1. 1. The obscure matters of natural things, which we perceive to have been made by Almighty God as their maker, must be treated not by asserting but by inquiring—most of all in those books which divine authority commends to us, in which rashness in asserting an uncertain and doubtful opinion scarcely escapes the charge of sacrilege; yet that hesitancy of inquiry ought not to exceed the bounds of the catholic faith.

And since many heretics have been accustomed to drag the exposition of the divine Scriptures toward their own opinion, which lies outside the faith of catholic teaching, before the treatment of this book the catholic faith must be briefly set forth.

1. 2. It is this: that God the Father Almighty made and established the whole of creation through his only-begotten Son, that is, his Wisdom and his Power, consubstantial with himself and coeternal, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, who is likewise consubstantial and coeternal with him. Catholic teaching, then, bids us believe that this Trinity is called one God, and that he made and created all things that exist, insofar as they exist; so that every creature, whether intellectual or corporeal—or, as may be said more briefly in the words of the divine Scriptures, whether invisible or visible—is not born of God but made by God out of nothing; and that there is nothing in it pertaining to the Trinity except that the Trinity founded it, and it was founded. Therefore it is not permissible to say or to believe that the whole of creation is either consubstantial with God or coeternal.

1. 3. Behold, then, all the things that God made are very good (Gen 1:31); but evils are not natural, but everything that is called evil is either sin or the penalty of sin. And there is no sin except the perverse consent of free will, when we are inclined toward those things that justice forbids and from which it is free to abstain—that is, not in the things themselves, but in the unlawful use of them. Now the use of things is lawful when the soul abides in the Law of God and is subject to the one God with the fullest love, and administers the other things subject to it without cupidity or lust—that is, according to the precept of God. For thus it will administer them without difficulty and misery, and with the greatest ease and blessedness.

The penalty of sin, however, is when the soul is tormented by those very creatures that do not serve it, since it itself does not serve God—creatures that obeyed it when it itself obeyed God. And so fire is not evil, since it is a creature of God; yet our weakness is burned by it on account of the desert of sin.

And those sins are called natural which must necessarily be committed before the mercy of God, after we have fallen into this life through the sin of free choice.

1. 4. And man is renewed through Jesus Christ our Lord, when the ineffable and unchangeable Wisdom of God itself deigned to take up the whole and entire man, and to be born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary; to be crucified, buried, to rise again, and to ascend into heaven, which has already happened; and to come to judge the living and the dead at the end of the age, and the resurrection of the dead in the flesh, which is still proclaimed as to come. The Holy Spirit was given to those who believe in him. By him was established the mother Church, which is called catholic from the fact that it is universally perfect, and is in no respect deficient, and is spread throughout the whole world. The former sins of the penitent are forgiven, and eternal life and the kingdom of heaven are promised.

2. 5. According to this faith we must consider what can be inquired into and discussed in this book. In the beginning God made heaven and earth (Gen 1:1). Four modes of expounding the law are handed down by certain treaters of the Scriptures, whose names can be stated in Greek but defined and explained in Latin: according to history, according to allegory, according to analogy, according to etiology. It is history when a deed, whether divine or human, is recounted. Allegory, when things spoken figuratively are understood. Analogy, when the agreement of the Old and New Testaments is shown. Etiology, when the causes of things said and done are given.

3. 6. As for this, then, which is written, in the beginning God made heaven and earth, it can be asked whether it is to be taken only according to history, or whether it also signifies something figuratively, and how it agrees with the Gospel, and for what cause this book has been begun in this way.

According to history, then, it is asked what in the beginning means—that is, whether in the beginning of time, or in the beginning that is the Wisdom of God itself, since the Son of God also called himself a beginning, when it was said to him, who are you; and he said, the beginning, who also speak to you (Jn 8:25). For there is a Beginning without a beginning, and there is a Beginning with another beginning. The Beginning without a beginning is the Father alone; therefore we believe that all things are from one beginning. But the Son is a Beginning in such a way that he is from the Father.

The first intellectual creature itself can also be called a beginning for those things of which it is the head, which God made. For since a head may rightly be called a beginning, in that gradation the Apostle stopped short only of calling the woman the head of anyone. For he called the man the head of the woman, and Christ the head of the man, and God the head of Christ (See 1 Cor 11:3): thus the creature is bound to its Creator.

3. 7. Or was it said in the beginning for the reason that it was made first? Or could not heaven and earth have been made first among creatures, if the angels and all the intellectual powers were made first? For we must believe that the angels too are a creature of God and were made by him. For the Prophet also enumerated the angels in the one hundred forty-eighth Psalm when he said: he commanded, and they were made; he ordered, and they were created (Ps 148:5).

But if the angels were made first, it can be asked whether they were made in time, or before all time, or at the outset of time. If in time, then time already existed before the angels came to be; and since time itself is also a creature, it necessarily follows that we must take something to have been made before the angels. But if we say they were made at the outset of time, so that time began together with them, we must say that what some people hold is false—namely, that time began together with heaven and earth.

3. 8. But if the angels were made before time, it must be asked how it was said in what follows: and God said, 'let there be lights in the firmament of heaven, to give light upon the earth, and to divide between the day and the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and for years (Gen 1:14).' For here it can seem that times then began, when heaven and the lights of heaven began to run on their ordered courses; and if this is true, how could there be days before there was time, if time took its start from the course of the lights, which are said to have been made on the fourth day? Or was this arrangement of days ordered according to the custom of human frailty, by the law of narrating and of gently introducing lofty matters to the lowly in a lowly way, by which the very speech of the narrator itself cannot but have some first, some middle, and some last parts?

Or was it said that the lights should exist in those times which men measure by intervals of duration in the motion of a body? For these times, if there were no motion of bodies, would not exist, and they are themselves more evident to men.

But if we admit this, it must be asked whether, apart from the motion of bodies, there can be time in the motion of an incorporeal creature, such as the soul or the mind itself; which certainly is moved in its thoughts, and in that very motion has one thing prior, another posterior, which cannot be understood without an interval of time.

And if we accept this, then time can be understood to have existed even before heaven and earth, if the angels were made before heaven and earth. For there was already a creature that, by incorporeal motions, would carry on time; and rightly is it understood that time existed together with that creature too, as in the soul, which through the bodily senses has grown accustomed to bodily motions. But perhaps it is not so among the princes and the supereminent creatures.

But however this may stand (for the matter is most secret and impenetrable to human conjectures), this much at least is to be accepted in faith, even if it exceeds the measure of our thinking: that every creature has a beginning; and that time itself is a creature, and therefore that it too has a beginning, and is not coeternal with the Creator.

3. 9. It can also seem that heaven and earth is set down for the whole of creation, so that both this visible ethereal firmament is called heaven, along with that invisible creation of the supereminent Powers; and again earth is the whole lower part of the world, with the animals by which it is inhabited.

Or was heaven called every creature that is lofty and invisible, and earth everything visible, so that in this way too what was said, in the beginning God made heaven and earth (Gen 1:1), may be understood as the whole of creation?

Perhaps indeed it is not unfitting that, in comparison with the invisible creature, everything visible is called earth, so that the former is named by the name of heaven. For the soul too, which is invisible, when it swelled with love of visible things and was puffed up by acquiring them, was called earth, as it is written: why is earth and ashes proud? (Sir 10:9)

3. 10. But it can be asked whether by 'heaven and earth' he meant all things already distinguished and arranged, or whether by the name of heaven and earth he named that first unformed matter of the universe, which, at God's ineffable command, was set in order into these formed and beautiful natures.

For although we have read it written, you who made the world from unformed matter (Wis 11:18), nevertheless even that matter, of whatever kind it may be, we cannot say was not made by him from whom we confess and believe all things to be: so that the very arranging and ordering of each and every formed and distinguished thing is called 'the world'; while the matter itself is named heaven and earth, as though it were the seed of heaven and earth; and heaven and earth, as it were, confused and intermingled, fit to receive forms from the maker, God.

Let this much, then, have been asked concerning what was said, in the beginning God made heaven and earth (Gen 1:1): for none of these things ought to be rashly affirmed.

4. 11. But the earth was invisible and unformed, and darkness was over the abyss; and the Spirit of God was borne over the water (Gen 1:2). A slander is wont to be raised against this passage by the heretics who oppose the Old Testament, when they say, 'how did God in the beginning make heaven and earth, if the earth already existed?'—not understanding that this was subjoined in order to set forth what the earth was like, the earth of which it had already been said, God made heaven and earth.

It is to be understood, then, thus: in the beginning God made heaven and earth; but this earth that God made was invisible and unformed, until it was set apart by that same God and, out of confusion, was established in a fixed order of things.

Or is it better understood thus, that in this further account the same matter of things is again commended which was named above by the name of heaven and earth, so that this is the sense: 'in the beginning God made heaven and earth; but this which was called heaven and earth was earth invisible and unformed, and darkness over the abyss; that is, what was called heaven and earth was a certain confused matter, out of which the world—which consists of two greatest parts, namely heaven and earth—was to be fashioned, once the elements had been arranged and form had been received'? This confusion of matter could be conveyed to popular understanding in this way, if the earth were said to be invisible and unformed, or disordered, or unprepared, and darkness over the abyss, that is, over a most vast deep: which deep, again, was perhaps so named because, on account of that very formlessness, it can be penetrated by no one's understanding.

4. 12. And darkness was over the abyss (Gen 1:2). Was the abyss below and the darkness above, as if places were already distinct? Or, since the confusion of matter is still being set forth—which in Greek is also called [GREEK WORD]—was it for this reason said, darkness was over the abyss, because there was no light, which, if it had existed, would surely have been above, since it would have been more eminent and would have illuminated the things that were subject to it? And indeed whoever diligently considers what darkness is finds it to be nothing other than the absence of light. So, then, it was said, darkness was over the abyss, as if it had been said, 'there was no light over the abyss.'

Therefore this matter, which by the subsequent working of God is distinguished into the forms of things and set in order, was called earth invisible and unformed, and a deep lacking light; which was called above by the name of heaven and earth, as it were the seed, as has already been said, of heaven and earth. If, that is, by saying heaven and earth he did not wish first to set forth the totality, so that afterward, once matter had been introduced, he might go through the parts of the world.

4. 13. And the Spirit of God was borne over the water (Gen 1:2). Nowhere had he said, God made water; yet it is by no means to be believed that God did not make water and that it already existed before he had established anything. For he is the one from whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things (Rom 11:36), as the Apostle says. Therefore God made water too, and to believe otherwise is a great error. Why, then, was it not said that God made water? Or did he wish to call by the name of water that same matter which he had named by the name either of heaven and earth, or of the invisible and unformed earth and the abyss? For why should it not also be called water, if it could be called earth, when as yet there was neither water distinguished and formed, nor earth, nor anything else?

But perhaps it was called heaven and earth first, secondly unformed earth and the abyss lacking light, thirdly water—not unfittingly: so that by the first name there should be named the matter of the totality itself, for whose sake matter was made out of nothing at all, that is, the matter of heaven and earth; by the second, the name of unformed earth and abyss, the formlessness should be conveyed, since among all the elements earth is the more formless and less luminous than the rest; by the third, the name of water, the matter subject to the work of the maker should be signified—for water is more mobile than earth; and therefore, on account of ease of working and easier motion, the matter subject to the maker was to be called water rather than earth.

4. 14. And air indeed is more mobile than water; and the ether is not absurdly believed, or perceived, to be more mobile than air itself: but matter would less suitably be called by the name of air or ether. For these elements are believed rather to have the power of acting, while earth and water have the power of being acted upon. And if this is hidden, this at least I think is most plain: that wind moves water, and certain earthly things; and wind is air in motion and, as it were, flowing.

Therefore, since air manifestly moves water, while whence it itself is moved so as to be wind is hidden, who would doubt that matter is more fittingly called by the name of water, because it is moved, than by the name of air, which moves? For to be moved is to be acted upon; to move is to act.

To this is added that the things which the earth brings forth are watered by water, so that they can be born and brought to completion, in such a way that this same water almost seems to be converted into these very growing things. For which reason matter would be more fittingly called by the name of water, since it was conveyed as subjected to the work of the maker on account of its mobility and its conversion into whatever bodies are born, than by the name of air, in which only mobility could be observed, while the other features by which matter is more expressly signified would be lacking;

so that this is the whole sense: in the beginning God made heaven and earth (Gen 1:1), that is, the matter which could take the form of heaven and earth; and this matter was earth invisible and unformed (Gen 1:2), that is, an unformed deep lacking light: which, nevertheless, since it was subject to the maker who moves and works, was for this very reason—that it yields to the one who works—also named water.

4. 15. In this signifying of matter, then, there was conveyed first its end, that is, for what it was made; secondly its very formlessness; thirdly its servitude under the maker and its subjection. And so first heaven and earth—for it was for this that matter was made—secondly earth invisible and unformed, and darkness over the abyss, that is, the very formlessness without light—whence it was also called earth invisible—thirdly water subject to the Spirit, to take on a condition and forms: therefore the Spirit of God was borne over the water, so that we might understand the Spirit as the one working, and the water as that from which he worked, that is, the matter capable of being fashioned. For when we say these three names of one thing—matter of the world, unformed matter, matter capable of being fashioned—to the first name heaven and earth is well joined; to the second, obscurity, confusion, depth, darkness; to the third, ease of yielding, over which the Spirit of the maker is now borne for the work.

4. 16. And the Spirit of God was borne over the water (Gen 1:2). He was not borne over it as oil over water, or water over earth, that is, as though he were contained; but, if examples are to be taken from visible things for this, as that light of the sun or the moon is borne over the bodies which it illuminates on the earth: for it is not contained by them; but, while it is contained by the heaven, is borne over these.

Likewise we must take care not to suppose that the Spirit of God is borne over matter as though by spatial intervals of place, but by a certain effecting and fashioning power, so that what he is borne over may be brought about and fashioned; just as the will of a craftsman is borne over wood, or over any thing subject to him for working, or even over the very members of his own body, which he moves for working. And this likeness, though it is already more excellent than every body, is nevertheless slight and nearly nothing for understanding the way the Spirit of God is borne over the matter of the world subject to him for working: but we do not find a more evident likeness, closer to the thing of which we speak, among those things which can in any way be grasped by men. Therefore in thinking of this kind that precept will best be kept which is written: blessing the Lord, exalt him as much as you can, for he will surpass even that (Sir 43:30). Now let this be said, if in this place the Spirit of God is taken to be the Holy Spirit, whom we venerate in that ineffable and unchangeable Trinity itself.

4. 17. But it can also be understood otherwise, so that by the spirit of God we understand a vital creature, by which this whole visible world and all corporeal things are held together and moved; to which Almighty God granted a certain power of serving him for working in the things that are brought forth. And since this spirit is better than every ethereal body, because every invisible creature precedes every visible creature, it is not absurdly called the spirit of God. For what among the things he founded is not God's, when even of the earth itself it was said, the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof (Ps 24 (23):1); and that which was written in a universal embrace, for all things are yours, O Lord, who love souls (Wis 11:26)?

But this spirit can be understood thus only if we judge that what was said, in the beginning God made heaven and earth (Gen 1:1), was said only of the visible creature; so that over the matter of visible things, at the outset of their fashioning, there was borne an invisible spirit, which nevertheless was itself also a creature, that is, not God but a nature made and established by God. But if the matter of the whole creation—that is, of the intellectual, the animal, and the corporeal—is believed to be set forth by that word water, then in this place the Spirit of God can in no way be understood except as that unchangeable and holy Spirit, who was borne over the matter of all the things that God made and founded.

4. 18. A third opinion concerning this spirit can arise, namely that it be believed that by the name spirit the element of air is set forth; so that thus four elements are conveyed, from which this visible world rises: namely heaven, earth, water, and air—not because they were already distinguished and ordered, but because in that matter, though it was in unformed confusion, they were nevertheless presignified as about to arise: which unformed confusion was conveyed by the name of darkness and abyss.

But whichever of these opinions is true, it must be believed that God is the author and founder of all things that have arisen, both those that are seen and those that are not seen—not as regards the faults which are contrary to nature, but as regards the natures themselves; and that there is no creature at all that does not have from him the beginning and perfection of its own kind and substance.

5. 19. And God said, 'let there be light'; and light was made (Gen 1:3). We ought not to take it that God said let there be light by a voice uttered from the lungs, nor by tongue and teeth. These are the thoughts of carnal men: but to be wise according to the flesh is death (See Rom 8:6). Rather, let there be light was said ineffably.

But it can be asked whether what was said was said to the only-begotten Son, or whether that very thing which was said is the only-begotten Son—the said thing which is called the Word of God, through whom all things were made (See Jn 1:1-3): provided, however, that this impiety be absent, that we should believe the Word of God, the only-begotten Son, to be like a voice uttered as it is done by us. But the Word of God, through whom all things were made, neither began to be nor will cease; but, born without beginning, is coeternal with the Father.

Therefore this which was said, let there be light, if it both began and ceased to be said, was rather this word said to the Son than is itself the Son. And yet even this ineffably; nor let a carnal image creep into the soul and disturb the pious, spiritual understanding. For that something should both begin and cease in the nature of God, if it is taken properly, is a rash and headlong opinion; yet to carnal men and to little ones—not as though they were to remain in it, but as though they were to rise up from it—it is to be most humanely conceded. For whatever God is said to begin and to cease is by no means to be understood in his own nature, but in his creature, which obeys him in wondrous ways.

5. 20. And God said, 'let there be light (Gen 1:3).' Is it that light which lies open to these fleshly eyes, or some hidden light, which it has not been granted us to see through this body? And if hidden, is it corporeal, which is perhaps extended through spatial intervals in the lofty parts of the world; or incorporeal, such as is in the soul, to which the examination of what is to be shunned and sought is referred from the senses of the body, a light which not even the souls of beasts lack; or that which appears as higher in reasoning, from which begins everything that has been created?

For whatever light it signifies, we ought nevertheless to take it as made and created: not that light by which the Wisdom of God itself shines, which is not created but born; lest God be thought to have been without light before he founded this light of which we now treat. For of this light, as the words themselves sufficiently teach, this is conveyed: that it was made. And he said, it says, 'let there be light.' And light was made (Gen 1:3). One light is born of God, and another light is the light God made: the light born of God is the Wisdom of God itself; but the light that was made is any changeable thing, whether corporeal or incorporeal.

5. 21. It is wont to be a difficulty how there could be corporeal light before there was heaven and the lights of heaven, which are set forth after this one—as though indeed it could easily be perceived by man, or could in any way at all be perceived, whether there is any light besides heaven, which nevertheless is distinguished and diffused through spatial intervals and embraces the world. But since here it is permissible to understand even an incorporeal light, if we say that in this book not only the visible creature but every creature is set forth, what need is there to linger in this controversy? And perhaps that which men ask—when the angels were made—they themselves are signified by this light, very briefly indeed, yet most suitably and most fittingly.

5. 22. And God saw the light, that it is good (Gen 1:4). This statement must be understood to signify not, as it were, joy at an unaccustomed good, but approval of the work. For what is more fittingly said of God, so far as it can be said among men, than when it is put thus: he said, it was made, it pleased him—so that in that which he said, his command is understood; in that which was made, his power; in that which pleased him, his kindness: just as these ineffable things had to be said through a man to men, in such a way that they could profit all.

5. 23. And God divided between the light and the darkness (Gen 1:4). From this it is permissible to understand with how great an ease of divine working these things are said to have been effected. For there is no one who would suppose that the light was so made as to be confused with the darkness, and on this account afterward to need separation; but by the very fact that the light was made, the division between the light and the darkness also followed. For what fellowship has light with darkness? (2 Cor 6:14) God, then, divided between the light and the darkness, because he made the light, whose absence is called darkness. Now there is a difference between light and darkness, just as there is between a garment and nakedness, or the full and the empty, and the like.

5. 24. In how many ways light can be understood has already been said above, to which the contrary privations can be named darkness.

For one light is that which is seen by these bodily eyes, and is itself also corporeal: such as that of the sun, the moon, the stars, and anything of this kind, to which darkness is contrary, when some place lacks that light.

Another light, likewise, is the perceiving life, able to discern the things that are referred through the body to the judgment of the soul, that is, white and black, melodious and harsh, sweet-smelling and foul-smelling, sweet and bitter, hot and cold, and the rest of this kind.

For the light that is perceived by the eyes is one thing, and the light by which it is brought about, through the eyes, that something be perceived is another. For the former is in the body, but the latter, although it receives through the body the things it perceives, is in the soul. To this, nevertheless, darkness is contrary—a certain insensibility, or, if it is better called, insensuality, that is, not perceiving, although things are presented that could be perceived if there were in that life this light by which perception occurs.

And this not when the services of the body are lacking, as in the blind or the deaf—for in their souls there is this light of which we now treat, but the instruments of the body are lacking—nor in that way in which a voice is not heard in silence, when this light is in the soul, and the instruments of the body are present, but nothing is presented that may be perceived.

Therefore the one who does not perceive for these causes does not lack this light; but rather when there is no such power in the soul—which then is not even wont to be called a soul, but only a life, such as is said to be in the vine and the tree and any plants: if, that is, it can in any way be made plausible that these have even such a soul, which certain heretics, erring too greatly, suppose not only to perceive through a body, that is, to see and hear and discern heat and fire, but even to understand reason and to know our thoughts—but of these there is another question. Insensibility, then, is the darkness of this light by which each thing is perceived, when any given life does not have the very power of perceiving.

And whoever grants that it is rightly called light by which any thing is made manifest fittingly grants that this too is called light. For when we say, 'it is manifest that this is melodious, it is manifest that this is sweet, it is manifest that this is cold,' and whatever of this kind we reach through the bodily senses, this light by which these things are manifest is surely within, in the soul, although the things that are thus perceived are presented through the body. A third kind of light can be understood in creatures, by which we reason. To this, darkness is contrary: irrationality, such as is in the souls of beasts.

5. 25. Whether, then, the ethereal light, or the sensual light in which animals share, or the rational light which both angels and men have, this statement means to have understood as first made by God in the nature of things; and that God divided between the light and the darkness must be taken to mean, by the very fact that the light was made, that light is one thing, and another thing those privations of light which God ordered in their contrary darkness.

For it was not said that God made darkness: since God made the forms themselves, not the privations which pertain to nothingness, from which all things were made by the maker, God; which privations, nevertheless, we understand to have been ordered by him, when it is said, and God divided between the light and the darkness (Gen 1:4),

lest even the privations themselves should not have their own order, with God ruling and administering all things. Just as in singing the insertions of silences, at fixed and measured intervals, although they are privations of sounds, are nevertheless well ordered by those who know how to sing, and contribute something to the sweetness of the whole melody. And shadows in paintings set off whatever is more prominent, and please not by their form but by their order.

For God is not the author of our faults either; yet he is their orderer, when he places sinners in their proper place and compels them to suffer the things they deserve. To this purpose it serves that the sheep are placed on the right, but the goats on the left (See Matt 25:33).

Some things, then, God both makes and orders; but others he only orders. The just he both makes and orders; but sinners, insofar as they are sinners, he does not make, but only orders. For when he places these on the right, those on the left, and commands them to go into the eternal fire, it serves the order of merits. Thus he both makes and orders the forms and the natures themselves; but the privations of forms and the defects of natures he does not make, but only orders.

And so he said, 'let there be light'; and light was made (Gen 1:3). He did not say, "let there be darkness, and darkness was made." Of these, then, he made the one and did not make the other; yet he ordered both, when God divided between the light and the darkness. Thus both, by his making, the individual things are beautiful, and, by his ordering, all things are beautiful.

6. 26. And God called the light day, and the darkness he called night (Gen 1:5). Since light is the name of some thing, and day again, and darkness and night are each a name, it must be asked whether it had to be said thus, that names were imposed on things, in such a way that the thing on which the name was imposed would surely be set forth also by another name—for it could not be otherwise. And it was said thus, God called the light day, in such a way that it could indifferently also be said conversely, 'God called the day light, and called the night darkness.' What shall we answer him, if someone asks us thus: 'was the name day imposed on light, or was the name light imposed on day?'—since these two, insofar as they are set forth by an articulate voice to signify things, are surely names.

In this way too it can be asked about the other two: 'was the name night imposed on darkness, or was the name darkness imposed on night'? And indeed, as Scripture prescribes, it is manifest that the name of light was called day, and the name of darkness was called night. For when it said, 'God made light, and divided between the light and the darkness,' it was not yet a matter of names: afterward the names were applied, day and night; though without doubt light and darkness are also names, signifying certain things, just as day and night.

Is this, then, to be taken thus, that a thing which has received a name could not be set forth otherwise than by some name; or is this naming rather to be taken as the distinction itself? For not all light is day, nor all darkness night; but light and darkness, ordered and distinguished from each other by fixed alternations, are called by the names of day and night. For every word serves the purpose of distinction. Whence even the name (nomen) that marks a thing was so called as if it were a mark (notamen), and it marks, that is, distinguishes and helps the learner to discern.

Perhaps, then, the very dividing between the light and the darkness is the same as calling the light day and the darkness night, so that to have ordered these is the same as to have called them. Or do these names mean to tell us which light he called day and which darkness he called night; as though he said, 'God made light, and divided between the light and the darkness; but by light I mean day, and by darkness I mean night: lest you understand some other light that is not day, and lest you understand some other darkness that is not night'? For if all light could be understood as day, and all darkness be reckoned by the name of night, perhaps there would be no need to say, and God called the light day, and the darkness he called night.

6. 27. Likewise it can be asked what day he means, and what night. If he means us to take that day which the rising of the sun begins and its setting closes, and that night which extends from the setting of the sun to its rising, I do not find how they could have existed before the lights of heaven were made. Or could the very spaces of hours and times, even without the discrimination of brightness and shadow, already be so called? And how does this alternation, which is signified by the name of day and night, apply to that rational light, if this is what was signified, or to the sensual light? Or were these things conveyed not according to what happens, but according to what can happen; since error can befall reason too, and a certain dullness the senses?

7. 28. And evening came, and morning came, one day (Gen 1:5). Day is not now called in the same way as when it was said, and God called the light day; but in the way in which we say, for example, that a month has thirty days: for here by the name of day we include the nights too; whereas above day was so called as to be separated from night. And so, since that working of God carried out through light was conveyed, it is consequently said that evening came and morning came, one day—so that, namely, one day extends from a day begun to a day begun, that is, from morning to morning, such as the days we call when, as I said, the nights are counted in.

But how did evening come, and how did morning come? Did God make light and divide between the light and the darkness over so great a delay of time as that over which a shining day extends, that is, the night not counted in? And where is that which is written, for it is in your power to be able whenever you will (Wis 12:18), if God needs a stretching out of time in order to bring something to completion? Or are all things rather completed by God as in art and reason—not in a stretching out of time, but in that very power which produces stably even those things which we discern not to stand but to pass away? For just as in our speech, when some words pass and others succeed them, it is not credible that things happen so in the art itself, by whose working the artful discourse comes about stably—although, then, God may make without any stretching out of time, 'in whose power it is to be able whenever he will'—yet the temporal natures themselves carry out their motions temporally.

Thus, then, it was perhaps said, and evening came, and morning came, one day, as it is foreseen by reason that it ought to happen or can happen, not as it happens in stretches of time. For he who said, he who abides forever created all things together (Sir 18:1), contemplated in the Holy Spirit the very reason of the workings:

but most conveniently in this book the narration is arranged as if of things made by God at intervals of delay, so that the very ordering, which by weaker minds could not be seen in stable contemplation, when set forth through this kind of sequence of discourse might be discerned as if by these eyes.

8. 29. And God said, 'let there be a firmament in the midst of the water, and let it divide between water and water.' And so it was made. And God made the firmament, and divided between the water that was under the firmament, and the water that was above the firmament (Gen 1:6-7). Are the waters above the firmament such as these visible ones under the firmament? Or, since it seems to signify that water over which the Spirit was borne—and we understood it to be the very matter of the world—is this too, in this place, to be believed distinguished by the interposed firmament, so that the lower is "corporeal matter," the higher "animal"?

For he calls firmament what he later calls heaven. Now nothing among bodies is better than the heavenly body. For some bodies are heavenly, others earthly; and the heavenly are surely better: and whatever surpasses their nature, I do not know how it could be called a body; but it is perhaps a certain power subject to reason, by which reason God and truth are known. Since this nature is capable of being formed by virtue and prudence, by whose vigor its fluidity is restrained and constricted, and on this account it appears as if material, it was rightly called by God water—exceeding the compass of the corporeal heaven not by spatial place, but by the rank of an incorporeal nature.

And since he called heaven the firmament, it is not absurdly understood that whatever is below the ethereal heaven, in which all things are at peace and firm, is more changeable and dissoluble. This kind of corporeal matter, before it received form and the distinction of shapes, by which it was named under the firmament,

there have been those who believed that these visible and cold waters embrace the surface of heaven above. And they tried to bring forward a proof from the slowness of one star among the seven wandering ones, which is higher than the rest and is called by the Greeks [GREEK WORD], and traverses the zodiacal circle in thirty years, so that it is slow for this reason, because it is nearer to the cold waters that are above heaven. How this opinion can be defended among those who have inquired into these matters most subtly, I do not know. But none of these things is to be rashly affirmed; rather, all are to be treated cautiously and modestly.

8. 30. And God said, 'let there be a firmament in the midst of the water, and let it divide between water and water.' And so it was made (Gen 1:6). After he said, so it was made, what need was there to add again, and God made the firmament, and divided between the water that was under the firmament, and the water that was above the firmament (Gen 1:7)? For when he had said above, and God said, 'let there be light'; and light was made (Gen 1:3), he did not add again, "and God made light"; but here, after he said, and God said, 'let it be.' And so it was made, there was added, and God made.

Or does it appear from this that that light ought not to be understood as corporeal, lest God seem to have made it with some creature interposed—and by "God" I mean the Trinity—whereas this firmament of heaven, because it is corporeal, is believed to have received its form and shape through an incorporeal creature, so that what was to be imprinted corporeally was first imprinted rationally by the Truth on the incorporeal nature, in order that the firmament of heaven might come to be? And therefore it was put, and God said, 'let it be.' And so it was made; in the rational nature itself there was first made, perhaps, that from which the form would be imprinted on the body.

9. 30. But when there was added, and God made the firmament, and divided between the water that was under the firmament, and the water that was above the firmament (Gen 1:7), is the very working in that matter signified, so that the body of heaven might come to be? Or perhaps, for the sake of variety, so that the texture of the discourse might not become tedious, what is put below is not put above, and one ought not scrupulously to scrutinize everything?

Let each choose what he can, only let him not rashly assert as known something unknown; and let him remember that he is a man, inquiring into the works of God as far as is permitted.

9. 31. And God called the firmament heaven (Gen 1:8). What was treated above concerning naming can be considered here too: for not every firmament is heaven. And God saw that it is good (Gen 1:8). And what was treated of this above would be reconsidered, except that I do not see the same order. For above, and God saw the light, that it is good (Gen 1:4); and afterward it is subjoined, God divided between the light and the darkness; and God called the light day, and the darkness he called night (Gen 1:4-5): but here, after it was recounted that what was said to be made was made, and after the firmament was called heaven, then it is said, and God saw that it is good.

But if it was varied thus not for the sake of avoiding tedium, we are surely compelled to understand what was said, and God made all things together. For why is it that there he first saw that it is good, and afterward imposed the name; but here he first imposed the name, and afterward saw that it is good?

Is it not because this indifference signifies that there are no intervals of delay in the working of God, although they are found in the works themselves? For according to an interval of delay one thing is brought about first and another afterward—without which the narration of the deeds cannot be, although without these God could bring about these things.

And evening came, and morning came, a second day (Gen 1:8). This was already treated above, and I judge that the same reasons hold good here too.

10. 32. And God said, 'let the waters that are under heaven be gathered into one gathering, and let the dry land appear.' And so it was made (Gen 1:9). From this it can be believed more probably that water was spoken of above, as we supposed, as the very matter of the world. For if the universe was filled with water, from where or to where could it be gathered? For if he had called by the name of water a certain material confusion, this gathering is to be taken as the very forming, so that the form of water might be such as we now discern it to be. And the very phrase that was put, let the dry land appear, can be understood as the forming of the earth, so that the earth might have this form which we discern. For it had been called invisible and unformed, while as yet the form of matter was lacking.

God said, then, let the water that is under heaven be gathered; that is, let corporeal matter be brought back into form, so that it may be this water which we perceive. Into one gathering: the very power of form is conveyed by the name of unity. For this is truly to be formed—to be brought back into some one thing; since the highest unity is the principle of all form. And let the dry land appear: that is, let it receive a visible form, distinguished from confusion. And the water is well gathered, so that the dry land may appear; that is, what is fluid in matter is restrained, so that what is obscure may be illumined.

And so it was made: even this perhaps was first made in the reasons of the intellectual nature, so that what is afterward said, and the water was gathered into one gathering, and the dry land appeared, might not seem superfluously added, since it had already been said, and so it was made; but so that after the rational and incorporeal working we might understand that the corporeal too followed.

10. 33. And God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of water he called sea (Gen 1:10). That cause of names still works for us: for not all water is sea, nor all dry land earth. Therefore which was water and which was dry land had to be set apart by names. But that this very distinction and forming was the naming of God can still be understood not absurdly. And God saw that it is good (Gen 1:10). And here that same order was kept: so to this too let those things which have already been treated be brought.

11. 34. And God said, 'let the earth bring forth the herb of fodder, bearing seed according to its kind and likeness, and the fruit-bearing tree making fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its likeness (Gen 1:11).' After earth and sea were made, and named and approved—which, as we have often said, is not to be taken as intervals of delay, lest some slowness should attend the ineffable capacity of the working God—it is not at once subjoined, as on the two preceding days, evening came, and morning came, a third day; but another working is added: that the earth should bring forth the herb of fodder bearing seed according to its kind and likeness, and the fruit-bearing tree making fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its likeness (Gen 1:11).

What was not said of that light, and the firmament, and the waters, and the dry land; for light does not have a propagation of succession, nor is heaven born from another heaven, nor do earth or sea beget other seas and other lands to succeed them. Here, then, it had to be said, bearing seed according to its kind and likeness, and whose seed is in itself according to its likeness, where the likeness of those being born preserves the likeness of that which passes away.

11. 35. Now all these things are above the earth in such a way that they cohere with the earth itself by their roots, and are continuous with it, and yet again are in a manner separated from it: therefore I judge that the signifying of this nature was preserved in this narration; for they were both made on the same day on which the earth appeared, and yet again "God said that the earth should bring them forth"; and again it was said, and so it was made;

then, according to the rule above, after it was said, and so it was made, the carrying out itself is subjoined: and the earth gave forth the herb of fodder, bearing seed according to its kind; and the fruit-bearing tree making fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its likeness (Gen 1:12). And again it says, God saw that it is good. And so these things are both joined together on one day, and, by God's words repeated, distinguished from one another. Which I think was not done concerning earth and sea, because the nature of these things is more to be discerned—things which, since they arise and pass away, are propagated by the succession of seed.

Or is it because earth and sea could be made together—not only in the reasons of the spiritual creature, where all things were made together, but also in corporeal motion itself—whereas trees and any plants could not be born unless the earth in which they should sprout had gone before? Therefore the command of God too had to be repeated, so that the things made might be signified as distinct, yet not to be made on another day, on account of the fact that they are fixed to the roots of the earth and are continuous with it?

But it can be asked why God did not impose names on these: or was it passed over because their multitude did not allow it? But this question will be better considered afterward, when we shall notice the other things which God did not name, as he named light, and heaven, and earth, and sea. And evening came, and morning came, a third day (Gen 1:13).

12. 36. And God said, 'let there be lights in the firmament of heaven, to give light upon the earth, and to divide between day and night; and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days, and for years; and let them be for splendor in the firmament of heaven, to give light upon the earth (Gen 1:14-15).' On the fourth day the lights were made, of which it is said, and let them be for days: what, then, do the three days that passed without lights mean? Or why will these be for days, if even without them there could be days? Or is it because that stretching out of time and the interval of delay can be more evidently distinguished by men through the motion of these lights?

Or does this enumeration of days and nights serve for the distinction between that nature which was not made and those which were made: so that morning is named on account of their form as made, but evening on account of privation? Since, as far as concerns him by whom they were made, they are shapely and beautiful; but as far as is in themselves, they can fail, because they were made out of nothing; and insofar as they do not fail, it belongs not to their matter, which is from nothing, but to him who supremely is, and makes them to be in their kind and order.

12. 37. And God said, 'let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to give light' (Gen 1:14); was this said only of the fixed stars, or also of the wandering ones? But two lights, a greater and a lesser, are counted among the wandering stars: how, then, were all things made in the firmament, when each of the wandering ones possesses its own orbs or circles? Or, since in the Scriptures we read both of many heavens and of heaven—as in this place, when heaven and firmament are spoken of—is it to be understood that all this ethereal mass is meant, which contains all the stars; beneath which the serenity of pure and tranquil air flourishes, beneath which likewise this turbulent and stormy air is driven about?

To give light upon the earth, and to divide between day and night (Gen 1:14). Had not God already divided between the light and the darkness, and called the light day, and called the darkness night? From which it appears that he divided between day and night: what, then, does it now mean that it is said of the lights, and let them divide between day and night? Or is this division now made through the lights in such a way that it is known to men using even their fleshly eyes for the contemplation of these things; whereas God so made it before the circuit of the lights, that it cannot now be seen except by a few of sound spirit and serene reason?

Or did God divide between one day and another night—that is, between the form which he was imprinting on that formlessness, and the formlessness which still remained to be formed; whereas this day and this night, whose alternation is observed as the heaven revolves, are something else, which could not come to be except by the rising and setting of the sun?

13. 38. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days, and for years (Gen 1:14). It seems to me that what he said, for signs, made plain what he said, and for seasons; lest signs be taken as one thing, and seasons as another. For he now calls those things seasons which, by the distinction of intervals, signify that unchangeable eternity abides above them, so that time appears as a sign, that is, as a kind of trace of eternity. Likewise, when he adds, and for days, and for years, he shows what he meant by seasons, namely, that days come about by the revolution of the fixed stars; while years are evident when the sun traverses the zodiacal circle, but more obscure when each of the wandering stars does this in its own orbits. For he did not say, "and for months," because perhaps a month is the year of the moon; just as twelve lunar years are the year of that star which the Greeks call [GREEK WORD], and thirty solar years are the year of that star which is called [GREEK WORD]. And perhaps, when all the stars have thus returned to the same point, the "great year" is completed, of which many have said many things.

Or does he mean for signs those by which a sure course of sailing is signified; but for seasons such as is the spring season, and summer, and autumn, and winter—since these too are varied by the revolution of the stars, and keep their own turns and order; while for days and for years is to be taken as has already been expounded?

13. 39. And let them be for splendor in the firmament of heaven, to give light upon the earth (Gen 1:15). Above it had already been said, let there be lights in the firmament of heaven, to give light upon the earth; why do we think it was repeated? Or, just as it was said of the plants that they should bear seed, and that the seed should be in them, according to their kind and likeness, so here, on the contrary, it was said of the lights, let there be and let them be, that is, let them come to be and not beget, but be themselves. And so it was made. That order is kept.

13. 40. And God made two lights; the greater light to begin the day, and the lesser light to begin the night, and the stars (Gen 1:16). What he means by the beginning of the day and the beginning of the night will soon appear. But as for the fact that he added and the stars, it is doubtful whether they pertain to the beginning of the night or not. Now some hold that it is here signified that the moon was first made full, since the full moon rises at the beginning of the night, that is, soon after the setting of the sun.

But it is absurd that we should take the start of counting not from the first day, but from the sixteenth or fifteenth. Nor let this trouble anyone, that the light which was made ought to have been made perfect. For on every day it is perfect; but its perfection is not seen by men, except when it has been set opposite the sun on the contrary side. For even when set together with the sun, since it is beneath it, it seems to be diminished: yet even then it is full; because it is illumined on the other side, and cannot be seen by those who are below, that is, who inhabit the earth. This can be taught not in few words, but by subtle discussions and by the demonstration of certain visible figures.

13. 41. And God placed them in the firmament of heaven, to give light upon the earth (Gen 1:17). How did he say, let them be made in the firmament; and how does he now say, God made the lights, and placed them in the firmament, as though they were made outside and afterward placed there, when it had already been said that they should be made there? Or is it again and again signified by this that God did not make as men are wont to, but that it was narrated as it could be to men: namely, that among men he made is one thing and he placed another, but with God both are the same, who by making places, and by placing makes?

13. 42. And let them rule over the day and the night, and divide between the day and the night (Gen 1:18). This is what had been said, the beginning of the day and the beginning of the night, which he here expounds by saying, let them rule over the day and the night. Therefore by that beginning we ought to understand rule, since in the day there is nothing among the things that are seen more excellent than the sun, and in the night nothing than the moon or the stars. Whence that ambiguity too need no longer trouble us, and we may believe that the stars were so placed as to pertain to the beginning of the night, that is, the rule.

And God saw that it is good (Gen 1:18). The same order is kept. Let us indeed remember that these too God did not name, though it could have been said, "And God called the lights stars"; because not every light is a star.

13. 43. And evening came, and morning came, a fourth day (Gen 1:19). If you consider those days which the rising and setting of the sun distinguish, this is not the fourth but perhaps the first day; so that we might suppose the sun to have risen at the time at which it was made, and to have set until the other stars were made. But whoever understands that the sun is elsewhere when it is night with us, and that it is night elsewhere when the sun is with us, will track down the enumeration of these days more loftily.

14. 44. And God said, 'let the waters bring forth the creeping things of living souls, and the flying things flying over the earth under the firmament of heaven.' And so it was made (Gen 1:20). Those animals which are swimming were called creeping things, because they do not walk on feet. Or is it because there are others which creep under the water on the ground? For some are winged in the waters, such as the fish that have scales, or others which do not have them but nevertheless are borne up by fins.

Whether these are to be numbered in this place among the flying things, it can be doubted. For there is also some question why he attributed the flying things themselves to the waters, not to the air. For we cannot here take it to mean only those birds to which the waters are familiar, such as divers, ducks, and whatever is of this kind. For if he had spoken only of these, he would not have failed to speak in another place of the other birds, among which some are so far removed from the waters that they do not even drink.

Unless perhaps he called this air contiguous to the lands water, since it shows itself moist with dew even on the most serene nights, because it is also gathered into cloud. Now a cloud is water, as all perceive to whom it happens to walk in the mountains amid the clouds, or even in the plains amid the mists. For it is in this air that the birds are said to fly. For in that higher and purer air, which has truly been called air by all, they cannot: for its thinness does not support their weight. But in that air neither, it is asserted, do clouds form, nor does anything stormy arise: indeed, where there is no wind at all, as on the summit of Mount Olympus, which is said to exceed the spaces of this moist air, certain letters are reported to have been wont to be made in the dust, and after a year to be found whole and unharmed by those who solemnly ascended the aforesaid mountain.

14. 45. Therefore it can not absurdly be supposed that in the divine Scriptures the firmament of heaven is named as reaching down to these spaces, so that even that most tranquil and most pure air is believed to pertain to the firmament. For by this name of firmament, the very tranquillity and a great part of things can be signified. Whence I judge that this too is said in several Psalms: and your truth reaches to the clouds (Ps 36 (35):5; Ps 57 (56):10). For there is nothing firmer and more serene than truth. But clouds form beneath that region of the purest air. And although this be taken as said figuratively, it is nevertheless drawn from those things which have a certain likeness to these; so that the more constant and purer corporeal creature, which is from the summit of heaven down to the clouds, may rightly be seen to have the figure of truth, that is, down to the murky and stormy and moist air.

Therefore the flying things flying over the earth under the firmament of heaven are fittingly attributed to the waters; because it is not unfitting that this air be named water. From this it is also given to understand that nothing was said of the air, how or when it was made, because this air is held under the name of the waters, but that higher air under the name of the firmament; and thus no element was passed over.

14. 46. But perhaps someone may say, 'if by what was said, let the water be gathered (Gen 1:9), we understand water to have been made out of that confusion of matter, and God called this gathering sea, how can we understand this air to have been made there, since it is not called sea, even if it can be called water?' For which reason it seems to me that in what was said, let the dry land appear, not only the form of the earth, but also of this thicker air was conveyed. For through it the earth is illumined, so that it may be visible to us. Therefore in the one word by which it was said, let it appear, all things were intimated without which it could not appear; that is, both its form, and its being laid bare of the waters, and the overspreading of air, through which the light is transmitted into it from the higher part of the world.

Or is it rather that in what is written, let the water be gathered, the form of this air is conveyed, since, when this air is condensed, it seems to produce this water? And so perhaps he called the compacting into density the gathering of water, so that a sea might come to be; so that what is not gathered, that is, not thickened, but borne aloft, is the water which can sustain the flying birds—accommodated to both names, so that it can be called both subtler water and thicker air.

But why does he not say when this was made? Or is it perhaps true, as some hold, that by the moist exhalations of the sea and the earth these breezes are produced, thicker than that higher and liquid air, so as to be accommodated to bearing the flights of birds; and again thinner than those waters by which the body is washed, so that in comparison with them they are perceived as dry and airy? And since it had already been said of earth and sea, what need was there to speak of their exhalations, that is, the waters of the birds, when you have understood that purest and most tranquil air to be attributed to the firmament?

14. 47. For neither was it said of the springs and rivers how they were made. For those who inquire and discuss these matters more scrupulously say that, by an ethereal gliding over the sea, a sweet vapor is invisibly drawn out—by those ascensions, namely, which we can in no way perceive: that thence the clouds are massed together; and that thus the earth, moistened by the rains, oozes and sweats into its more hidden caverns only so much as, being compacted and slipping down through various channels, bursts forth into springs, whether small ones, or ones suitable for begetting rivers.

Of which thing they hold the proofs to be that the vapor of boiled sea waters, caught by a curved cover, presents sweet moisture to those who taste it. And it is manifest to almost everyone that diminished springs feel the lack of rains.

The divine history attests it too, when Elijah, in a time of drought, asked for rain: for he commanded, while he himself prayed, that Elisha should look toward the sea; and when he saw a very small little cloud arising thence, he announced to the anxious king that rain was at hand, by which soon, even as he fled, the king was drenched. And David says, O Lord, who call the water of the sea, and pour it out over the face of the earth (Amos 5:8; 9:6).

Therefore, the sea having been named, he would speak superfluously of the other waters—whether those dew-bearing ones, which by their thinness offer breezes to the flying birds, or those of the springs and rivers—if both the former are produced by exhalations, and the latter flow forth from the reciprocal rains which the earth absorbs.

15. 48. Let the waters bring forth the creeping things of living souls (Gen 1:20). Why was living added? Can there be souls unless they live? Or did he wish to convey that more evident life which is in perceiving animals, since plants lack it? And the flying things flying over the earth under the firmament of heaven (Gen 1:20). If the flying things do not fly in that purest air, where no clouds arise, from this it is manifest that it pertains to the firmament; because the flying things were said to fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven. And so it was made (Gen 1:20). That order is kept. And therefore it is subjoined as in the rest, except the light, which was made first.

15. 49. And God made the great sea-monsters, and every soul of creeping animals, which the waters brought forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying thing according to its kind (Gen 1:21). Let us indeed remember that "according to its kind" is said of those creatures which are restored by seminal propagation: for this was already said of herbs and of trees. And every winged flying thing. Why was winged added? Can there be a flying thing that does not have wings? But if there can, did God make this kind, since it is not found where it was made? Or can anything fly at all without wings? For bats too, and locusts, and flies, and whatever of this kind lacks feathers, does not lack wings. But winged was added, lest we should understand birds alone; since fish are winged, and fly over the earth beneath the waters: therefore it was not said "birds," but "flying things" generally, and the winged flying thing. And God saw that it is good (Gen 1:21). And here, as in the other places, it is to be understood.

15. 50. And he blessed them, saying, 'increase, and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea; and let the flying things be multiplied over the earth (Gen 1:22).' He wished the blessing to avail unto fruitfulness, which appears in the succession of offspring, so that by this blessing, since they were created weak and mortal, they might preserve their own kind by being born. But since the plants too keep, by being born, the likeness of those that pass away, why did he not bless them? Or is it because they lack the sense that is near to reason? For it is perhaps not without purpose that God uses the second person in blessing, so as to address these living beings, in a manner, as though they hear, by saying, increase, and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea; and yet he is not found to remain in the same person to the end of the blessing: for it follows, and let the flying things be multiplied over the earth; he did not say, 'be multiplied over the earth.' Unless perhaps by this very thing it is signified that the sense of living beings is not so near to reason that it can perfectly receive one who addresses it, as can those that understand and are able to use reason.

15. 51. And so it was made (Gen 1:23). Here plainly anyone, however slow, ought now to wake up, so as to understand what kind of days these are that are enumerated. For since God has given to living beings fixed numbers of seeds, keeping a wondrous constancy by a fixed ordering, so that each, according to its own kind, both carries what is conceived in the womb and warms the eggs it has laid for a fixed number of days—the institution of which nature is preserved by the wisdom of God, which reaches mightily from end to end, and orders all things sweetly (Wis 8:1)—how could they in one day both conceive, and grow heavy in the womb, and warm and nourish their young, and fill the waters of the sea, and be multiplied over the earth? For thus it is subjoined: and so it was made (Gen 1:23), before the coming of evening.

But doubtless when he says, evening came, he is recalling unformed matter; and when he says, morning came, the form which was impressed on matter by the working itself: for thus he closes the day passed after the working. Yet God did not say, "let there be evening," or, "let there be morning": for it is a most brief recollection of the things made, matter and form being signified by evening and morning, which it had already been said that God made:

though the defect itself—that is, when there is a tending from form back to matter and to nothing, if we rightly think this is conveyed by the name of night—he did not say was made, but only ordered by God, when he said above, God divided between the light and the darkness: so that by the word evening is signified unformed matter, which, although it was made from nothing, nevertheless exists and has a capacity for forms and shapes.

It can also be taken that by the name of darkness is meant that utter nothing, which God did not make, and out of which he made whatever, in his ineffable goodness, he deigned to make, since he is almighty, who made even such great things out of nothing.

15. 52. And evening came, and morning came, a fifth day (Gen 1:23). Here, after he said, and so it was made, he did not, as he is wont, subjoin the carrying out, as though they were made again; for it had already been said above. Nor was any new nature fashioned by that blessing which pertains to begetting offspring; but the things that had been made were preserved through succession. And therefore neither was it said, and God saw that it is good: for the thing itself had already pleased him, which was only to be preserved in its offspring.

And so nothing here was repeated, except that he says, and so it was made; and at once there was subjoined the matter of evening and morning: by which, when named, it was said that the completed works are signified, in terms of unformed matter and the form which is imposed. Unless perhaps something better and more lofty occurs to those who inquire.

15. 53. And God said, 'let the earth bring forth the living soul according to its kind; of quadrupeds, and serpents, and beasts of the earth according to their kind, and cattle according to their kind.' And so it was made (Gen 1:24). Why, when soul was said, living was added; and what according to its kind means; and concerning the customary conclusion by which it is said, and so it was made—these are to be considered and taken as treated above. But since in the Latin tongue by the name of beasts every irrational animal is signified generally, here nevertheless the species are to be distinguished, so that by quadrupeds we take all beasts of burden; by serpents, all creeping things; by beasts or wild animals, all untamed quadrupeds; but by cattle, those quadrupeds which help not by working, but give some yield to those who pasture them.

16. 54. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind, and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the earth according to their kind (Gen 1:25). This repetition of what was said, and God made, when it had already been said, and so it was made (Gen 1:24), is to be considered according to the rule above. Indeed, I think that here by the name of "cattle" all the quadrupeds that live under the care of men are signified. And God saw that it is good (Gen 1:25): to be taken as usual.

16. 55. And God said, 'let us make man to our image and likeness (Gen 1:26).' And here a certain joining and distinguishing of living beings is to be noticed. For he says that man was made on the same day as the beasts. For all earthly living beings are together; and yet, on account of the excellence of reason, according to which man is made to the image and likeness of God, he is spoken of separately, after the customary conclusion was made concerning the other earthly living beings, by saying, and God saw that it is good (Gen 1:25).

16. 56. That too is to be considered, that in the rest God said, let there be. And it was made; but here God said, let us make; so that in this way too the Holy Spirit wished to convey the excellence of human nature. But to whom was it now said, let us make, except to him to whom in the rest it was being said, let there be? For all things were made through him, and without him nothing was made (Jn 1:3). But why do we think it was said one way, let there be, except that he himself should make at the command of the Father; and another way, let us make, except that both should make together?

Or is it that all things which the Father makes, he makes through the Son, and therefore let us make was now said, so that to man himself, for whose sake Scripture itself was made, it might be shown in himself that those things which the Son makes at the Father's speaking, the Father himself also makes; so that what was said in the rest, let there be, and it was made, is here expounded—namely, that the saying was not separate and the effecting separate, but both together, when here it is said, let us make?

16. 57. And God said, 'let us make man to our image and likeness (Gen 1:26).' Every image is like that of which it is the image; yet not everything that is like something is also its image: as in a mirror and a painting, since these are images, they must also be like that of which they are images. But two men, even if they are like each other, nevertheless, if the one was not born from the other, neither of them can be called the image of the other. For there is an image when it is expressed from something. Why, then, when to the image had been said, was and likeness added, as though there could be an unlike image? It would be enough, then, to say to the image. Or is "like" one thing and "likeness" another, just as "chaste" is one thing and "chastity" another, "brave" one thing and "courage" another: so that, as whatever things are brave are brave by courage, and whatever things are chaste are chaste by chastity, so whatever things are like are like by likeness?

But our image is not very properly said to be our likeness, although it is properly said to be like us: so that there is the likeness by which whatever things are like are like, where there is also the chastity by which whatever things are chaste are chaste. But chastity is chaste by the participation of nothing; rather, by its participation whatever things are chaste are chaste. And this is surely in God, where there is also that wisdom which is wise not by participating, but by whose participation any soul that is wise is wise. For which reason the likeness of God too, through which all things were made, is properly called likeness; because it is like not by the participation of some likeness, but is itself the first likeness, by whose participation whatever things God made through it are like.

16. 58. Perhaps, then, what was added, to the likeness, when to the image had already been said, is an explanation; so that it might be shown that what was called an image is not like God as though participating in some likeness, but is this very likeness in which all things that are said to be like would participate. As there too is the chastity by whose participation souls are chaste; and the wisdom by whose participation souls are wise; and the beauty by whose participation whatever things are beautiful are beautiful. For if he said only 'likeness,' he would not signify that it was begotten by him: but if he said only 'image,' he would signify that it was indeed begotten by him, but would not signify it to be so like as to be not merely like but the likeness itself. But as nothing is more chaste than chastity itself, and nothing wiser than wisdom itself, and nothing more beautiful than beauty itself, so nothing can be said, or thought, or be at all, more like than likeness itself. Whence it is understood that his likeness is so like the Father that it most fully and most perfectly fills out his nature.

16. 59. But how greatly the likeness of God, through which all things were made, avails for imposing form on things, although it surpasses human thoughts most deeply, can nevertheless somehow be conjectured, if we consider that all nature—whether it presents itself to those who perceive or to those who reason—preserves the image of the totality by parts like one another. For from the wisdom of God rational souls are called wise, and this name is extended no further: for we cannot call any cattle wise, and much less the trees, or fire, or air, or water, or earth, although through the wisdom of God itself all these too exist insofar as they exist. But we do call both stones, and animals, and men, and angels like one another.

Now indeed in individual things—that earth, by the fact that it has its parts like one another, comes to be earth; and that water in any given part is like its other parts, and could not otherwise have been water; and that air, however much there be of it, if it were unlike the rest, could in no way have been air; and that a particle of fire or light, by the fact that it is not unlike its remaining parts, comes to be what it is: so of each of the stones or trees or the body of any living being it can be discerned and understood that they would not be, not only along with other things of their kind, but in themselves individually, unless they had parts like one another. And a body is the more beautiful, the more like one another its parts are of which it consists.

And further, among souls, not only is the friendship of some with others brought about by like characters; but also in each individual soul like actions and virtues, without which there can be no constancy, indicate the blessed life.

But all these things we can call like, not likeness itself. For which reason, if the totality consists of things like one another, so that the individual things are whatever they are, and all fill out that totality which God both founded and governs, then surely it was through the likeness of him who founded all things—a likeness supereminent, unchangeable, and incontaminable—that such things were made, so that they are beautiful by parts like one another; yet not all things were made to that likeness itself, but the rational substance alone: wherefore all things are through it, but not all things to it.

16. 60. And so the rational substance was made both through it and to it: for there is no nature interposed. Since the human mind (which it does not perceive except when it is most pure and most blessed) coheres with nothing except Truth itself, which is called the likeness and image of the Father, and Wisdom. Rightly, therefore, according to what is the inner and principal part of man, that is, according to the mind, it is taken: let us make man to our image and likeness (Gen 1:26).

For the whole man is to be assessed from that which holds the chief place in him, which sets him apart from the beasts. The rest in him, although in their own kind they are beautiful, are nevertheless common to him with the cattle, and on this account are to be little valued in man.

Unless perhaps the fact that the figure of the human body has been set upright for gazing at heaven avails something even toward believing the body itself to have been made to the likeness of God; so that, just as that likeness is not turned away from the Father, so the human body is not turned away from heaven, as the bodies of other animals are turned away, since they are stretched out face-down toward the belly. Yet this is not to be taken in every way: for our body differs very greatly from heaven; but in that likeness which is the Son there cannot be anything unlike him to whom it is like. For whatever other things are like are also in some part unlike one another: but the likeness itself is not in any part unlike. Nevertheless the Father is Father, and the Son is nothing other than the Son; because even when he is called the likeness of the Father, although this shows that no unlikeness intervenes, nevertheless the Father is not alone, if he has a likeness.

16. 61. And God said, 'let us make man to our image and likeness (Gen 1:26).' What was said above sufficiently expounds these words of Scripture, in which we read that God said, let us make man to our image and likeness, so that the likeness of God to which man was made can be taken as the very Word of God, that is, the only-begotten Son—not, of course, so that man himself is that same image and likeness equal to the Father. Yet man too is an image of God, as the Apostle most plainly shows when he says, a man indeed ought not to veil his head, since he is the image and glory of God (1 Cor 11:7). But this image, made to the image of God, is not equal and coeternal to him whose image it is; nor would it be, even if it had never sinned at all.

But that sense is rather to be chosen in these divine words, namely, that we understand it was said not in the singular but in the plural, let us make man to our image and likeness; because man was made not to the image of the Father alone, or of the Son alone, or of the Holy Spirit alone, but to the image of the Trinity itself. Which Trinity is so a Trinity that it is one God; and is so one God that it is a Trinity. For he did not say, speaking to the Son, 'Let us make man to your image,' or 'to my image'; but in the plural he said, to our image and likeness: from which plurality who would dare to separate the Holy Spirit? And since this plurality means not three gods but one God, therefore it is to be understood that Scripture afterward put it in the singular, and said, and God made man to the image of God; so that it is not taken as though God the Father made man to the image of God, that is, of his Son: otherwise, how is what was said true, to our image, if man was made to the image of the Son alone? And on this account, because what God said is true, to our image, it was said thus, God made man to the image of God, as if it were said, to his own image, which is the Trinity itself.

16. 62. But some think that for this reason likeness was not repeated, nor was it said, 'And God made man to the image and likeness of God,' because then he was made only to the image: but the likeness was reserved for him afterward, in the resurrection of the dead—as though there could be some image in which there is no likeness. For if it is not like at all, then beyond doubt it is not even an image. Nevertheless, lest we seem to do this by reason alone, the authority of the apostle James is also to be brought forward, who, when he was speaking of the tongue of man, said, with it we bless God, and with it we curse men, who have been made to the likeness of God (Jas 3:9).