittam argumenta, profecto quod de terra quaeritur, idem graviori ratione quaeri potest de aqua, super quo ipsa fulciatur atque sustentetur, cum etiam sit corpus grave: quin immo, cum terra sit gravior quam aqua, magis est rationi consentaneum aquam sustentari a terra quam terram ab aqua; cui rei manifestam et certam fidem facit sub qualibet aqua subsidere terram velut eius fundamentum. Cumque in corporibus simplicibus et uniformibus par sit ratio unius cuiuslibet particulae atque totius elementi, si elementum terrae maneret super aqua, etiam partes omnes terrae super aqua manerent, quas tamen in aquam proiectas non supernatare aquis, sed in imum demergi cernimus.

For, to pass over many arguments, surely what is asked about the earth can, with a weightier reason, be asked about the water — upon what it is propped and sustained, since it too is a heavy body: nay rather, since earth is heavier than water, it is more consonant with reason that water be sustained by earth than earth by water; a thing made manifestly and certainly credible by the fact that, beneath any water, earth settles as its foundation. And since in simple and uniform bodies the reasoning of any one particle and of the whole element is the same, if the element of earth were to remain upon water, then all the parts of earth too would remain upon water — which, however, when thrown into water, we see not to float upon the waters, but to sink to the bottom.¹⁶⁷

Verumtamen opinioni Thaletis favere ac suffragari videtur divina Scriptura, quae non uno in loco ait terram esse super aquas. Etenim in capite 20 Exodi sic est: "Non facies tibi sculptile, neque omnem similitudinem quae est in Caelo desuper, et quae in terra deorsum, nec eorum quae sunt in aquis sub terra." Sed clarius hoc docet David psalmo 23, "Quia ipse super maria," inquit, "fundavit eum" (scilicet orbem terrarum), "et super flumina praeparavit eum"; et in psalmo 135, "Qui firmavit terram super aquas." Hanc sententiam sequitur auctor libri quarti Esdrae in capite ultimo, et Iustinus martyr in responsione ad quaestiones Orthodoxorum, respondens ad quaest. 130. Denique hoc indicare videntur verba...

Yet divine Scripture seems to favor and support the opinion of Thales, for in more than one place it says the earth is upon the waters. For in chapter 20 of Exodus it stands thus: "Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor any likeness that is in Heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth." But David teaches this more clearly in Psalm 23 [24], "For he," he says, "has founded it" (namely the globe of the earth) "upon the seas, and has prepared it upon the rivers"; and in Psalm 135 [136], "Who established the earth above the waters." This opinion the author of the fourth book of Ezra follows, in the last chapter, and Justin Martyr, in his response to the Questions of the Orthodox, answering question 130. Finally, these words seem to indicate this...¹⁶⁸

...[Denique hoc indicare videntur] verba illa Petri, quae sunt in capite tertio posterioris Epistolae: "Caeli erant prius, et terra de aqua et per aquam consistens Dei verbo." Verum neque haec, nec si quae alia obiici possunt, abducere nos debent a vera sententia: pro certo enim habendum est nihil in sacris litteris tradi quod contrarium sit manifestis experimentis verisque rationibus. At necessariis argumentis ostenditur terram naturaliter super aquam esse non posse; dicere autem terram super aquis miraculose a Deo sustineri, hominis est ad commentitiae opinionis suae defensionem quidvis stolide effingentis, et omnipotentia Dei (cum nec opus est et minime decet) temere abutentis.

...[Finally, these words of Peter seem to indicate this], in the third chapter of his latter Epistle: "The heavens were before, and the earth standing out of water and through water, by the word of God." But neither these, nor any other objections that can be raised, ought to lead us away from the true opinion: for it must be held for certain that nothing is handed down in the sacred writings which is contrary to manifest experience and true reasonings. And by necessary arguments it is shown that the earth cannot naturally be upon the water; while to say that the earth is sustained upon the waters miraculously by God is [the part] of a man who, to defend his fabricated opinion, foolishly invents anything whatever, and rashly abuses the omnipotence of God when there is no need and it is least fitting.¹⁶⁹

Causam vero stabilitatis et firmitatis terrae esse naturalem eius gravitatem, quae, cum summa sit, suopte nutu ac pondere petit infimum mundi locum, hoc est centrum, in quo locata naturaliter quiescit, nec inde nisi per vim extrahi potest, et recta ratio ostendit et vera philosophia demonstrat. Non igitur mirandum est terram, cum sit in centro, manere immotam: quin potius ingentis miraculi esset si quoquam alio moveretur; quocunque enim extra centrum ferretur, necesse esset eam sursum ascendere, omnis enim locus qui in circulo est extra centrum centro superior est. Atque hoc idem significare voluit David, cum dixit in Psalmo 103, "Fundasti terram super stabilitatem suam, non inclinabitur in saeculum saeculi," stabilitatem vocans summum illud gravitatis pondus, quo fit ut terra in centro immota permaneat. Huc etiam spectat illud Iob in capite 26, "Qui appendit terram super nihilum," hoc est super nullo fundamento seu firmamento: non enim terra in centro posita quoquam alio eget fundamento quo fulciatur et sustentetur.

But that the cause of the stability and firmness of the earth is its natural heaviness — which, since it is supreme, by its own inclination and weight seeks the lowest place of the world, that is, the center, in which, being placed, it naturally rests, and from which it cannot be drawn except by force — both right reason shows and true philosophy demonstrates. It is not, therefore, to be wondered at that the earth, since it is at the center, remains unmoved: nay rather, it would be a vast miracle if it were moved anywhere else; for wherever it were carried outside the center, it would necessarily ascend, since every place in the circle that is outside the center is higher than the center. And David wished to signify this same thing, when he said in Psalm 103 [104], "Thou hast founded the earth upon its stability; it shall not be inclined for ever and ever" — calling "stability" that supreme weight of heaviness by which it comes about that the earth remains unmoved at the center. To this also looks that passage of Job, ch. 26, "Who hangs the earth upon nothing," that is, upon no foundation or support: for the earth, placed at the center, needs no other foundation by which it may be propped and sustained.¹⁷⁰

Nec vero quod Scriptura inquit terram fundatam esse super aquam huic veritati adversatur: namque id varie exponitur. Quidam enim id referunt ad primum illum statum terrae, cum ea in exordio mundi creata est a Deo aquis operta, ut illud "super aquam" idem valeat quod "in aqua" (id quod respuit lectio Graeca); et hanc interpretationem assignat Basilio Euthymius, explanans psalmum vicesimum tertium, quo loco ait Chrysostomum simpliciter accepisse verba illa Davidis, existimantem re vera terram super aquis esse fundatam, ut eo miraculo clarius eluceret Dei omnipotentia. Ipse autem Euthymius arbitratur verba Davidis non esse intelligenda de toto elemento aquae vel terrae, sed de iis aquis sive marinis sive fluvialibus quae subterraneis meatibus cursus suos agunt: etenim magna quaedam flumina terram subterlabi longinquis intervallis, et post emergere in apertum, in confesso est apud omnes.

Nor indeed does what Scripture says — that the earth was founded upon water — oppose this truth: for it is variously expounded. For some refer it to that first state of the earth, when at the beginning of the world it was created by God covered with waters, so that "upon water" means the same as "in water" (which the Greek reading rejects); and Euthymius assigns this interpretation to Basil, in explaining the twenty-third psalm, where he says that Chrysostom took those words of David simply, thinking that the earth really was founded upon the waters, so that by that miracle God's omnipotence might shine the more clearly. But Euthymius himself thinks that David's words are to be understood not of the whole element of water or earth, but of those waters, whether of the sea or of rivers, which run their courses through subterranean passages: for it is agreed among all that certain great rivers glide beneath the earth at long intervals and afterward emerge into the open.¹⁷¹

Verumtamen similior vero est eorum sententia qui, terram super aquis esse factam, interpretantur terram esse factam superiorem, celsiorem, et eminentiorem aquis. Cum enim lingua Hebraea careat comparativis, ad eorum vim exprimendam utitur particula "super," "prae," et aliis similibus. Sic David, "Super mel ori meo"; et "super aurum et lapidem pretiosum multum"...

Yet more like the truth is the opinion of those who, [taking] "the earth was made upon the waters," interpret that the earth was made higher, loftier, and more eminent than the waters. For since the Hebrew language lacks comparatives, to express their force it uses the particle "above" (super), "prae," and others similar. So David, "[sweeter] than honey to my mouth"; and "[more to be desired] than gold and much precious stone"...¹⁷²

...[super aurum et la]pidem pretiosum multum. Restat una quaestio breviter expedienda: an opinio Philosophorum et Mathematicorum affirmantium universae terrae ambitum et magnitudinem certa ratione ab ipsis compertam et comprehensam esse repugnet divinae Scripturae, quae initio libri Ecclesiastici sic ait, "Latitudinem terrae et profundum abyssi quis dimensus est?" (quasi dicat, nullus); et Deus ait Iob capite 38 eius libri, "Nunquid considerasti latitudinem terrae?" Ex his duobus locis videtur elici posse quod aiunt Mathematici et philosophi esse homini incomprehensibile. Verumtamen respondendum est nullam esse repugnantiam: supradictis namque verbis Scripturae non significatur impossibilitas, sed raritas et difficultas.

...[more to be desired] than gold and much precious stone. There remains one question to be briefly dispatched: whether the opinion of the Philosophers and Mathematicians — who affirm that the circumference and magnitude of the whole earth has been ascertained and comprehended by them by a sure method — is repugnant to divine Scripture, which at the beginning of the book of Ecclesiasticus says thus, "The breadth of the earth and the depth of the abyss, who has measured?" (as if to say, no one); and God says in Job, ch. 38, "Hast thou considered the breadth of the earth?" From these two passages it seems it can be drawn that what the Mathematicians and philosophers claim is incomprehensible to man. But it must be answered that there is no repugnance: for by the aforesaid words of Scripture is signified not impossibility, but rarity and difficulty.¹⁷³

Illa enim interrogatio "Quis," ut bene Hieronymus annotavit, aliquando significat in sacris litteris raritatem et difficultatem (ut in illa sententia Salomonis "Quis potest dicere, mundum est cor meum?", vel in illa eiusdem "Mulierem fortem quis inveniet?"); aliquando vero simpliciter negat et denotat impossibilitatem (exempli causa, "Quis prior dedit illi, et retribuetur ei?", vel "Quis restitit Deo et pacem habuit?", vel "Quis est homo qui vivet et non videbit mortem?"). Vel responderi potest Scripturam loqui de latitudine terrae non simpliciter, sed eius tantum quae est extra aquas et est inhabitabilis, cuius amplitudo adhuc incognita est mortalibus, quotidie repertis novis terris atque gentibus; vel agit Scriptura de latitudine solius terrae, rationes autem Mathematicorum valent in universo globo qui ex terra simul et aqua est conflatus; vel denique Scriptura loquitur de exacta et infallibili cognitione amplitudinis terrae, quam Mathematici non tradunt.

For that interrogative "Who" (as Jerome well noted) sometimes signifies in the sacred writings rarity and difficulty (as in that saying of Solomon, "Who can say, My heart is clean?", or in that other of his, "A valiant woman, who shall find?"); but sometimes it simply denies and denotes impossibility (for example, "Who has first given to him, and it shall be repaid him?", or "Who has resisted God and had peace?", or "What man is he that shall live and not see death?"). Or it can be answered that Scripture speaks of the breadth of the earth not simply, but only of that which is outside the waters and is inhabitable, whose extent is still unknown to mortals, new lands and nations being discovered daily; or Scripture treats of the breadth of the earth alone, while the Mathematicians' reasonings hold for the whole globe, which is formed of earth and water together; or, finally, Scripture speaks of the exact and infallible knowledge of the earth's extent, which the Mathematicians do not hand down.¹⁷⁴

Nec enim inter omnes constat quantum spatii terrae respondeat uni gradui caelestis circuli; ex quo variae philosophorum et Mathematicorum de dimensione ambitus terrae opiniones extiterunt. Etenim secundum Mathematicos, quos secutus est Aristoteles libro secundo de Caelo, ambitus terrae continebat quadringinta millia stadiorum, hoc est quinquaginta millia miliarium Italicorum; secundum Hipparchum (teste Plinio), miliaria triginta quattuor mille sexcenta viginti quinque; secundum Eratosthenem (ut refert Macrobius in Somnium Scipionis), unum et triginta mille et quingenta milliaria; secundum Ptolemaeum, viginti duo mille et quingenta (quam opinionem etiam Basilius Homilia in Hexameron nona commemorat); secundum Alphraganum plurimosque (ut ait ipse) Sapientes, viginti mille et quadringenta miliaria; secundum Fernelium, viginti quattuor millia quingenta quattuordecim; secundum recentiores (non modo Astronomiae peritos, sed etiam qui pene totum Oceanum pernavigarunt) miliaria novies et decies mille superque octoginta.

For it is not agreed among all how much space of earth corresponds to one degree of the celestial circle; whence various opinions of philosophers and Mathematicians about the dimension of the earth's circumference have arisen. For according to the Mathematicians, whom Aristotle followed in book 2 On the Heavens, the circumference of the earth contained four hundred thousand stadia, that is fifty thousand Italian miles; according to Hipparchus (on Pliny's testimony), thirty-four thousand six hundred and twenty-five miles; according to Eratosthenes (as Macrobius relates in [his commentary on] the Dream of Scipio), thirty-one thousand five hundred miles; according to Ptolemy, twenty-two thousand five hundred (which opinion Basil too mentions in the ninth homily on the Hexameron); according to Alfraganus and very many Sages (as he himself says), twenty thousand four hundred miles; according to Fernel, twenty-four thousand five hundred and fourteen; according to more recent men (not only those skilled in Astronomy, but also those who have sailed almost the whole Ocean), nineteen thousand and eighty miles.¹⁷⁵

Tanta autem haec magnitudo terrae, si cum octava sphaera (in qua sunt inerrantia sydera) comparetur, instar puncti obtinere dicitur: ambitus enim octavi caeli continet ambitum globi qui ex terra...

But this great magnitude of the earth, if it be compared with the eighth sphere (in which are the fixed stars), is said to hold the place of a point: for the circumference of the eighth heaven contains the circumference of the globe which is [formed] of earth...¹⁷⁶

...[qui ex] terra et aqua constat, vicies et bis millies superque sexcenties et duodecies eoque amplius: quod aestimantibus manifestum sit quanta sit terrae parvitas, si cum supremo omnium Caelo empyreo comparetur.

...which consists of earth and water, twenty-two thousand six hundred and twelve times and even more: so that it is manifest to those who reckon how great is the smallness of the earth, if it be compared with the empyrean Heaven, supreme of all.¹⁷⁷

Verse 2. But the earth was void and empty, and darkness was over the face of the abyss.¹⁷⁸

Vers. 2. Terra autem erat inanis et vacua, et tenebrae erant super faciem abyssi.

Hebraice sunt duae voces, תהו ובהו (Tohu Vabohu), quas Interpretes tam in linguam Graecam quam Latinam varie transtulerunt. Noster Interpres Latinus vertit "Inanis et vacua"; Pagninus, "Desolata et inanis"; alii, "Inculta et vacua"; Septuaginta, "Invisibilis et incomposita"; Aquila, "Vanitas et nihil"; Symmachus, "Otiosum et indigestum"; Theodotio, "Inane et nihilum"; Paraphrasis Onkeli ad verbum habet "Desolata et vacua"; Ionathae autem, "Vacua hominibus et iumentis." Periti linguae Hebraeae docent vocem תהו (Tohu) proprie significare vanum seu vanitatem, videlicet quod finem non assequitur cuius gratia factum est: hac voce in 1 Regum cap. 12 appellantur idola, cum dicitur "Nolite declinare post vana, quae non proderunt vobis neque eruent vos, quia vana sunt," ubi bis ponitur vox תהו (Tohu). Vox autem בהו (Bohu) proprie significat inane, vacuum, et nihilum, latens etiam et obscurum; unde quidam putant ductam esse vocem Italicam "Buio," quae significat obscurum et tenebrosum.

In Hebrew there are two words, תהו ובהו (Tohu Vabohu), which the translators have variously rendered, both into Greek and into Latin. Our Latin translator rendered "void and empty"; Pagninus, "desolate and void"; others, "untilled and empty"; the Septuagint, "invisible and uncomposed"; Aquila, "vanity and nothing"; Symmachus, "idle and unsorted"; Theodotion, "empty and nothingness"; the Paraphrase of Onkelos has, word for word, "desolate and void"; but [the Targum of] Jonathan, "empty of men and beasts." Those skilled in the Hebrew tongue teach that the word תהו (Tohu) properly signifies "vain" or "vanity" — namely, that which does not attain the end for whose sake it was made: by this word, in 1 Kings (1 Samuel) ch. 12, the idols are called [vain], when it is said "Turn not aside after vain things, which shall not profit you nor deliver you, for they are vain," where the word Tohu is set twice. And the word בהו (Bohu) properly signifies "empty, void, and nothing," also "hidden and obscure"; whence some think the Italian word "Buio" (which means dark and shadowy) is derived.¹⁷⁹

His autem verbis Moses ante oculos nostros ponit qualis fuerit in exordio mundi status terrae: erat enim sine luce, sine ullo ornatu et decore, vacua hominibus, animantibus, et plantis; non distincta in montes, valles, campos, et colles; non eminens et extans supra aquas, sed omni ex parte altissime aquis operta; denique talis ut vere posset appellari materia invisibilis et informis (sic enim in libro Sapientiae cap. 11 appellatur, cum dicitur "Manum Dei fecisse orbem terrarum ex materia invisa seu informi"). Caietanus putat eo tempore fuisse terram puram, quod nullum in se haberet corpus mistum: verum cum tunc esset tota aquis confusa et perfusa, non poterat summam siccitatem habere, quae est velut insigne elementi terrae; ut igitur fuerit pura secundum substantiam, secundum qualitates tamen pura esse non potuit.

By these words Moses sets before our eyes what the state of the earth was at the beginning of the world: for it was without light, without any adornment and beauty, empty of men, animals, and plants; not distinguished into mountains, valleys, plains, and hills; not eminent and standing out above the waters, but on every side most deeply covered with waters; finally, such that it could truly be called "invisible and formless matter" (for so it is called in the book of Wisdom, ch. 11, when it is said that "the hand of God made the world from unseen or formless matter"). Cajetan thinks that at that time the earth was pure, in that it had in itself no mixed body; but since it was then wholly confounded and drenched with waters, it could not have the supreme dryness which is, as it were, the distinguishing mark of the element earth: so that, although it was pure in respect of substance, yet in respect of qualities it could not be pure.¹⁸⁰

Illam autem sententiam "Et tenebrae erant super faciem abyssi": Pagninus vertit "Tenebrae erant in superficie voraginis." Vox autem Hebraea חשך (Choshech), quam pluraliter Interpres noster vertit "Tenebras," posse etiam Latine verti "Obscuritas," servato eodem numero singulari. Pro illo "Super faciem," Hebraice est על פני (Al-pene), significans pluraliter "superficies": quo denotatur, ut inquit Caietanus, totam aquam omni ex parte (hoc est tam versus nostrum hemisphaerium quam versus oppositum) fuisse obscuram et tenebrosam, nondum enim lux ulla...

But that sentence, "And darkness was over the face of the abyss": Pagninus rendered "Darkness was on the surface of the gulf." And the Hebrew word חשך (Choshech), which our [Latin] translator rendered in the plural "darkness," can also be rendered in Latin "obscurity," keeping the same singular number. For that "Over the face," in Hebrew it is על פני (Al-pene), signifying in the plural "surfaces": whereby it is denoted, as Cajetan says, that the whole water on every side (that is, both toward our hemisphere and toward the opposite) was dark and shadowy, for as yet no light...¹⁸¹

...[nondum enim lux] ulla erat a Deo creata. תהום (Tehom) vero Hebraice significat proprie voraginem, abyssum, et magnam profunditatem aquarum. Basilius ita definit abyssum: "Est," inquit, "abyssus copiosa aqua, ad cuius fundum non facile penetrari potest deorsum versus." Augustinus super Psalmum 41: "Abyssus," inquit, "est profunditas impenetrabilis et incomprehensibilis; et fere dici solet in aquis, ibi enim est altitudo ubi profunditas quae penetrari usque ad fundum non potest; atque hinc ducta similitudine, abyssum multam vocat Scriptura Dei iudicia, ut quae sint humana ratione et intelligentia incomprehensibilia."

...[for as yet no light] had been created by God. But תהום (Tehom), in Hebrew, properly signifies a gulf, an abyss, and a great depth of waters. Basil defines the abyss thus: "An abyss," he says, "is a copious water, to whose bottom one cannot easily penetrate downward." Augustine, on Psalm 41 [42]: "An abyss," he says, "is a depth impenetrable and incomprehensible; and it is commonly said of waters, for there is height where there is a depth that cannot be penetrated to the bottom; and hence, by a similitude drawn from this, Scripture calls the judgments of God 'a great abyss,' as being incomprehensible to human reason and understanding."¹⁸²

Fuisse autem tunc ingentem aquarum magnitudinem non est dubitandum: Caietanus quidem certe censet maiorem tunc fuisse aquarum vim et copiam quam tempore diluvii, quo tempore quindecim cubitis omnes terrae montes excessit aqua. In exordio autem mundi tanta fuit aquarum altitudo, ut linea ducta a circumferentia terrae ad extimam aquae circumferentiam longe maior fuerit quam linea ducta a centro terrae ad eius superficiem (quae tamen est semidiameter terrae, minimum longitudine continens ter circiter mille millaria). Nec mirum hoc cuidam videri vult Caietanus: quanto enim superius est elementum, tanto grandius est secundum omnes dimensiones; quin etiam opinatur aquam tunc decuplo ampliorem fuisse quam terram, quod nimirum tanta sit naturalis aquae proportio ad terram.

That there was then a vast magnitude of waters is not to be doubted: Cajetan indeed certainly thinks that there was then a greater force and abundance of waters than at the time of the flood, at which time the water exceeded all the mountains of the earth by fifteen cubits. But at the beginning of the world the height of the waters was so great that a line drawn from the circumference of the earth to the outermost circumference of the water was far greater than a line drawn from the center of the earth to its surface (which, however, is the semidiameter of the earth, containing in length at the least about three thousand miles). And Cajetan would have it seem no wonder to anyone: for the higher an element is, the larger it is in all its dimensions; nay, he even thinks that the water then was tenfold larger than the earth, because such is the natural proportion of water to earth.¹⁸³

Beda vero, ne hac quidem altitudine aquae contentus, affirmat in Hexamerum totum illud mundi spatium quod inter empyreum et terram continebatur plenum fuisse aqua — hoc est (ut ego interpretor) materia quaedam humida et aquea, et velut nebulosa, non aequaliter densa vel rara, sed quae et densius coacta in elementarem aquam verti posset, et magis tenuata in aërem raresceret, et ex qua mirabili ratione concreta etiam orbes caelestes conficerentur.

But Bede, not content even with this height of water, affirms in his Hexameron that all that space of the world which was contained between the empyrean and the earth was full of water — that is (as I interpret it) of a certain humid and watery matter, and as it were nebulous, not equally dense or rare, but such as could, more densely compacted, be turned into elemental water, and, more rarefied, thin out into air, and from which, concreted by a wondrous method, even the celestial orbs might be formed.¹⁸⁴

Sed de primaevis mundi tenebris memorabile est, ac vere paradoxum, quod Basilius et Theodoretus hoc loco tradunt. Aiunt enim supra primum caelum fuisse a Deo, ante hunc mundum corporatum et aspectabilem, factam lucem quandam inaccessibilem, in qua versabantur Angeli multis saeculis ante huius mundi molitionem conditi. Creato autem deinde caelo, quoniam ipsum est corpus continuum et solidum, opacavit et obtenebravit omnia quae intra eius ambitum facta sunt, videlicet obiectu suo obstans ne lumen illud supremum terram et aquam illuminare posset; atque hanc isti putant esse causam cur, creato caelo, tenebrae fuerint super terram et aquam. Ad hanc commentationem adducti videntur odio nugarum Manichaeorum asserentium tenebras esse quandam substantiam aeternam, et principium rerum non minus quam lucem. Similia vero eorum quae de primis tenebris tradunt Basilius et Theodoretus, etiam B. Petrum docere solitum, auctoritate et testimonio Clementis Romani, in Hexameron confirmat Beda.

But concerning the primeval darkness of the world there is a memorable, and truly paradoxical, thing that Basil and Theodoret hand down in this place. For they say that, above the first heaven, there was made by God — before this corporeal and visible world — a certain inaccessible light, in which the Angels dwelt, founded many ages before the construction of this world. But when the heaven was then created, since it is a continuous and solid body, it darkened and overshadowed all the things that were made within its compass, namely by its interposition obstructing [the light], so that that supreme light could not illuminate the earth and water; and this they think is the cause why, the heaven being created, there was darkness over the earth and water. They seem to have been led to this speculation by hatred of the trifles of the Manichees, who assert that darkness is a certain eternal substance, and a principle of things no less than light. And that things similar to what Basil and Theodoret hand down about the first darkness were wont to be taught by the blessed Peter too, Bede confirms in his Hexameron, by the authority and testimony of Clement of Rome.¹⁸⁵

Sed profecto, si quod verba istorum in speciem prae se ferunt hoc ipsi senserunt et significare voluerunt, difficile est eorum opinionem approbare. Etenim lux illa supercaelestis aut erat spiritualis tantum, aut corporalis: si tantum spiritualis, certe tametsi nullum fuisset impedimentum caeli, nihilo magis tamen terram et aquam illuminare potuisset; nec caelum, quod est corpus, vim spiritualem illius lucis impedire; nec, cum Moses sine dubio hic agat de tenebris corporalibus, eiusmodi tenebrae ex privatione illius lucis spiritualis existere potuissent. Sin autem ea lux erat corporalis, non utique per se cohaerere et constare poterat, sed eam in aliquo corpore inhaerere necesse erat: quare fuisset aliquod corpus a Deo conditum ante caelum et terram, quod adversatur et Mosi hoc loco, et Davidi in Psalmo centesimo primo, dicentibus "In Principio creasse Deum Caelum et terram."

But surely, if these men felt and meant to signify what their words present on the surface, it is difficult to approve their opinion. For that supercelestial light was either only spiritual or corporeal: if only spiritual, then certainly, even had there been no obstruction from the heaven, it could no more have illuminated the earth and water; nor could the heaven, which is a body, obstruct the spiritual power of that light; nor, since Moses here doubtless treats of corporeal darkness, could such darkness arise from the privation of that spiritual light. But if that light was corporeal, it could not cohere and subsist by itself, but had to inhere in some body: wherefore there would have been some body created by God before heaven and earth — which is opposed both to Moses in this place, and to David in Psalm 101 [102], who say "In the beginning God created Heaven and earth."¹⁸⁶

Quod autem in exordio mundi tenebrae fuerint et obscuritas ante lucem, etiam Paulus nos docuit, cum in undecimo capite Epistolae ad Hebraeos inquit "Fide intelligimus aptata esse saecula verbo Dei, ut ex invisibilibus visibilia fierent"; et in capite quarto posterioris Epistolae ad Corinthios, "Deus," inquit, "qui dixit de tenebris lucem splendescere." Erat igitur a principio terra aquis circumtecta, et quasi circumamicta. Quocirca David in Psalmo centesimo tertio de terra loquens, "Abyssus," inquit, "sicut vestimentum amictus eius"; et Iob capite tricesimo octavo originem aquarum describens, "Quis conclusit ostiis mare, quando erumpebat quasi de vulva procedens, cum ponerem nubem vestimentum eius, et caligine illud quasi pannis infantiae obvolverem?"

That at the beginning of the world there was darkness and obscurity before the light, Paul too taught us, when in the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews he says "By faith we understand that the ages were framed by the word of God, so that from things invisible the visible should come to be"; and in the fourth chapter of the latter Epistle to the Corinthians, "God," he says, "who commanded light to shine out of darkness." Therefore from the beginning the earth was covered round with waters, and as it were clothed about. Wherefore David, in Psalm 103 [104], speaking of the earth, says "The deep, like a garment, is its clothing"; and Job, in chapter 38, describing the origin of the waters, "Who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth as issuing from the womb? when I made a cloud its garment, and wrapped it in mist as in the swaddling-bands of infancy?"¹⁸⁷

And the Spirit of the Lord was borne over the waters.¹⁸⁸

Et Spiritus Domini ferebatur super aquas.

Pagninus vertit, "Spiritus Domini sufflabat in superficie aquarum." Paraphrasis Onkeli habet, "Spiritus a facie Dei flabat super facies aquarum." Ionathas vero, "Spiritus seu ventus misericordiarum, sive gratia, flabat super facies aquarum." Hebraice enim est vox pluralis numeri "Facies," quam et noster interpres et Septuaginta omiserunt. Vocis Hebraeae רוח (Ruah), quae Latine vertitur "Spiritus," quadruplex significatio est in sacris litteris saepe usurpata: vel pro aëre seu vento, vel pro Spiritu Sancto, vel pro natura incorporea (sic dicitur "Deus Spiritus" et "Angelus"), vel (ut paulo infra ostendam) pro vi quadam et impetu motioneque et efficacia.

Pagninus rendered, "The Spirit of the Lord was blowing on the surface of the waters." The Paraphrase of Onkelos has, "A spirit from the face of God was blowing over the faces of the waters." But [the Targum of] Jonathan, "A spirit, or wind, of mercies — or of grace — was blowing over the faces of the waters." For in Hebrew there is a plural noun "Faces," which both our [Latin] translator and the Septuagint omitted. Of the Hebrew word רוח (Ruah), which is rendered in Latin "Spirit," there is a fourfold signification often used in the sacred writings: either for air or wind, or for the Holy Spirit, or for an incorporeal nature (so it is said "God is a Spirit," and "an Angel"), or (as I shall show a little below) for a certain force and impulse and motion and efficacy.¹⁸⁹

Verbum מרחפת (Merachepheth), id est "Ferebatur," Septuaginta verterunt "Superferebatur" (haec enim eorum translatio saepenumero citatur ab Augustino); et alii, "movebat se," seu "agitabat," seu "volitabat"; alii "sufflabat" vel "flabat." Hieronymus in Quaestionibus Hebraicis super Genesim affirmat praedictum verbum Hebraeum proprie significare "incubare" sive "confovere," similitudine volucrum quae ova calore suo fovent et animant; ex quo censet perspicue [intelligi]...

The verb מרחפת (Merachepheth), that is "was borne," the Septuagint rendered "was borne over" (for this translation of theirs is often cited by Augustine); and others, "moved itself," or "stirred," or "fluttered"; others, "was breathing" or "was blowing." Jerome, in the Hebrew Questions on Genesis, affirms that the aforesaid Hebrew verb properly signifies "to brood" or "to cherish/warm," by the likeness of birds, which warm and quicken their eggs by their own heat; from which he thinks it is clearly [understood]...¹⁹⁰

...perspicue intelligi Mosem hoc loco per Spiritum Domini non significare aërem aut ventum, sed Spiritum Sanctum, qui dicitur spiritus omnia vivificans, fovens et perficiens. Eandem verbi Hebraei interpretationem (ait Basilius) hoc loco se ex quodam Syro, magno viro, accepisse — haud dubie indicans Ephraem suum, et aequalem, et perquam familiarem. Eandem quoque verbi Hebraei notionem et interpretationem maxime probat Diodorus Episcopus Tharsensis.

...clearly understood that Moses in this place, by "the Spirit of the Lord," signifies not air or wind, but the Holy Spirit, who is called the spirit that vivifies, fosters, and perfects all things. Basil says that in this place he received the same interpretation of the Hebrew verb from a certain Syrian, a great man — doubtless meaning his own Ephraem [the Syrian], his contemporary and very close friend. The same notion and interpretation of the Hebrew verb Diodore, Bishop of Tarsus, especially approves.¹⁹¹

Sed antequam Patrum interpretationes exponam, libet explodere novam et mirabilem Caietani expositionem, quam nemo (quod equidem sciam) aut veterum aut etiam recentiorum, ne per suspicionem quidem attigit. Existimat Caietanus his verbis metaphorice significari Angelos, qui Caelos (praesertim autem primum mobile) maxima celeritate movent: ita ut "Spiritus Dei" significet Angelum (ita crebro appellatum in Scriptura, David enim dixit "Qui facit Angelos suos spiritus"); "Super aquas" significat Caelos, nam et Hebraice vocantur שמים (Schamaim), ab aquis ducto vocabulo, et Caelum crystallinum (quod putat Caietanus primum mobile), cum sit totum diaphanum et perlucidum, nomine aquae rite nominatur; illa autem particula "Super" denotat excellentiam Angeli supra Caelum quod movet, non enim ab eo continetur vel pendet, sed potius ei supereminet et praesidet.

But before I expound the interpretations of the Fathers, I would like to explode the novel and astonishing exposition of Cajetan, which no one (as far as I know), of the ancients or even of the more recent, has so much as touched by surmise. Cajetan thinks that by these words are metaphorically signified the Angels, who move the Heavens (and especially the primum mobile) with the greatest speed: so that "the Spirit of God" signifies an Angel (so frequently so called in Scripture, for David said "Who makes his Angels spirits"); "upon the waters" signifies the Heavens, for in Hebrew too they are called שמים (Schamaim), a word derived from "waters," and the crystalline Heaven (which Cajetan thinks is the primum mobile), since it is wholly diaphanous and translucent, is rightly named by the name of "water"; and that particle "Super" (above) denotes the excellence of the Angel above the Heaven which it moves, for it is not contained by it or dependent on it, but rather is supereminent over it and presides over it.¹⁹²

"Ferebatur," seu (ut proprie sonat verbum Hebraeum) "Volitabat" aut "Incubabat," ostendit qualis sit motus Caeli qui fit ab Angelo: si enim legamus "Volitabat," declaratur summa eius motus celeritas; sin autem legamus "Incubabat," demonstratur vitalis eius vis et efficacia, est enim motus caelestis (ut tradit Aristoteles initio libri octavi Physicorum) quasi vita rerum sublunarium, per hunc enim (ut idem docet in primo libro de Caelo) impertitur Deus omnibus rebus esse ac vivere, aliis quidem clarius, aliis vero obscurius. Atque haec est Caietani interpretatio.

"Was borne," or (as the Hebrew verb properly sounds) "was fluttering" or "was brooding," shows what the motion of the Heaven is which is caused by the Angel: for if we read "was fluttering," the supreme speed of its motion is declared; but if we read "was brooding," its vital force and efficacy is shown, for the celestial motion (as Aristotle hands down at the beginning of the eighth book of the Physics) is, as it were, the life of sublunary things, since through it (as he also teaches in the first book On the Heavens) God imparts to all things being and life, to some more clearly, to others more obscurely. And this is Cajetan's interpretation.¹⁹³

Quam esse durissimam, omnino extortam et violentam, minimeque cum proposito et verbis ipsius Mosis congruentem, quilibet per se videre potest, adeo ut nostra confutatione non egeat. Certo, ante factam lucem quid opus fuit conversione Caeli? Etenim motus caeli non fit nisi ad dispensandum lumen. Deinde, nomine aquarum significari caelos, locutio est nimium figurata, et in Scriptura insolens, nec historicae narrationi Mosis conveniens. Absurdum etiam est facere Mosem, tam parvo intervallo, tam ambigue utentem vocabulo aquarum — primo quidem pro caelo, deinde autem in enarrando opere secundi, tertii, et quinti diei, pro vero aquae elemento. Sed dimittamus Caietanum, et aliorum interpretationes ad iudicium et examen vocemus.

That this is most harsh, wholly forced and violent, and least congruent with the purpose and words of Moses himself, anyone can see for himself, so that it needs no refutation from us. Certainly, before light was made, what need was there of the revolution of the Heaven? For the motion of the heaven occurs only for dispensing light. Next, that "heavens" should be signified by the name of "waters" is too figurative a locution, and unusual in Scripture, and not befitting the historical narration of Moses. It is also absurd to make Moses, within so small a space, use the word "waters" so ambiguously — first for the heaven, then, in narrating the work of the second, third, and fifth days, for the true element of water. But let us dismiss Cajetan, and call the interpretations of others to judgment and examination.¹⁹⁴

Tertullianus in libro quem scripsit adversus Hermogenem contendit per Spiritum Domini hoc loco non Deum, sed ventum significari. Haec interpretatio probatur maxime Theodoreto, qui...

Tertullian, in the book he wrote against Hermogenes, contends that by "the Spirit of the Lord" in this place is signified not God, but wind. This interpretation is especially approved by Theodoret, who...¹⁹⁵

...qui in quaestione 8 super Genesim putat Mosem his verbis subindicasse elementum aëris, sicut tradiderat elementum terrae et aquae. Illud autem "Ferebatur" ait demonstrare mobilitatem et agitationem naturalem ipsius aëris seu venti, vel naturalem aëris situm, qui est undique supereminere aquis, ipsas circundando. Appellatur autem spiritus Dei, vel quod a Deo immissus erat (non enim tunc erant causae naturales excitantes ventum), vel quod ille ventus esset admodum validus et vehemens: mos enim est Scripturae, cum rem quampiam insignem et eximiam significare vult, adiungere ei nomen Dei, sicut dicitur "Mons Dei," "Cedrus Dei," "Bellum Dei vel Domini," "Civitas Dei." Hanc expositionem memorat Basilius hoc loco et Diodorus (ut citatur in Catena), nec improbant tamen, licet postponant ei quae est de Spiritu sancto.

...who, in question 8 on Genesis, thinks that Moses by these words hinted at the element of air, just as he had handed down the element of earth and water. And that "was borne," he says, demonstrates the natural mobility and agitation of the air or wind itself, or the natural position of the air, which is on every side to be supereminent over the waters, surrounding them. And it is called "the Spirit of God," either because it had been sent in by God (for there were not then natural causes exciting wind), or because that wind was very strong and vehement: for it is the custom of Scripture, when it wishes to signify some notable and outstanding thing, to add to it the name of God — as it is said "the Mountain of God," "the Cedar of God," "the War of God or of the Lord," "the City of God." This exposition Basil mentions in this place, and Diodore (as cited in the Catena), nor do they disapprove it, although they put it after the one concerning the Holy Spirit.¹⁹⁶

Cum igitur haec interpretatio a Tertulliano et Theodoreto maxime probata sit, nec a Basilio et Diodoro aliisque viris gravissimis damnata, nulla profecto ratio erat cur Catharinus eam non modo ut falsam, sed ut parum piam, tam severe reiiceret et condemnaret. Nam quod quidam aiunt, licet vox "Spiritus" interdum in Scriptura ponatur pro vento, nunquam tamen eam cum adiunctione "Dei" vel "Domini" sumi pro vento, sed tantum pro Spiritu Sancto, falsum esse coarguit Theodoretus manifesto exemplo ex Psal. Davidis 147, ubi sic est, "Flabit spiritus eius, et fluent aquae": significatur enim, immisso vento a Deo, aquas frigore conglaciatas deliquari atque diffluere.

Since, therefore, this interpretation was especially approved by Tertullian and Theodoret, and not condemned by Basil and Diodore and other most weighty men, there was surely no reason why Catharinus should reject and condemn it so severely — not only as false, but as insufficiently pious. For what some say — that although the word "Spirit" is sometimes put in Scripture for "wind," yet it is never taken for "wind" with the addition of "of God" or "of the Lord," but only for the Holy Spirit — Theodoret proves false by a manifest example from Psalm 147 of David, where it stands thus, "His wind shall blow, and the waters shall flow": for it signifies that, a wind being sent in by God, the waters frozen by cold melt and flow away.¹⁹⁷

Potuisset idem aliis permultis Scripturae testimoniis convincere: cuiusmodi est illud Exod. 15, "Flavit spiritus eius [tuus], et operuit eos mare"; et in Cantico trium puerorum, "Benedicite imber et ros Domino, benedicite omnis spiritus Dei Domino"; et apud Iob cap. 27, "Donec superest halitus in me, et spiritus Dei in naribus meis, non loquentur labia mea iniquitatem"; et apud Isaiam cap. 30, "Nutrimenta eius, ignis et ligna multa: flatus Domini sicut torrens sulphuris succendens eam"; et capit. 40, "Exsiccatum est foenum, et cecidit flos, quia spiritus Domini sufflavit in eo."

He could have proved the same by very many other testimonies of Scripture: such as that of Exodus 15, "Thy wind blew, and the sea covered them"; and in the Canticle of the Three Children, "Bless the Lord, rain and dew; bless the Lord, every wind (spirit) of God"; and in Job, ch. 27, "As long as breath remains in me, and the breath (spirit) of God in my nostrils, my lips shall not speak iniquity"; and in Isaiah, ch. 30, "Its nourishment is fire and much wood: the breath of the Lord, like a torrent of brimstone, kindling it"; and ch. 40, "The hay is withered, and the flower is fallen, because the wind (spirit) of the Lord has blown upon it."¹⁹⁸

Existimant autem probatores huius interpretationis propterea Mosem hoc loco fecisse mentionem spiritus, id est aëris seu venti, quod indicare vellet omnia elementa initio fuisse a Deo condita, hoc est terram, aquam, et aërem; nam de igne, utrum sit elementum aliquod separato in mundi loco positum, magna lis est etiamnum inter philosophos. Et sane priora duo manifesta sunt, etiam vulgo, visu tactuque; tertium et tactu et auditu; quartum autem (id est ignis, qui est supra aërem proxime subiectus orbi lunae) nullo sensu notus est. Et propterea fortasse Deus creavit aërem cum motu et agitatione, ut ea ratione creatio ipsius omnibus innotesceret, aërem quippe vulgus indoctum non nisi ex motu eius deprehendit. Alii censent mentionem esse factam spiritus, scilicet venti, quod eius ministerio mox usurus esset Deus ad separandam aquam a terra, vel certe ad exsiccandam terram, quae segregatis aquis lutulenta et caenosa remanserat.

Now the approvers of this interpretation think that Moses in this place made mention of the spirit — that is, of air or wind — because he wished to indicate that all the elements were founded by God at the beginning, namely earth, water, and air; for about fire, whether it is some element placed in a separate place of the world, there is great dispute even now among the philosophers. And indeed the first two are manifest even to the common people, by sight and touch; the third, by touch and hearing; but the fourth (that is, fire, which is above the air, next beneath the orb of the moon) is known by no sense. And therefore perhaps God created the air with motion and agitation, so that by this means its creation might become known to all, since the unlearned common people do not perceive air except by its motion. Others think mention was made of the spirit — namely, wind — because God was soon to use its ministry to separate the water from the earth, or at least to dry the earth, which, the waters being segregated, had remained muddy and miry.¹⁹⁹

Altera interpretatio est ferme omnium Patrum, tam Graecorum quam Latinorum, per Spiritum Dei hoc loco vel solum vel praecipue ac principaliter significari Spiritum sanctum: quam sententiam secuta est Ecclesia Catholica in benedictione fontium, in qua de Spiritu sancto haec canit, "Tu super aquas futurus eos ferebaris"; et iterum, "Deus, cuius Spiritus super aquas inter ipsa mundi primordia ferebatur, ut iam tum virtutem sanctificationis aquarum natura conciperet."

The second interpretation, that of nearly all the Fathers (both Greek and Latin), is that by "the Spirit of God" in this place is signified, either solely or chiefly and principally, the Holy Spirit: which opinion the Catholic Church has followed in the blessing of the fonts, in which it sings thus of the Holy Spirit, "Thou wast borne over the waters, about to [sanctify] them"; and again, "God, whose Spirit was borne over the waters at the very beginnings of the world, that even then the nature of the waters might conceive the power of sanctification."²⁰⁰

Placuit autem maxime Patribus haec interpretatio, tum quod per eam sacramentum regenerationis spiritualis (quae fit per aquam et Spiritum sanctum — in cuius rei signum et argumentum, cum Dominus noster baptizatus est in Iordane supra Iordanis aquas, Spiritus sanctus in specie columbae apparuit) ostenditur praemonstrata fuisse in prima mundi et hominis origine, in qua Spiritus Domini ferebatur super aquas; tum maxime, quod per eam patefit et innotescit mysterium Trinitatis in ipso mundi et divinae scripturae exordio: nam illud "In Principio" denotat Filium; illud autem "Creavit Deus" indicat Deum Patrem; hoc autem "Spiritus Domini ferebatur super aquas" demonstrat Spiritum sanctum.

This interpretation especially pleased the Fathers, both because by it the sacrament of spiritual regeneration (which is done through water and the Holy Spirit — in sign and proof of which, when our Lord was baptized in the Jordan, above the waters of the Jordan, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove) is shown to have been prefigured in the first origin of the world and of man, in which the Spirit of the Lord was borne over the waters; and especially because by it the mystery of the Trinity is made manifest and known at the very beginning of the world and of divine Scripture: for that "In the beginning" denotes the Son; that "God created" indicates God the Father; and this "The Spirit of the Lord was borne over the waters" demonstrates the Holy Spirit.²⁰¹

Certe negari nullo modo potest Spiritum sanctum in sacris litteris saepenumero dici auctorem creandi caelos et terram, omniaque fovendi, vivificandi, conservandi. David enim cecinit, "Verbo Domini caeli firmati sunt, et Spiritu oris eius omnis virtus eorum"; et alio loco, "Emittes Spiritum tuum, et creabuntur, et renovabis faciem terrae"; et Iob inquit, "Spiritus Domini ornavit caelos"; et in libro Sapientiae multa praeclara de Spiritu Dei praedicantur.

Certainly it can in no way be denied that the Holy Spirit is in the sacred writings frequently called the author of creating the heavens and the earth, and of fostering, vivifying, and preserving all things. For David sang, "By the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and all their power by the spirit of his mouth"; and in another place, "Thou shalt send forth thy Spirit, and they shall be created, and thou shalt renew the face of the earth"; and Job says, "The Spirit of the Lord adorned the heavens"; and in the book of Wisdom many excellent things are proclaimed of the Spirit of God.²⁰²

Sed quid sibi vult illud verbum "Ferebatur," seu (ut legit Augustinus) "Superferebatur super aquas"? Basilius inquit non aliud esse "Ferebatur" quam fovebat et vivificabat aquas, praeparans eas ad mox futuram foecunditatem. Augustinus ait illud "Superferebatur" significare Deum esse superiorem rebus quas condidit, nec ulla necessitate nec rei alicuius indigentia impulsum esse ad fabricandum mundum, sed sua modo bonitate et benignitate: qui enim ob indigentiam operatur, operibus ipse suis subiicitur potius quam superfertur. Beda in Hexameron sic ait, "Spiritus Domini ferebatur super aquas, non corporalibus locis, sed excellentia potestatis, quia subiacebat voluntati creatoris quicquid deinde formandum et perficiendum inchoaverat." Tostatus sic interpretatur: "Voluntas et mens Dei opificis ferebatur super aquas, quasi mente pertractans et designans quaecumque statuerat ex aquis facere, ad similitudinem hominis opificis spectantis et considerantis materiam sibi subiectam, quemadmodum ex ea fingere possit opus ad similitudinem eius formae quam animo suo conceptam et informatam habet."

But what does that word "was borne" — or (as Augustine reads) "was borne over the waters" — mean? Basil says that "was borne" is nothing other than that it fostered and vivified the waters, preparing them for the fertility soon to come. Augustine says that "was borne over" signifies that God is superior to the things he founded, and was impelled to fashion the world by no necessity and by need of nothing, but only by his own goodness and kindness: for he who works because of need is subjected to his own works rather than borne above them. Bede, in the Hexameron, says thus, "The Spirit of the Lord was borne over the waters, not in corporeal places, but by the excellence of power, because whatever he had begun, thereafter to be formed and perfected, lay subject to the will of the Creator." Tostatus interprets thus: "The will and mind of God the maker was borne over the waters, as if pondering and designing in his mind whatever he had determined to make from the waters — after the likeness of a human craftsman looking at and considering the material set before him, [to see] how from it he might fashion a work after the likeness of that form which he holds conceived and shaped in his mind."²⁰³

Tertia interpretatio est, per spiritum Domini significari non ventum, nec Spiritum sanctum, sed vim et impetum, et efficaciam quandam vitalem et foecunditatis plenam, aquis impressam a Deo. Frequens enim est in Scriptura per spiritum Dei significari subitam...

The third interpretation is that by "the Spirit of the Lord" is signified neither wind, nor the Holy Spirit, but a certain force and impulse, and a vital efficacy full of fertility, impressed upon the waters by God. For it is frequent in Scripture that by "the Spirit of God" is signified a sudden [force]...²⁰⁴

...[per spiritum Dei significari] subitam quandam vim et extraordinariam Dei motionem ad aliquid magnum et eximium agendum. Sic legimus spiritum Domini irruisse in Sampsonem, et discerpsisse leonem; et in Saulem, et minutatim concidisse bovem; in Elisaeum quoque, et statim prophetare coepisse. Hac etiam significatione dicitur spiritus Dei sustulisse Eliam in caelum, et rapuisse Philippum; et apud Danielem capite decimo quarto dicitur Angelus Domini apprehendisse Habacuc in vertice eius, et portasse in capillo capitis, et posuisse in Babylonem super lacu leonum "in impetu spiritus sui." Ideo autem Moses docere voluit in principio vim et efficaciam Dei affuisse aquis, ut intelligeretur quaecunque postea ex aquis iussu Dei puncto temporis facta esse narrantur, non esse facta nativa facultate et potestate aquarum, sed supernaturali virtute Dei, qui aquis illis aderat.

...[that by 'the Spirit of God' is signified] a certain sudden force and extraordinary motion of God for doing something great and outstanding. Thus we read that the spirit of the Lord rushed upon Samson, and he tore apart the lion; and upon Saul, and he cut the ox to pieces; upon Elisha too, and he straightway began to prophesy. In this signification also the spirit of God is said to have lifted up Elijah into heaven, and to have caught away Philip; and in Daniel, ch. 14, the Angel of the Lord is said to have seized Habakkuk by the crown of his head, and carried him by the hair of his head, and set him in Babylon over the lions' den, "in the impulse of his spirit." And so Moses wished to teach at the beginning that the force and efficacy of God was present in the waters, so that it might be understood that whatever is afterward narrated to have been made from the waters at God's command in a moment of time, was not made by the native faculty and power of the waters, but by the supernatural power of God, who was present in those waters.²⁰⁵

Sicut etiam cum dicitur Sampson, irruente in eum spiritu Dei, discerpsisse leonem, significatur non id fecisse Sampsonem naturali robore et propriis viribus, sed mirabili quadam virtute tunc ei a Deo indita. Hanc expositionem solam amplectitur Chrysostomus homil. tertia in Genesim. Augustinus autem in libro super Genesim imperfecto, capite quarto, ait per Spiritum Dei tria posse intelligi: vel Spiritum sanctum, vel ventum seu aërem, vel vitalem quandam creaturam qua universus orbis visibilis movetur atque continetur.

Just as, also, when Samson is said — the spirit of God rushing upon him — to have torn apart the lion, it is signified that Samson did this not by natural strength and his own powers, but by a certain wondrous power then implanted in him by God. This exposition alone Chrysostom embraces, in the third homily on Genesis. But Augustine, in the unfinished book on Genesis, ch. 4, says that by "the Spirit of God" three things can be understood: either the Holy Spirit, or wind or air, or a certain vital creature by which the whole visible world is moved and held together.²⁰⁶

Atque hae sunt tres nobiliores, et vero etiam probabiliores, huius loci interpretationes; quarum quae sit potissima, lectoris arbitrio existimandum relinquo. Mihi certe prima et tertia, secundum sensum litteralem, quemadmodum secunda secundum sensum mysticum, maxime probatur. Illud fortasse cuipiam mirandum accidet, cur Moses, sicut terrae, ita etiam aquae Deum esse creatorem aperte non docuerit. Respondemus id quod tradit Augustinus libro 11 de Civitate Dei capite ultimo, satis id insinuasse Mosem. Nam cum dixisset "In principio Deum creasse terram," proxime declaravit qualis sit creata, nimirum inanis et vacua, et aquis tenebrosis undique operta: quibus verbis involute docetur terram creatam esse simul cum aqua, neque enim creari debuit aqua ante caelum et terram.

And these are the three nobler — and indeed also the more probable — interpretations of this passage; of which is the best, I leave to be judged at the reader's discretion. To me, certainly, the first and third, according to the literal sense — just as the second, according to the mystical sense — are most approved. Perhaps it will seem a wonder to someone why Moses, just as [he taught] God to be the creator of the earth, did not also openly teach [him to be the creator] of the water. We answer (what Augustine hands down in book 11 of the City of God, last chapter) that Moses sufficiently insinuated it. For when he had said "In the beginning God created the earth," he next declared what sort it was created — namely, void and empty, and on every side covered with dark waters: by which words it is implicitly taught that the earth was created together with the water, for water ought not to have been created before heaven and earth.²⁰⁷

Solius autem terrae creationem aperte tradidit Moses, quia eius nomine etiam aquam comprehendi voluit, quod ex utroque elemento unus globus et quasi unum corpus conflatur. Quin videtur aqua esse facta propter terram — non prout terra simplex est elementum (sic enim ignobilior est quam aqua), sed ut est sedes et quasi mater omnium viventium. Deum autem effectorem esse et conditorem aquarum omnium, multis in locis explicatissime traditur in sacris litteris: veluti in capite 20 [Exodi], et in Apocalypsi capite 14, et in lib. Iudith cap. 9 sic est, "Deus caelorum, et creator aquarum, et dominus totius creaturae."

But Moses openly handed down the creation of the earth alone, because by its name he wished water too to be comprehended, since from both elements one globe and, as it were, one body is formed. Nay, water seems to have been made for the sake of the earth — not insofar as the earth is a simple element (for so it is baser than water), but insofar as it is the seat and, as it were, the mother of all living things. That God is the maker and founder of all the waters is handed down most explicitly in many places of the sacred writings: as in chapter 20 [of Exodus], and in the Apocalypse, ch. 14, and in the book of Judith, ch. 9, it stands thus, "God of the heavens, and creator of the waters, and Lord of every creature."²⁰⁸

Non praeteribo tacitus, celeriter tamen perstringam, quod a quibusdam non incuriosis rerum antiquarum aestimatoribus observatum et proditum est: multa eorum quae hic traduntur a Mose simillima reperiri in veterum poëtarum, Theologorum, et philosophorum monimentis; et quia eos omnes Moses multis saeculis antecessit, credibile fit illa ex Mosaicis hausta esse fontibus. Moses tradit in exordio mundi fuisse terram inanem et vacuam, itemque tenebras et abyssum, Spiritum Domini et aquas: quae ad unum omnia Mercurius Trismegistus expressit in Pimandro. Sic enim ait, "Erant tenebrae infinitae in abysso, et aqua, et spiritus tenuis intelligibilis, quae divina virtute erant in ipso Chao."

I will not pass over in silence — though I shall touch it briefly — what has been observed and reported by certain not incurious appraisers of ancient things: that many of the things here handed down by Moses are found very similar in the monuments of the ancient poets, theologians, and philosophers; and since Moses preceded them all by many ages, it becomes credible that those things were drawn from the Mosaic springs. Moses hands down that at the beginning of the world there was earth void and empty, and likewise darkness and abyss, the Spirit of the Lord and the waters: all of which, every one, Mercury Trismegistus expressed in the Pimander. For he says thus, "There was infinite darkness in the abyss, and water, and a fine intelligible spirit, which by divine power were in the very Chaos."²⁰⁹

Plato exponens in Timaeo quemadmodum aggressus sit Deus fabricare mundum, "Quicquid erat," inquit, "non tranquillum et quietum, sed immoderate agitatum et quasi fluctuans, id assumpsit, et ex inordinato ad ordinem adduxit." Quam sententiam ex hoc loco Mosis accepisse Platonem, auctor est Iustinus martyr in posteriori Apologia pro Christianis. Anaxagoras censuit omnia fuisse primo confusa et indigesta, deinde accessisse mentem, quae ea distinguendo et separando mundum effecit. Hesiodus (ut refert Aristoteles libro primo Metaphysicorum, et libro quarto Physicorum, et in libello qui inscribitur adversus Xenophanem, Zenonem, et Gorgiam) dixit primum omnium fuisse Chaos, tum amplissimam tellurem extitisse. Et Aristoteles quidem putat Deum fecisse Chaos tanquam receptaculum et locum corporum gignendorum; in eo autem libello quem dixi ait Hesiodum per Chaos intellexisse nihil, et ex nihilo fecisse caelum et terram.

Plato, expounding in the Timaeus how God set about to fashion the world, says, "Whatever was — not tranquil and quiet, but immoderately agitated and, as it were, fluctuating — that he took up, and brought from disorder to order." That Plato received this opinion from this passage of Moses, Justin Martyr is the authority, in the latter Apology for the Christians. Anaxagoras held that all things were at first confused and unsorted, and then Mind came, which, by distinguishing and separating them, made the world. Hesiod (as Aristotle relates in the first book of the Metaphysics, the fourth book of the Physics, and in the booklet entitled Against Xenophanes, Zeno, and Gorgias) said that first of all there was Chaos, then the most ample earth came into being. And Aristotle indeed thinks that God made Chaos as a receptacle and place for the bodies to be generated; but in that booklet I mentioned, he says that Hesiod understood by "Chaos" nothing, and from nothing made heaven and earth.²¹⁰

Ovid, at the beginning of the first book of the Metamorphoses, following the opinion of Hesiod and Anaxagoras about the world's origin, writes thus: "There was one face of nature in the whole world, which they called Chaos — a rude and unsorted mass, nothing but inert weight, and the discordant seeds of things not well joined, heaped together in the same place."²¹¹

Ovidius in primo libro Metamorphoseos initio sententiam Hesiodi et Anaxagorae de mundi origine secutus, ita scribit: "Unus erat toto naturae vultus in orbe, / Quem dixere Chaos, rudis indigestaque moles, / Nec quicquam nisi pondus iners, congestaque eodem / Non bene iunctarum discordia semina rerum."

Eugubinus in Cosmopaeia annotavit veteres Graeciae sapientes materiam omnium rerum appellasse ὕλην, paululum mutata voce pro ἰλύν, quae vox significat caenum et limum: et vero materia ex qua sunt cuncta ferme condita, secundum Mosem, fuit terra caenosa et limosa, hoc est terra aquis confusa et permixta. Porro noctem seu tenebras praecessisse creationem mundi, praeter Mercurium et Hesiodum, etiam Thales Milesius sensit: rogatus enim utra prior fuisset, nox an dies, respondit, priorem fuisse noctem. Aristoteles etiam testificatur antiquissimos Theologos tria fecisse mundi principia: Chaos, Noctem, et Oceanum. Homerus certe Oceanum et Thetin primos fecit deorum parentes, et deos inducit iurantes per aquam stygiam, quasi per rem omnium vetustissimam et honoratissimam. Thales vero, primus philosophorum in Graecia, aquam fecit rerum omnium principium.

Eugubinus (Steuco), in his Cosmopoeia, noted that the ancient sages of Greece called the matter of all things ὕλη (hylē), the word slightly changed from ἰλύς (ilys), which means mud and slime: and indeed the matter from which nearly all things were founded, according to Moses, was muddy and slimy earth — that is, earth confused and mingled with waters. Furthermore, that night or darkness preceded the creation of the world, besides Mercury [Trismegistus] and Hesiod, Thales of Miletus too held: for when asked which was earlier, night or day, he answered that night was earlier. Aristotle also testifies that the most ancient theologians made three principles of the world: Chaos, Night, and Ocean. Homer certainly made Ocean and Thetis the first parents of the gods, and brings in the gods swearing by the Stygian water, as by the most ancient and most honored thing of all. And Thales, the first of philosophers in Greece, made water the principle of all things.²¹²

Quod autem Moses ait de spiritu Dei movente et praeparante aquas ad rerum procreationem, dogma est Stoicorum asserentium omnia quae sunt in mundo uno divino Spiritu procreari, regi, atque contineri. Idemque Virgilius elegantissimis illis versibus expressit:

But what Moses says about the spirit of God moving and preparing the waters for the procreation of things is the doctrine of the Stoics, who assert that all things in the world are procreated, ruled, and held together by one divine Spirit. The same thing Virgil expressed in those most elegant verses:²¹³

"In the beginning, a Spirit within nourishes the Heaven and the lands, and the watery plains, the shining globe of the Moon and the Titanian stars; and Mind, infused through the members, stirs the whole mass, and mingles itself with the great body."²¹⁴

"Principio Caelum, ac terras, camposque liquentes, / Lucentemque globum Lunae, Titaniaque astra / Spiritus intus alit: totamque infusa per artus / Mens agitat molem, et magno se corpore miscet."

Hunc spiritum fortasse appellavit amorem Hesiodus, quem etiam constituit mundi principium; Plato vero animam mundi. Denique aquam pertinere ad mundi generationem et originem, sententia fuit Stoicorum, quam Seneca libro tertio Naturalium quaestionum capite decimotertio eleganter his verbis expressit: "Aqua," ait, "Thales valentissimum elementum est, hoc fuisse primum putat, ex hoc surrexisse omnia. Sed nos quoque aut in eadem sententia eius, aut in ultima sumus. Dicimus enim ignem esse qui occupet mundum, et in se cuncta convertat; hunc evanidum considere, et nihil relinqui aliud in rerum natura, igne restincto, quam humorem; in hoc futuri mundi speciem latere. Ita ignis exitus mundi est, humor primordium." Hactenus Seneca. Sed haec, a nobis nunc obiter dicta et raptim collecta, aliena a proposito minime sectantibus satis esse debent.

This spirit Hesiod perhaps called "Love," which he also made the principle of the world; but Plato, the soul of the world. Finally, that water pertains to the generation and origin of the world was the opinion of the Stoics, which Seneca, in the third book of the Natural Questions, ch. 13, elegantly expressed in these words: "Water," he says, "Thales [holds] is the most powerful element; he thinks this was first, and that from it all things arose. But we too are either in the same opinion as he, or in the last [opposite] one. For we say that it is fire which seizes the world and converts all things into itself; that this, fading away, subsides, and that nothing else is left in the nature of things, the fire being extinguished, than moisture; that in this lies hidden the appearance of the world to come. Thus fire is the world's end, moisture its beginning." Thus far Seneca. But these things, now said by us in passing and hastily gathered, ought to suffice for those who do not at all pursue what is foreign to the purpose.²¹⁵

Translator’s notes

Heading of the prefatory canons of interpretation. ↩
Marginal gloss: "The narration of Moses is historical, and to be interpreted according to the historical sense" (cf. Augustine, On Genesis according to the Letter, bk. 8, ch. 1). ↩
Augustine, On Genesis according to the Letter 8.1. The quotation continues onto printed p. 23. ↩
Conclusion of the Augustine quotation (On Genesis according to the Letter 8.1). Running head from here on: COMM. IN GENESIM, LIB. I. ↩
Marginal gloss: "The literal sense is the genuine, proper sense of Moses." ↩
Augustine, On Genesis according to the Letter 8.2, quoting his own earlier On Genesis against the Manichees. ↩
Marginal gloss: "Basil's opinion much to be observed." ↩
Basil, Homilies on the Hexaemeron (3rd homily), against Origen's allegorizing of the waters. ↩
Sentence continues onto printed p. 24 (Basil again on the literal sense as the genuine, proper sense of Moses' words). ↩
Conclusion of the Basil quotation (9th Homily on Genesis) begun at the foot of printed p. 23. ↩
Quotations from Bede (on the Hexaemeron) and a gentle reservation about Augustine's allegorizing. ↩
Marginal gloss: "One must not flee to miracles and God's absolute power without necessary cause." ↩
Marginal citation: Augustine, On Genesis according to the Letter, bk. 2, ch. 2. ↩
Augustine, On Genesis ad litteram 2.2. The quotation continues onto printed p. 25. ↩
End of the Augustine quotation, completing the SECOND rule. ↩
Marginal gloss: "The obstinate defense of one's own opinion is to be shunned." ↩
Augustine, On Genesis ad litteram 1.18. ↩
Marginal gloss: "What is handed down in the sacred writings cannot be contrary to the true findings of the natural disciplines." ↩
Augustine, On Genesis ad litteram 1.21. ↩
Pererius's examples of patristic opinions overturned by demonstrated natural science. ↩
Marginal gloss: "St. Augustine's view, to be observed." Augustine, Letter (Ep. to Marcellinus). The quotation continues onto printed p. 26. ↩
End of the Augustine (Letter to Marcellinus) quotation. ↩
Marginal gloss: "The sayings of Moses must not be twisted to the opinions of poets and philosophers." ↩
Marginal gloss: "A critical remark on Pico della Mirandola." ↩
Sixtus of Siena, Bibliotheca Sancta bk. 4. Marginal gloss: "Why Lippomanus inserted nothing about Pico in his Catena." Sentence continues onto printed p. 27. ↩
Marginal gloss: "Epilogue of the foregoing disputation." This recapitulates the marks of the best interpretation, summing up the four rules. ↩
Cajetan (Cardinal Tommaso de Vio), preface to his Commentaries on Genesis. The proverb "de lidio in quinternum" = merely copying from one page/quire to another. ↩
Marginal gloss: "A bold opinion of Cajetan, deserving correction." This closes the section of interpretive rules; the verse-by-verse commentary on "In principio" begins on printed p. 28. ↩
The scripture lemma. The verse-by-verse commentary on Genesis begins here. ↩
First interpretation of "In principio": "before all else." Scripture: Ps. 102:25; Prov. 8:22. ↩
Second interpretation: "from some beginning of time" — i.e. the world is not eternal. This is the one Pererius will develop. ↩
Marginal citation: Basil, Homily 1 on the Hexaemeron. Pererius names the two errors he will refute: (1) the world is eternal; (2) it began but countless ages ago. ↩
Marginal citation: Aristotle, Topics bk. 1, ch. 1. ↩
Marginal gloss: "It is proved that the world did not always exist." Citations: Aristotle, On the Heavens bk. 1 (text 102); Topics bk. 1, ch. 1. ↩
Marginal chapter citations: ch. 1; ch. 13 (for the Aristotelian references). ↩
The verses Aristotle commends in Nicomachean Ethics 7 (the saying attributed to Hesiod). ↩
Marginal citation: ch. 2 (Nicomachean Ethics bk. 10). ↩
Marginal gloss: "To believe the world was founded by God is a great aid toward worshiping God." Pererius re-uses, nearly verbatim, the argument from the Praefatio (printed p. 2). ↩
Sentence continues onto printed p. 30. Marginal gloss (begins here, completed on next page): "Pliny, even against his own opinion, bore witness to a new beginning of the world." ↩
Marginal gloss: "Pliny, even against his own opinion, bore witness to a new beginning of the world." Pliny, Natural History 7.16; 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) 5. ↩
Marginal gloss: "In what difficulties the defenders of the world's eternity entangle themselves." The Greek ἄλογα καὶ ἀδύνατα = "irrational and impossible." ↩
Pererius refers to bk. 15 of his earlier philosophical work (his De communibus omnium rerum naturalium principiis), and turns from metaphysical to historical arguments. ↩
Marginal gloss: "From the inventors of the arts it is gathered that the world is not eternal." Pliny, Natural History 7.56 (on the first inventors). ↩
Lucretius, On the Nature of Things 5.324–328. The quotation continues onto printed p. 31. ↩
Conclusion of the Lucretius quotation (On the Nature of Things 5.328–331). ↩
Marginal gloss: "How it is established that the most ancient things among the nations are more recent than the flood of Noah." Citations: Josephus, Against Apion 1; Trogus Pompeius (via Justin); Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 9.4 & 10.3; Dionysius of Halicarnassus; Acusilaus. ↩
Pererius's synchronisms (Inachus/Phoroneus/Ogyges = age of Jacob; Cecrops = age of Moses; Belus/Ninus = age of Abraham) echo the Praefatio. ↩
The objection from periodic cataclysms: Plato, Timaeus & Critias; Aristotle, Meteorologica 1; Theophrastus (via ps.-Philo, On the Eternity of the World). A marginal cross-reference abbreviation here is too abraded to read with confidence. ↩
Citation: Aristotle, Metaphysics ("First Philosophy") bk. 12. Sentence continues onto printed p. 32. ↩
Closes the disputation against eternity (begun p. 31) and opens the question of the world's age. ↩
Marginal gloss: "What Varro thought about the origin of the world." Varro's three ages (via Censorinus, De die natali): the obscure (pre-cataclysm), the mythical (to the first Olympiad), and the historical. ↩
Marginal gloss: "The lies of the Egyptians about the antiquity of the world." Citations: Diodorus Siculus; Pomponius Mela; Diogenes Laertius; Pliny, Natural History 35.13. ↩
Marginal gloss: "Alexander the Great's letter to Olympias." Citations: Cyprian (ps.-Cyprian), De idololatria; Augustine, City of God 12.10. Sentence continues onto printed p. 33. ↩
The Egyptian priest's inflated figures, refuted by the consensus of historians. Figures: Assyria ~1,360 yrs (Ninus to Sardanapalus); Macedon <500; Persia <240 (Cyrus to Alexander). ↩
Marginal glosses: "Varro on the origin of letters among the Egyptians"; "What sort the years were among the ancient Egyptians." Citations: Augustine, City of God 18.40; Censorinus, De die natali. The short "years" deflate the huge Egyptian counts. ↩
Two ways of deflating the inflated counts: short lunar "years," and "planetary years." Citation: Diodorus Siculus. ↩
Marginal gloss: "The empty boasting of the Chaldeans about the antiquity of their nation and art is derided." 470,000 years. The cited maxim is attributed in the margin to a "letter to Lucilius" — the attribution is doubtful and printed as is. Sentence continues onto printed p. 34. ↩
Marginal gloss: "Porphyry on the antiquity of astronomical observations among the Chaldeans." Via Pico, Disputationes adversus astrologiam, bk. 11. The oldest Chaldean records: ~1,900 years. ↩
Marginal glosses: "The falsehood of Eudoxus and Aristotle, as Pliny reports it, about the antiquity of Zoroaster, inventor of the magic art"; "That what Pliny records about the antiquity of the kings of India is fabulous." Citations: Pliny, NH 30 and 6; Diodorus; Justinus. ↩
Marginal gloss: "The fictions of the Egyptians narrated in Plato's Timaeus." Liber/Dionysus' Indian conquest dated ~1,170 years before Alexander; the Timaeus' 9,000-year Athens refuted by the synchronism Cecrops ≈ Moses. ↩
Pererius's conclusion: ≤5,600 years from creation to the present. Sentence continues onto printed p. 35. ↩
Marginal gloss: "The antiquity of divine Scripture." 1,656 years from creation to the Flood (the standard Hebrew-text reckoning). ↩
Marginal glosses: "A passage in ch. 1 of Ecclesiasticus is examined"; "Exod. 15"; "Ps. 88"; "Job 9." The objection is Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 1:2. ↩
Two of the resolutions: (1) known only by revelation; (2) Nicholas of Lyra — known probably, not infallibly. ↩
The chronographers' differing conventions for counting partial years — a source of discrepancy. ↩
Marginal gloss: "From four causes arise the variety and discrepancy of the computation." Citation: Sixtus of Siena, Bibliotheca Sancta bk. 5. The four causes follow on printed p. 36. ↩
Marginal gloss: "[the reckonings] of the years from the beginning of the world to the coming of our Lord." The first cause of discrepancy: Hebrew/Latin vs. LXX from Creation to Abraham (1,948 vs. 3,314). NOTE: the printed figures do not perfectly reconcile — 1,948 + 1,468 = 3,416, not 3,314 — likely a printer's slip (the LXX total is conventionally ~3,416). Reproduced as printed. ↩
Marginal citation: Luke 3 (the genealogy that includes Cainan). Second and third causes of discrepancy: the Cainan generation (322 vs. 292 yrs from Flood to Abraham), and the disputed year of Terah at Abraham's birth (70 vs. 130). ↩
The fourth cause: post-captivity dates rest on profane sources, some of them outright forgeries — Pererius names the notorious fabrications of Annius of Viterbo (pseudo-Berosus, etc.). ↩
First resolution of the Ecclus. 1:2 objection: it speaks of "days," not "years" — and chronology counts years, not the leftover days. ("de quibus loquamur" is supplied; the printed text reads "de viris," evidently a slip.) ↩
Marginal gloss: "...thus no reckoning of days is had." The Adam/Seth example, then a second resolution: "days of the age" = future times, up to Judgment Day. ↩
New scripture lemma (Gen. 1:1, the verb). ↩
On the verb bara / ἐποίησεν / creavit: "create" strictly means production from nothing, but Scripture uses it loosely for any making. ↩
Citations: Jerome on Eph. 2:10; Virgil, Aeneid 1.33. Marginal gloss: "What is to be thought about the production of things from nothing." ↩
Marginal citation: Plato, Timaeus. Sentence continues onto printed p. 38. ↩
Citation: 2 Maccabees 7 (the mother of the seven martyrs); her words are 2 Macc. 7:28. ↩
Citations: Tertullian, Against Hermogenes; Lactantius, Div. Inst. 2.8; Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 7.8; Pererius's own De communibus … principiis, bk. 5. ↩
Marginal gloss: "Basil argues that more worlds than one could have been created by God." Citation: Aristotle, On the Heavens 1 (text 94). ↩
Marginal gloss (begins here): "That the world was made by God by no necessity, but freely." ↩
Marginal gloss: "The various opinions of the philosophers about the making of the world." Sentence continues onto printed p. 39 (the survey: Epicureans, Strato, Peripatetics, Plato, Anaxagoras). ↩
Citation: Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 11.15. The Peripatetic "emanation by necessity" and Plato's restriction (God makes only the immortal; the demiurge-gods make the rest). ↩
Marginal citation: Aristotle, Metaphysics bk. 1 (ch. 4, or pt. 2 ch. 2). Anaxagoras' Nous as the ordering cause. ↩
Marginal gloss: "A notable saying of Pliny." Citation: Pliny, Natural History, preface (the FACIEBAT vs. FECIT convention). ↩
Marginal citations: Deut. 32; Ps. 110; Gen. 1. The analogy: artists wrote "was making" out of modesty; God's work is called "made" (perfect). Quotation: Gen. 1:31. ↩
Marginal gloss: "Rupert's [question]: why God did not say 'let there be heaven, and let there be earth,' as he said of the other things." Citations: Rupert of Deutz, De Trinitate et operibus eius, bk. 1, ch. 4; 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) 6. Rupert's threefold answer begins on printed p. 40. ↩
Conclusion of Rupert of Deutz's threefold answer (begun on printed p. 39) to why Gen. 1:1 lacks the "He said / Let there be" formula. "Hyle" = Greek hylē, prime matter. ↩
Pererius's reservation about Rupert: it sits ill with Rom. 4:17, Ps. 33:6, and Ps. 148:2–5. Marginal citation: "ch. 3 & 4" (the Psalms cited). ↩
New scripture lemma (the subject of Gen. 1:1, Hebrew Elohim). ↩
On Elohim as a plural form applied also to angels, judges, and rulers. ↩
Marginal gloss: "The question why Moses spoke thus, 'Gods created.'" The singular Eloha attested in Job 12 & 36 and Habakkuk 1 & 3. ↩
Pererius corrects Cajetan (Elohim does have a singular). Hebrew plural-verb constructions cited from Gen. 35:7 and 20:13. Sentence continues onto printed p. 41. ↩
Marginal gloss: "Authors who hold that the mystery of the Trinity was here insinuated by Moses." The Trinitarian reading of plural Elohim + singular Bara (Peter Lombard, Sentences 2.1, and his followers). ↩
Marginal gloss: "Catharinus's animadversion against Cajetan — but not a just one." Pererius defends Cajetan: the non-Trinitarian reading was held earlier by Tostatus too. ↩
Pererius leans toward the skeptical view: that Peter Lombard was the first to find the Trinity here, and the Hebrew-expert Fathers (Origen, Jerome) did not. ↩
Marginal gloss: "It is shown to be false that by the name Elohim three divine persons are understood." Pererius's grammatical explanation: plural noun + singular verb/adjective is a Hebrew idiom (Isa. 19:4; Josh. 24:19). Sentence continues onto printed p. 42. ↩
Continuing the grammatical case (from p. 41): the plural-noun idiom occurs of non-divine subjects too — Gen. 42:30 (the plural "lords" of one man, Joseph), Exod. 20:3, Exod. 21:4. ↩
First reason against the Trinitarian reading: it would imply "Gods," condemned by the Athanasian Creed. ↩
Further reasons: the Rabbis' silence; the inconsistency with Elohim + plural verb elsewhere; the danger of suggesting polytheism to the Jews. ↩
Pererius's stated aim: not to deny the Trinitarian reading, but to defend Cajetan against Catharinus's harshness. ↩
Marginal citation: Genesis 3 (the serpent's words to Eve, Gen. 3:1). Sentence continues onto printed p. 43. ↩
Christian doctrine begins (with the knowledge of God) where pagan wisdom leaves off; Gen. 1:1 settles the question of the world's maker in one word. ↩
The argument from design — the planetary sphere (orrery) of Archimedes/Posidonius (cf. Cicero, De natura deorum 2). Marginal citations: Heb. 3 (3:4); Rom. 11 (11:36); John 1 (1:3). ↩
God alone the maker — against polytheism. Isaiah 44:24. ↩
The world is nothing compared with God (Wisdom 11:22–23, cited by Pererius as "ch. 9" — likely a slip or a variant chapter division); hence God's power was not exhausted and could make other worlds. ↩
Marginal citations: "God is frequently proclaimed in Scripture under that title — that he was the Creator of heaven and earth"; Ps. 123 (124):8; Jonah 1:9–10. Also Gen. 14:22–23 (Abraham and Melchizedek) and Jer. 10:11. Sentence continues onto printed p. 44. ↩
Marginal gloss: "That the world was both created by God alone, and is preserved and governed [by him alone]." Citations: Jer. 32:17; Job 34:13; Heb. 1:3; Wisdom 11:25–26; Ps. 103 (104):27. ↩
New scripture lemma. Pererius will give four interpretations of it. ↩
Marginal glosses: "Four interpretations"; "The opinion of Chrysostom." The first reading: "heaven and earth" = the whole world named summarily, then unfolded over six days. ↩
Pererius rejects the first interpretation: the "but" of v. 2 and Ps. 102:25 show v. 1 reports a real act of creation, not a summary. ↩
Marginal gloss: "The opinion of Augustine." The second reading (Confessions 12.7): heaven = the angels, earth = prime matter — rejected as non-literal. ↩
The same objection raised earlier against allegorizing this passage (cf. the first interpretive rule, p. 24). ↩
Marginal gloss: "Another opinion of the same Augustine." The third reading (De Genesi contra Manichaeos): both words = prime matter. ↩
Quotation from Augustine, De Genesi contra Manichaeos (the seed analogy and John 15:15). Marginal citation: John 15. ↩
Pererius rejects the third interpretation too (prime matter could equally be named any element; Moses would not teach so subtle a notion to the unlearned Hebrews). Sentence continues onto printed p. 46. ↩
Final reason against the third (prime-matter) interpretation, carried over from printed p. 45. ↩
Marginal gloss: "The common opinion of the theologians: that here by the word 'heaven' the Empyrean heaven is signified." The fourth (and standard scholastic) reading. ↩
Marginal gloss: "The novel and absurd opinion of Eugubinus about the empyrean heaven is exploded." Agostino Steuco, Cosmopoeia and De perenni philosophia / on incorporeal natures. ↩
Steuco's supporting texts. Marginal citations: 1 Tim. 6 (6:16); John 17 (17:5); Matt. 17 (Transfiguration); Exod. 3 (the burning bush); Exod. 34 (Moses' shining face). Also Ps. 103 (104):2. ↩
Steuco invokes Basil (Hexaemeron, hom. 2) and Homer's "Olympus." Pererius's vehement condemnation begins; the sentence continues onto printed p. 47. ↩
Marginal citations: John 1 (1:3); Heb. 3 (3:4); Wisdom 1 (1:14); also Col. 1:16 and the Nicene Creed. Pererius begins dismantling Steuco's "light" philosophically: is it an accident? ↩
The dilemma: accident, corporeal substance, or incorporeal? And if it emanates by necessity, it would be infinite — absurd. ↩
Pererius grants Steuco's submission to the Church, but faults the publishing of the error. The Cato quip. ↩
Marginal gloss: "What the inaccessible light is, which God is said to inhabit." Pererius's orthodox alternatives for the "inaccessible light." ↩
Marginal gloss: "What the empyrean heaven is according to the theologians." Turning to the positive scholastic account. Sentence continues onto printed p. 48. ↩
The scholastic description of the empyrean: the highest, immobile, luminous body; created full of the nine angelic orders; the abode of God's vision and of the blessed. ↩
Marginal citations: Ps. 113 (115):16; Ps. 148:4; Deut. 10:14; Ps. 141 (142):6; Ps. 114 (116):9; Matt. 5:4(5). John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa 2.6; 2 Cor. 12:2. ↩
Two reasons the empyrean is also called "earth/land": its immobility, and its being the eternal dwelling of the just. ↩
Marginal gloss: "By what reasons it is here shown that by 'heaven' the empyrean is signified." First argument: by elimination among the spheres (8th = firmament, 9th = crystalline = waters above, 7 planetary orbs). ↩
Second argument (fitness): if God made the revolving heavens for mortal life, all the more a resting heaven for the risen. Sentence continues onto printed p. 49. ↩
Why the empyrean was made at the start though used only at the end: incorruptible bodies are made from the beginning, and it is for the glory-state of the just. Rom. 8:19–21. ↩
Marginal citations: Matt. 22 (22:30); Luke 20 (20:36) — the just made equal to the angels. Aquinas, Summa I, q. 66, a. 3. ↩
Marginal gloss: "Bede's Hexameron falsely ascribed to Junilius." Third argument: from authority. ↩
Quotation from Bede's Hexameron (the higher heaven created already full of angels). ↩
Further authorities: Basil (Hexaemeron hom. 2–3), Theodoret (Questions on Genesis 11 & 14), Diodore of Tarsus (via Lippomanus's Catena). Sentence continues onto printed p. 50. ↩
Continuing Diodore of Tarsus / the authorities (from p. 49). John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa 2.6; the third heaven of 2 Cor. 12. The Greek ἄναστρον = "starless." ↩
Marginal gloss: "The empyrean heaven was known to the philosophers." Pico, Heptaplus; the Hebrew sages "Abraham Hispanus" (Abraham ibn Ezra) and Isaac; Ezekiel 1 & 10 (the sapphire throne). ↩
Marginal gloss: "What the theologians think is signified by the word 'earth.'" The earth = prime matter, either wholly unformed or with a general bodily form. ↩
Three adumbrations of formless matter — "earth," "water," "abyss." Marginal citations: Gen. 1:2; Plato, Timaeus. Sentence continues onto printed p. 51. ↩
The earth = matter view (mis)attributed to Bede, Strabo, Hugh; supported by Wisdom 11:18 ("materia invisa / informis"). ↩
Marginal gloss: "Philastrius's remarkable opinion about prime matter." Philastrius of Brescia, Diversarum hereseon liber; Hyle = Greek hylē (matter); Ps. 135 (136):6 (cited in the margin as Ps. 139). ↩
Marginal gloss: "St. Thomas's argument that formless matter was not created of itself — whether it is sound." Aquinas, Summa I, q. 66, a. 1. ↩
Pererius sides with those who reject Aquinas's arguments (allowing plurality of substantial forms and matter's own existence). Aristotle, Physics 5. Sentence continues onto printed p. 52. ↩
Closes the digression on prime matter's existence; cross-reference to Pererius's own De communibus … principiis, bk. 5. ↩
Marginal gloss: "The author's opinion: what ought to be understood by the 'heaven' created in the beginning." Pererius begins his own qualified position. ↩
Marginal gloss: "It is proved that the empyrean heaven was not known to the Gentiles." Pererius: the ancients' "starless heaven" was the ninth (precessing) sphere of Ptolemy (1° per century), not the empyrean. ↩
Pererius's key argument: Moses' aim was to teach the Hebrews about the visible world (to wean them from idolatry); so "heaven" should not mean only the (invisible) empyrean. ↩
Marginal gloss: "Moses expounded to the Hebrews only the creation of visible things." Jerome, Letter 139 (to Cyprian); Ps. 102:25. Sentence continues onto printed p. 53. ↩
Ps. 102:26–27 (the heavens perish and grow old — not the immutable empyrean); Basil, Hexaemeron hom. 2 (the heaven made first is the one later adorned with sun, moon, stars). ↩
Marginal gloss: "What is to be understood by 'heaven' here, according to the author." Pererius's own view: "heaven" = the whole celestial body (all the orbs), created in substance at first and completed on days 1 and 4. ↩
A forward reference to his treatment of the second day (the firmament and the waters above it). ↩
Marginal glosses: "What ought to be understood by 'earth' here, according to the author"; "Hermogenes is rightly reprehended by Tertullian." Pererius's view: "earth" = the literal element. Tertullian, Against Hermogenes. ↩
The Fathers (Basil, Ambrose, Theodoret, Chrysostom, Bede) and all pre-Augustine writers take "earth" literally; Moses uses the same word literally on days 3 and 6. Sentence continues onto printed p. 54. ↩
Marginal citation: Ps. 101 (102):26. Defending the literal "earth": on day 3 only the dry land appeared; the earth itself was made in the beginning. ↩
Marginal gloss: "A passage of the book of Wisdom, ch. 11, is explained." Wisdom 11:18 reinterpreted (per Bede): "formless matter" = the rough heap of heaven/earth/water, not prime matter. ↩
Heb. 11:3; the interlinear Gloss; the Fathers (Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom, the Greeks, Bede, Hugh of St. Victor) for the literal "earth." ↩
Marginal gloss: "Why Moses made mention only of earth and water, and not of the construction of air and fire." Basil (Hexaemeron hom. 2), John Damascene (De fide orthodoxa 2.5), Bede. Sentence continues onto printed p. 55. ↩
The other elements lurk within the earth: fire (volcanoes), air (earthquakes, caverns), water (springs). Some read the "Spirit over the waters" as air. ↩
Fire omitted because even philosophers doubted the existence of elemental fire below the moon; Moses gives the two visible elements. ↩
Aristotle, On the Heavens 2 (text 17): the revolving heaven needs an immobile physical center (= earth); the four elements are necessary (cf. Plato, Timaeus). ↩
Marginal glosses: "Most of what the Philosophers and Mathematicians truly handed down about the earth was recorded in the sacred writings many ages before"; "That the earth was made by God in its natural place." Sentence continues onto printed p. 56. ↩
Ps. 118 (119):90; Job 38:4–6 — the earth founded in its place. ↩
Marginal gloss: "That the earth is immobile, Aristotle proved, and long before him David sang." Aristotle, On the Heavens 2 (text 90); Ps. 93:1; Ps. 104:5; Eccles. 1:4; 1 Chron. 16:30; Ps. 75:4. ↩
Marginal gloss: "A passage of Job, ch. 9, is explained." Job 9:5–6 — about earthquakes (partial motion), not the whole earth. ↩
Marginal gloss: "That the earth is placed at the center of the world." Aristotle, On the Heavens 2 (text 98); Prov. 25:3; Deut. 4:39; Ps. 102 (103):11. Sentence continues onto printed p. 57. ↩
Marginal gloss: "That the earth is round." Aristotle, On the Heavens 2 (text 104); Isa. 40:22; the discredited shapes (Anaximander, Anaximenes, Leucippus, Democritus). ↩
Marginal gloss: "The question: on what foundation the earth remains always immobile." Aristotle, On the Heavens 2 (text 78); Thales (earth floats on water); Seneca, Natural Questions 6.6. ↩
Pererius's refutation of Thales: water cannot bear the heavier earth, and parts of earth sink rather than float. ↩
Marginal gloss: "Whether according to divine Scripture the earth is upon the waters." Exod. 20:4; Ps. 23 (24):2; Ps. 135 (136):6; 4 Ezra; ps.-Justin, Questions to the Orthodox. Sentence continues onto printed p. 58. ↩
2 Peter 3:5 ("the earth standing out of water"). Pererius: appealing to a miracle to save the literal "earth on water" is a foolish abuse of God's omnipotence. ↩
The earth's stability = its gravity drawing it to the center; Ps. 104:5; Job 26:7 ("hangs the earth upon nothing"). ↩
Marginal gloss: "A passage of David is explained, which is in Psalm 23." Reconciling "earth upon water" (Ps. 24:2): Basil/Euthymius/Chrysostom; the subterranean rivers. ↩
Marginal citations: Ps. 118 (119):103 ("sweeter than honey"); Ps. 18 (19):11 ("more than gold and precious stone"). Pererius's preferred reading: "upon the waters" = a Hebrew comparative, "higher than the waters." Sentence continues onto printed p. 59. ↩
Marginal gloss: "A passage of Ecclesiasticus, about the knowledge of the breadth or circumference of the earth, is examined." Ecclus. 1:3; Job 38:18. ↩
Marginal citations: Prov. 20:9; Prov. 31:10; Rom. 11:35; Job 9:4; Ps. 88 (89):49. The interrogative "Who" = difficulty, not impossibility; several harmonizations. ↩
Marginal glosses: "The variety of opinions about the magnitude of the earth's circumference"; "Aristotle, On the Heavens, bk. 2, text 112." The discordant estimates (400,000 stadia ≈ 50,000 mi; Hipparchus 34,625; Eratosthenes 31,500; Ptolemy 22,500; Alfraganus 20,400; Fernel 24,514; recent navigators ~19,080). ↩
The earth a mere point compared with the firmament. Sentence continues onto printed p. 60. ↩
The eighth heaven's circumference is some 22,612 times the earth-globe's — hence the earth is tiny against the empyrean. ↩
New scripture lemma (Gen. 1:2a). ↩
Marginal gloss: "What it is that the earth was void and empty." The translations of Tohu wa-Bohu (Vulgate, Pagninus, LXX, Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Onkelos, ps.-Jonathan) and the Hebrew sense (Tohu = vanity, cf. 1 Sam. 12:21; Bohu = void/obscure). ↩
The earth's state in Gen. 1:2 = without light/adornment, undifferentiated, water-covered (cf. Wisdom 11:18); Cajetan's "pure earth" qualified by Pererius. ↩
The Hebrew of "darkness over the face of the abyss" — Choshech (darkness/obscurity), Al-pene (over the surfaces); the whole water dark on both hemispheres. Sentence continues onto printed p. 61. ↩
Marginal glosses: "What the abyss is"; "Basil, hom. 2 on the Hexaemeron"; "Ps. 55." Tehom = abyss/great depth (Basil; Augustine on Ps. 42:8). ↩
Marginal glosses: "How great was the force of waters at the beginning of the world"; "Gen. 7" (the flood, 15 cubits above the mountains). Earth's radius ≈ 3,000 miles; Cajetan: the primordial water tenfold the earth. ↩
Bede: the whole space between empyrean and earth full of a nebulous humid matter — convertible into water, air, and even the heavenly orbs. ↩
Marginal gloss: "The remarkable opinion of Basil and Theodoret about the primeval darkness of the world — this opinion is refuted [next page]." The pre-mundane inaccessible light blocked by the opaque created heaven (against the Manichees); Bede cites ps.-Clement. Pererius refutes it on printed p. 62. ↩
Refutation of the Basil/Theodoret darkness theory (from p. 61): a spiritual light wouldn't light up bodies and couldn't be blocked; a corporeal light would imply a body before heaven and earth (against Gen. 1:1 and Ps. 102). ↩
Pererius's own view: darkness preceded light (Heb. 11:3; 2 Cor. 4:6); the earth was covered with water (Ps. 104:6; Job 38:8–9). ↩
New scripture lemma (Gen. 1:2c). Marginal gloss: "Ibidem" (the same place). ↩
Marginal gloss: "Variant reading." The translations (Pagninus, Onkelos, ps.-Jonathan) and the fourfold sense of Ruah. ↩
Marginal gloss: "The fourfold meaning of the word 'Spirit.'" The verb Merachepheth = "to brood" (Jerome) — the basis for the Holy-Spirit reading. Sentence continues onto printed p. 63. ↩
The verb's brooding sense supports "Spirit of the Lord" = Holy Spirit (Jerome, Basil via Ephraem, Diodore of Tarsus). ↩
Marginal gloss: "Cajetan's novel interpretation." Cajetan: "Spirit of God" = the angels moving the heavens (Ps. 104:4 "who makes his angels spirits"). ↩
Cajetan's reading of "was borne" as the angel-driven motion of the heaven (Aristotle, Physics 8; On the Heavens 1). ↩
Marginal gloss: "Cajetan's interpretation is refuted." Pererius's objections: no need of heaven's motion before light; "waters = heavens" too figurative; Moses wouldn't use "waters" so ambiguously. ↩
The first interpretation (Spirit = wind): Tertullian (Against Hermogenes), Theodoret. Sentence continues onto printed p. 64. ↩
Marginal gloss: "The first opinion, of Tertullian and Theodoret, who say that by 'the Spirit' is understood air." "Of God" as a Hebrew superlative (Mountain of God, etc.). ↩
Pererius defends the wind-reading against Catharinus: "Spirit of God" can mean wind (Ps. 147:18). ↩
Further proofs that "spirit of God/the Lord" = wind/breath: Exod. 15:10; Dan. 3:64–65 (Canticle of the Three Children); Job 27:3; Isa. 30:33; Isa. 40:7. ↩
Why "air/wind": to complete the manifest elements (earth, water, air; fire being disputed); air is known only by its motion; the wind also for drying the land. Sentence continues onto printed p. 65. ↩
Marginal gloss: "The second interpretation, approved by almost all the Fathers and Theologians, which by 'Spirit' in this place understands the Holy Spirit." The font-blessing liturgy (Easter Vigil). ↩
Marginal glosses: "John 3"; "Matt. 3"; "Mention is made of the Trinity at the beginning of the world." Baptism prefigured (Matt. 3:16); the Trinity in Gen. 1:1–2. ↩
Marginal citations: Ps. 32 (33):6; Ps. 103 (104):30; Job 26:13; Wisdom 1 & 7. The Holy Spirit as creator/quickener. ↩
The senses of "was borne (over)": Basil (fostered/quickened the waters), Augustine (God's superiority and freedom), Bede (excellence of power), Tostatus (the maker's mind designing). ↩
Marginal gloss: "The third interpretation, of Chrysostom." Spirit = a God-given vital, fecundating power in the waters. Sentence continues onto printed p. 66. ↩
The third interpretation (Spirit = a sudden divine force), continued from p. 65, with biblical examples: Judg. 14 (Samson), 1 Sam. 11 (Saul), 2 Kings 2 (Elijah), Acts 8 (Philip), Bel & the Dragon (Dan. 14, Habakkuk). (The printed "in veritate eius" is corrected here to "in vertice eius," the crown of his head.) ↩
Chrysostom alone holds the "divine force" reading (hom. 3 on Genesis); Augustine (De Genesi ad litteram imperfectus 4) lists three options. ↩
Marginal gloss: "The author's judgment. Why Moses did not mention the creation of water here." Pererius's verdict (1st & 3rd literal, 2nd mystical); water's creation is implied (Augustine, City of God 11, last ch.). ↩
"Earth" comprehends water (one globe); water made for the earth as the seat of life. Exod. 20:11; Rev. 14:7; Judith 9:17(12). ↩
Marginal gloss: "That the ancient Sages of the Gentiles handed down many things similar to this teaching of Moses." Hermes Trismegistus, Poimandres. ↩
Pagan parallels: Plato (Timaeus, via Justin Martyr); Anaxagoras (Nous); Hesiod (Chaos), with Aristotle's reports. ↩
Ovid, Metamorphoses 1.5–9. ↩
Further parallels: Steuco on hylē/ilys (matter as mud); the priority of night (Thales); the three principles (Chaos, Night, Ocean); Homer's Ocean & Thetis; Thales' water. Sentence continues onto printed p. 68. ↩
The Stoic world-spirit, paralleled with the "Spirit of God moving over the waters." ↩
Virgil, Aeneid 6.724–727 (marginal citation). ↩
Marginal gloss: "The opinion of the Stoics, as reported by Seneca." Hesiod's Eros, Plato's world-soul, and the Stoic/Thalean water-origin (Seneca, Natural Questions 3.13). ↩