The Five Theological Orations — Oration 28 (Second Theological Oration)

Source: Translated by Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series , Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. ( Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894. ) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310228.htm>.

Opening

The Second Theological Oration.

In the previous discourse, we clearly established what kind of person the theologian ought to be, what subjects he may explore philosophically, when he should do so, and to what extent. We saw that he should be as pure as possible, so that light may grasp light, and that he should associate with serious people, so that his words do not become fruitless by falling on barren soil. We also saw that the right time for theology is when we have inner calm from the turmoil of external things, so we do not lose our composure like madmen, and that we may go only as far as we ourselves have progressed or are progressing. Since this is the case, and we have plowed up for ourselves the unworked ground of divinity, so as not to sow among thorns, and have smoothed the surface of the soil, being shaped and shaping others through Holy Scripture—let us now take up theological questions, placing at the beginning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, about whom we are to speak. May the Father be well pleased, the Son help us, and the Holy Spirit inspire us—or rather, may one illumination come to us from the one God, one in diversity, diverse in unity, which is a marvel.

I. In the former Discourse we laid down clearly with respect to the Theologian, both what sort of character he ought to bear, and on what kind of subject he may philosophize, and when, and to what extent. We saw that he ought to be, as far as may be, pure, in order that light may be apprehended by light; and that he ought to consort with serious men, in order that his word be not fruitless through falling on an unfruitful soil; and that the suitable season is when we have a calm within from the whirl of outward things; so as not like madmen to lose our breath; and that the extent to which we may go is that to which we have ourselves advanced, or to which we are advancing. Since then these things are so, and we have broken up for ourselves the fallows of Divinity Jeremiah 4:3, so as not to sow upon thorns, Matthew 13:7 and have made plain the face of the ground, Isaiah 28:25 being moulded and moulding others by Holy Scripture…let us now enter upon Theological questions, setting at the head thereof the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, of Whom we are to treat; that the Father may be well pleased, and the Son may help us, and the Holy Ghost may inspire us; or rather that one illumination may come upon us from the One God, One in diversity, diverse in Unity, wherein is a marvel.

When I eagerly climb the mountain, or to put it more truthfully, when I both eagerly desire and at the same time fear (the one because of my hope and the other because of my weakness) to enter the Cloud and speak with God, as God commands—if anyone is an Aaron, let him come up with me and stand nearby, ready, if necessary, to remain outside the Cloud. But if anyone is a Nadab or an Abihu, or belongs to the order of the Elders, let him go up, but let him stand at a distance, according to the degree of his purification. But if anyone belongs to the multitude, who are unworthy of this height of contemplation, if he is completely impure let him not approach at all, for it would be dangerous to him. But if he is at least temporarily purified, let him remain below and listen to the voice alone, and the trumpet, the bare words of piety, and let him see the mountain smoking and flashing with lightning, something both terrifying and marvelous to those who cannot ascend. But if anyone is an evil and savage beast, completely incapable of grasping the subject matter of contemplation and theology, let him not harmfully and maliciously lurk in his den among the woods, waiting to seize some dogma or saying by a sudden attack and to tear sound doctrine to pieces by his misrepresentations. Instead, let him stand even farther off and withdraw from the mountain, or he will be stoned and crushed, and will die miserably in his wickedness. For to those who are like wild beasts, true and sound teachings are like stones. If he is a leopard, let him die with his spots. If he is a ravening and roaring lion, seeking what he may devour of our souls or our words, or a wild boar trampling underfoot the precious and translucent pearls of truth, or an Arabian and alien wolf, or one even sharper than these in argumentative tricks, or a fox—that is, a treacherous and faithless soul, changing its form according to circumstances or necessities, feeding on dead or rotting bodies, or on small vineyards when the large ones have escaped them—or any other meat-eating beast rejected by the Law as unclean for food or enjoyment, our discourse must withdraw from such people and be engraved on solid tablets of stone, and on both sides, because the Law is partly visible and partly hidden. One part belongs to the masses who remain below, the other to the few who press upward to the mountain.

II. Now when I go up eagerly into the Mount Exodus 24:1 — or, to use a truer expression, when I both eagerly long, and at the same time am afraid (the one through my hope and the other through my weakness) to enter within the Cloud, and hold converse with God, for so God commands; if any be an Aaron, let him go up with me, and let him stand near, being ready, if it must be so, to remain outside the Cloud. But if any be a Nadad or an Abihu, or of the Order of the Elders, let him go up indeed, but let him stand afar off, according to the value of his purification. But if any be of the multitude, who are unworthy of this height of contemplation, if he be altogether impure let him not approach at all, for it would be dangerous to him; but if he be at least temporarily purified, let him remain below and listen to the Voice alone, and the trumpet, the bare words of piety, and let him see the Mountain smoking and lightening, a terror at once and a marvel to those who cannot get up. But if any is an evil and savage beast, and altogether incapable of taking in the subject matter of Contemplation and Theology, let him not hurtfully and malignantly lurk in his den among the woods, to catch hold of some dogma or saying by a sudden spring, and to tear sound doctrine to pieces by his misrepresentations, but let him stand yet afar off and withdraw from the Mount, or he shall be stoned and crushed, and shall perish miserably in his wickedness. For to those who are like wild beasts true and sound discourses are stones. If he be a leopard let him die with his spots. Jeremiah 13:23 If a ravening and roaring lion, seeking what he may devour 1 Peter 5:8 of our souls or of our words; or a wild boar, trampling under foot the precious and translucent pearls of the Truth; Matthew 7:6 or an Arabian and alien wolf, or one keener even than these in tricks of argument; or a fox, that is a treacherous and faithless soul, changing its shape according to circumstances or necessities, feeding on dead or putrid bodies, or on little vineyards when the large ones have escaped them; or any other carnivorous beast, rejected by the Law as unclean for food or enjoyment; our discourse must withdraw from such and be engraved on solid tables of stone, and that on both sides because the Law is partly visible, and partly hidden; the one part belonging to the mass who remain below, the other to the few who press upward into the Mount.

What is happening to me, friends, fellow initiates, and fellow lovers of the truth? I was running to take hold of God, and so I went up into the mountain and drew aside the curtain of the cloud, and I entered away from matter and material things. As far as I could, I withdrew within myself. And then when I looked up, I barely saw the back parts of God, although I was sheltered by the Rock, the Word that was made flesh for us. And when I looked a little closer, I saw not the first and unmixed nature known to itself—I mean the Trinity—not that which abides within the first veil and is hidden by the cherubim, but only that nature which at last even reaches to us. And that is, as far as I can learn, the majesty, or as holy David calls it, the glory that is manifested among the creatures which it has produced and governs. For these are the back parts of God, which he leaves behind him as tokens of himself, like the shadows and reflections of the sun in the water, which show the sun to our weak eyes because we cannot look at the sun itself, for by his unmixed light he is too strong for our power of perception. In this way, then, you shall speak of God, even if you were a Moses and a god to Pharaoh, even if you were caught up like Paul to the third heaven and had heard unspeakable words, even if you were raised above them both and exalted to angelic or archangelic place and dignity. For though a thing be entirely heavenly, or above heaven, and far higher in nature and nearer to God than we are, yet it is farther distant from God and from the complete comprehension of his nature than it is lifted above our complex and lowly and earthward-sinking composition.

III. What is this that has happened to me, O friends, and initiates, and fellow-lovers of the truth? I was running to lay hold on God, and thus I went up into the Mount, and drew aside the curtain of the Cloud, and entered away from matter and material things, and as far as I could I withdrew within myself. And then when I looked up, I scarce saw the back parts of God; Exodus 33:23 although I was sheltered by the Rock, the Word that was made flesh for us. And when I looked a little closer, I saw, not the First and unmingled Nature, known to Itself — to the Trinity, I mean; not That which abides within the first veil, and is hidden by the Cherubim; but only that Nature, which at last even reaches to us. And that is, as far as I can learn, the Majesty, or as holy David calls it, the Glory which is manifested among the creatures, which It has produced and governs. For these are the Back Parts of God, which He leaves behind Him, as tokens of Himself like the shadows and reflection of the sun in the water, which show the sun to our weak eyes, because we cannot look at the sun himself, for by his unmixed light he is too strong for our power of perception. In this way then shall you discourse of God; even were thou a Moses and a god to Pharaoh; Exodus 4:2 even were thou caught up like Paul to the Third Heaven, 2 Corinthians 12:2 and had heard unspeakable words; even were thou raised above them both, and exalted to Angelic or Archangelic place and dignity. For though a thing be all heavenly, or above heaven, and far higher in nature and nearer to God than we, yet it is farther distant from God, and from the complete comprehension of His Nature, than it is lifted above our complex and lowly and earthward sinking composition.

We must therefore start over like this. It is difficult to conceive God, but to define Him in words is impossible, as one of the Greek teachers of theology taught—not unskilfully, it seems to me. His intention was that he might be thought to have grasped God by saying it is a hard thing to do, and yet escape being convicted of ignorance because it is impossible to put that grasp into words. But in my opinion it is impossible to express Him, and even more impossible to conceive Him. For what can be conceived can perhaps be made clear through language—if not very well, at least imperfectly—to anyone who is not completely deaf or slow to understand. But to comprehend the whole of so great a subject as this is quite impossible and impracticable, not only for the utterly careless and ignorant, but even for those who are highly exalted, who love God, and likewise for every created nature. The reason is that the darkness of this world and the thick covering of the flesh are obstacles to the full understanding of the truth. I do not know whether it is the same with the higher natures and purer intelligences, which because of their nearness to God and because they are illumined with all His light may possibly see—if not the whole, at least more perfectly and distinctly than we do. Some perhaps see more, some less than others, in proportion to their rank.

IV. Therefore we must begin again thus. It is difficult to conceive God but to define Him in words is an impossibility, as one of the Greek teachers of Divinity taught, not unskilfully, as it appears to me; with the intention that he might be thought to have apprehended Him; in that he says it is a hard thing to do; and yet may escape being convicted of ignorance because of the impossibility of giving expression to the apprehension. But in my opinion it is impossible to express Him, and yet more impossible to conceive Him. For that which may be conceived may perhaps be made clear by language, if not fairly well, at any rate imperfectly, to any one who is not quite deprived of his hearing, or slothful of understanding. But to comprehend the whole of so great a Subject as this is quite impossible and impracticable, not merely to the utterly careless and ignorant, but even to those who are highly exalted, and who love God, and in like manner to every created nature; seeing that the darkness of this world and the thick covering of the flesh is an obstacle to the full understanding of the truth. I do not know whether it is the same with the higher natures and purer Intelligences which because of their nearness to God, and because they are illumined with all His Light, may possibly see, if not the whole, at any rate more perfectly and distinctly than we do; some perhaps more, some less than others, in proportion to their rank.

V. But enough has been said on this point. As for what concerns us, it is not only the Peace of God which passes all understanding and knowledge, nor only the things which God has stored up in promise for the righteous—which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor mind conceived except to a very small degree—nor the accurate knowledge of Creation. For even concerning this, I want you to know that you have only a shadow when you hear the words, "I will consider the heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, and the settled order in them"—not as if he were considering them in the present, but as he is destined to do in the future. But far beyond these is that nature which is above them and from which they spring—the Incomprehensible and Illimitable. I do not mean incomprehensible and illimitable as to the fact of His being, but as to Its nature. For our preaching is not empty, nor is our faith vain, nor is this the doctrine we proclaim. We would not have you take our candid statement as a starting point either for a quibbling denial of God or for arrogance on account of our confession of ignorance. For it is one thing to be persuaded of the existence of a thing, and quite another to know what it is.

V. But enough has been said on this point. As to what concerns us, it is not only the Peace of God Philippians 4:7 which passes all understanding and knowledge, nor only the things which God has stored up in promise for the righteous, which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor mind conceived except in a very small degree, nor the accurate knowledge of the Creation. For even of this I would have you know that you have only a shadow when you hear the words, I will consider the heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, and the settled order therein; not as if he were considering them now, but as destined to do so hereafter. But far before them is That nature Which is above them, and out of which they spring, the Incomprehensible and Illimitable — not, I mean, as to the fact of His being, but as to Its nature. For our preaching is not empty, nor our Faith vain, 1 Corinthians 15:19 nor is this the doctrine we proclaim; for we would not have you take our candid statement as a starting point for a quibbling denial of God, or of arrogance on account of our confession of ignorance. For it is one thing to be persuaded of the existence of a thing, and quite another to know what it is.

Our own eyes and the Law of Nature teach us that God exists and that He is the Efficient and Maintaining Cause of all things. Our eyes teach us this because they observe visible objects and see them in beautiful stability and progress, moving immovably and revolving—if I may put it that way. Natural Law teaches us because through these visible things and their order, it reasons backward to their Author. For how could this universe have come into being or been assembled unless God had called it into existence and held it together? Everyone who sees a beautifully crafted lute and considers the skill with which it has been fitted together and arranged, or who hears its melody, would think of no one but the lute maker or the lute player, and would turn to him in mind, even if he did not know him by sight. In the same way, That which made and moves and preserves all created things is manifested to us, even though He is not comprehended by the mind. Anyone who will not willingly go at least this far in following natural proofs is very lacking in sense. But even this, which we have imagined or formed, or which reason has sketched for us, does not prove the existence of a God. And even if someone has grasped this to some extent, how is God's Being to be demonstrated? Who ever reached this height of wisdom? Who was ever deemed worthy of so great a gift? Who has opened the mouth of his mind and drawn in the Spirit, so as by Him that searches all things, even the deep things of God, to take in God, and no longer to need progress, since he already possesses the Ultimate Object of desire, and That toward which all the social life and all the intelligence of the best men press forward?

VI. Now our very eyes and the Law of Nature teach us that God exists and that He is the Efficient and Maintaining Cause of all things: our eyes, because they fall on visible objects, and see them in beautiful stability and progress, immovably moving and revolving if I may so say; natural Law, because through these visible things and their order, it reasons back to their Author. For how could this Universe have come into being or been put together, unless God had called it into existence, and held it together? For every one who sees a beautifully made lute, and considers the skill with which it has been fitted together and arranged, or who hears its melody, would think of none but the lutemaker, or the luteplayer, and would recur to him in mind, though he might not know him by sight. And thus to us also is manifested That which made and moves and preserves all created things, even though He be not comprehended by the mind. And very wanting in sense is he who will not willingly go thus far in following natural proofs; but not even this which we have fancied or formed, or which reason has sketched for us, proves the existence of a God. But if any one has got even to some extent a comprehension of this, how is God's Being to be demonstrated? Who ever reached this extremity of wisdom? Who was ever deemed worthy of so great a gift? Who has opened the mouth of his mind and drawn in the Spirit, so as by Him that searches all things, yea the deep thing of God, 1 Corinthians 2:10 to take in God, and no longer to need progress, since he already possesses the Extreme Object of desire, and That to which all the social life and all the intelligence of the best men press forward?

What will you conceive God to be if you rely on all the approximations of reason? Or where will reason carry you, you who claim to be so philosophical and such excellent theologians, who boast of your familiarity with the Unlimited? Is He a body? Then how is He infinite and limitless, and formless, and intangible, and invisible? Are these the attributes of a body? What arrogance, for this is not the nature of a body! Or will you say that He has a body but does not have these attributes? What foolishness—that God should possess nothing more than we do. For how is He an object of worship if He is limited by boundaries? Or how shall He escape being made of elements and therefore liable to be broken down into them again, or even completely dissolved? For every compound is a starting point of conflict, and conflict leads to separation, and separation to dissolution. But dissolution is completely foreign to God and to the First Nature. Therefore there can be no separation, so that there may be no dissolution, and no conflict so that there may be no separation, and no composition so that there may be no conflict. Thus also there must be no body, so that there may be no composition, and so the argument is established by working backward from last to first.

VII. For what will you conceive the Deity to be, if you rely upon all the approximations of reason? Or to what will reason carry you, O most philosophic of men and best of Theologians, who boast of your familiarity with the Unlimited? Is He a body? How then is He the Infinite and Limitless, and formless, and intangible, and invisible? Or are these attributes of a body? What arrogance for such is not the nature of a body! Or will you say that He has a body, but not these attributes? O stupidity, that a Deity should possess nothing more than we do. For how is He an object of worship if He be circumscribed? Or how shall He escape being made of elements, and therefore subject to be resolved into them again, or even altogether dissolved? For every compound is a starting point of strife, and strife of separation, and separation of dissolution. But dissolution is altogether foreign to God and to the First Nature. Therefore there can be no separation, that there may be no dissolution, and no strife that there may be no separation, and no composition that there may be no strife. Thus also there must be no body, that there may be no composition, and so the argument is established by going back from last to first.

If we say that God pervades all things and fills all, as Scripture says—"Do not I fill heaven and earth?" says the Lord (Jeremiah 23:24), and "The Spirit of the Lord fills the world" (Wisdom 1:7)—how can we maintain this if God is partly contained and partly contains? Either He will occupy an empty universe, and so everything will have disappeared, with the result that we will have insulted God by making Him a body and by stripping Him of everything He has made; or else He will be a body contained within other bodies, which is impossible; or He will be wrapped up in them or mixed with them, the way liquids blend together and one divides and is divided by another—a view more absurd and foolish than even the atoms of Epicurus. So this argument about the body will collapse and have no substance or solid foundation at all. But if we say that He is immaterial—for instance, that fifth element some people have imagined—and that He is carried around in circular movement, let us assume He is immaterial and that He is the fifth element. And if they like, let Him also be bodiless according to the independent direction and arrangement of their argument, for I will not disagree with them on this point right now. But in what way, then, will He be one of those things that are in movement and agitation—to say nothing of the insult of making the Creator subject to the same movement as the creatures, and of making Him who carries all things (if they will even grant that much) identical with those He carries? Again, what is the force that moves your fifth element, and what moves all things, and what moves that, and what is the force that moves that? And so on indefinitely. And how can He avoid being entirely contained in space if He is subject to motion? But if they say He is something other than this fifth element—suppose it is an angelic nature they attribute to Him—how will they demonstrate that angels are corporeal, or what kind of bodies they have? And in that case, how could God, whom the angels serve, be superior to the angels? And if He is above them, there is again introduced an irrational swarm of bodies and a depth of nonsense that has no possible basis to stand on.

VIII. And how shall we preserve the truth that God pervades all things and fills all, as it is written Do not I fill heaven and earth? Says the Lord, Jeremiah 23:24 and The Spirit of the Lord fills the world, Wisdom 1:7 if God partly contains and partly is contained? For either He will occupy an empty Universe, and so all things will have vanished for us, with this result, that we shall have insulted God by making Him a body, and by robbing Him of all things which He has made; or else He will be a body contained in other bodies, which is impossible; or He will be enfolded in them, or contrasted with them, as liquids are mixed, and one divides and is divided by another — a view which is more absurd and anile than even the atoms of Epicurus and so this argument concerning the body will fall through, and have no body and no solid basis at all. But if we are to assert that He is immaterial (as for example that Fifth Element which some have imagined), and that He is carried round in the circular movement…let us assume that He is immaterial, and that He is the Fifth Element; and, if they please, let Him be also bodiless in accordance with the independent drift and arrangement of their argument; for I will not at present differ with them on this point; in what respect then will He be one of those things which are in movement and agitation, to say nothing of the insult involved in making the Creator subject to the same movement as the creatures, and Him That carries all (if they will allow even this) one with those whom He carries. Again, what is the force that moves your Fifth Element, and what is it that moves all things, and what moves that, and what is the force that moves that? And so on ad infinitum. And how can He help being altogether contained in space if He be subject to motion? But if they assert that He is something other than this Fifth Element; suppose it is an angelic nature that they attribute to Him, how will they show that Angels are corporeal, or what sort of bodies they have? And how far in that case could God, to Whom the Angels minister, be superior to the Angels? And if He is above them, there is again brought in an irrational swarm of bodies, and a depth of nonsense, that has no possible basis to stand upon.

And so we see that God is not a body. No inspired teacher has ever claimed or accepted such an idea, nor has the verdict of our own judgment allowed it. Nothing remains, then, but to think of Him as incorporeal. But this term "incorporeal," even if we accept it, does not yet reveal to us—or contain within itself—His essence, any more than "unbegotten," "without beginning," "unchanging," "incorruptible," or any other description used concerning God or applied to Him. For what effect does it have on His being or ousia (substance) to say that He has no beginning and cannot be changed or limited? No, the entire question of His being is still left for further consideration and explanation by whoever truly has the mind of God and is advanced in contemplation. For just as saying "it is a body" or "it was begotten" is not enough to present clearly to the mind the various objects to which these descriptions apply, but you must also identify the subject you are describing if you want to present the object of your thought clearly and fully (since any of these descriptions—corporeal, begotten, mortal—can be used of a man, or a cow, or a horse), just so the person eagerly pursuing the physis (nature) of the Self-existent will not stop at saying what He is not, but must go further beyond what He is not and say what He is. This is because it is easier to grasp some single point than to go on denying point after point in endless detail, in order—both by eliminating negatives and affirming positives—to arrive at an understanding of this subject.

IX. And thus we see that God is not a body. For no inspired teacher has yet asserted or admitted such a notion, nor has the sentence of our own Court allowed it. Nothing then remains but to conceive of Him as incorporeal. But this term Incorporeal, though granted, does not yet set before us — or contain within itself His Essence, any more than Unbegotten, or Unoriginate, or Unchanging, or Incorruptible, or any other predicate which is used concerning God or in reference to Him. For what effect is produced upon His Being or Substance by His having no beginning, and being incapable of change or limitation? Nay, the whole question of His Being is still left for the further consideration and exposition of him who truly has the mind of God and is advanced in contemplation. For just as to say It is a body, or It was begotten, is not sufficient to present clearly to the mind the various objects of which these predicates are used, but you must also express the subject of which you use them, if you would present the object of your thought clearly and adequately (for every one of these predicates, corporeal, begotten, mortal, may be used of a man, or a cow, or a horse). Just so he who is eagerly pursuing the nature of the Self-existent will not stop at saying what He is not, but must go on beyond what He is not, and say what He is; inasmuch as it is easier to take in some single point than to go on disowning point after point in endless detail, in order, both by the elimination of negatives and the assertion of positives to arrive at a comprehension of this subject.

A person who states what God is not without going on to say what He is acts much like someone who, when asked what twice five makes, answers, "Not two, not three, not four, not five, not twenty, not thirty, and in fact not any number below ten, nor any multiple of ten," but does not answer "ten" or settle the questioner's mind on the solid ground of the answer. For it is much easier and more concise to show what something is not based on what it is, than to demonstrate what it is by stripping away what it is not. This is surely evident to everyone.

But a man who states what God is not without going on to say what He is, acts much in the same way as one would who when asked how many twice five make, should answer, Not two, nor three, nor four, nor five, nor twenty, nor thirty, nor in short any number below ten, nor any multiple of ten; but would not answer ten, nor settle the mind of his questioner upon the firm ground of the answer. For it is much easier, and more concise to show what a thing is not from what it is, than to demonstrate what it is by stripping it of what it is not. And this surely is evident to every one.

Since we have established that God is incorporeal, let us continue our examination a little further. Is He nowhere or somewhere? If He is nowhere, then someone with a very inquiring mind might ask: How then can He even exist? For if what does not exist is nowhere, then what is nowhere is also perhaps non-existent. But if He is somewhere, He must be either in the universe or above the universe. If He is in the universe, then He must be either in some part of it or in the whole of it. If in some part, then He will be limited by that part which is less than Himself; but if everywhere, then by something larger and greater—I mean the whole universe, which contains the particular parts; this would mean the universe is contained by the universe, and no place would be free from limitation. This is what follows if He is contained in the universe. Besides, where was He before the universe was created? This is no small difficulty. But if He is above the universe, is there nothing to distinguish this from the universe, and where is this "above" located? How could this transcendence and what is transcended be distinguished in thought if there is no boundary to divide and define them? Is it not necessary that there be something in between to mark off the universe from what is above the universe? And what could this be except place, which we have already rejected? For I have not yet mentioned this point: that God would be altogether limited if He were even comprehensible in thought, since comprehension is one form of limitation.

X. Now since we have ascertained that God is incorporeal, let us proceed a little further with our examination. Is He Nowhere or Somewhere. For if He is Nowhere, then some person of a very inquiring turn of mind might ask, How is it then that He can even exist? For if the non-existent is nowhere, then that which is nowhere is also perhaps non-existent. But if He is Somewhere, He must be either in the Universe, or above the Universe. And if He is in the Universe, then He must be either in some part or in the whole. If in some part, then He will be circumscribed by that part which is less than Himself; but if everywhere, then by one which is further and greater — I mean the Universal, which contains the Particular; if the Universe is to be contained by the Universe, and no place is to be free from circumscription. This follows if He is contained in the Universe. And besides, where was He before the Universe was created, for this is a point of no little difficulty. But if He is above the Universe, is there nothing to distinguish this from the Universe, and where is this above situated? And how could this Transcendence and that which is transcended be distinguished in thought, if there is not a limit to divide and define them? Is it not necessary that there shall be some mean to mark off the Universe from that which is above the Universe? And what could this be but Place, which we have already rejected? For I have not yet brought forward the point that God would be altogether circumscript, if He were even comprehensible in thought: for comprehension is one form of circumscription.

XI. Now, why have I gone into all this—perhaps in too much detail for most people to listen to, and in keeping with the current style of discourse, which rejects noble simplicity and has introduced a twisted and convoluted manner of speaking? So that the tree may be known by its fruits—that is, so that the darkness at work in such teaching may be recognized by the obscurity of its arguments. For my purpose in doing this was not to gain credit for myself through astonishing statements or excessive wisdom by tying knots and solving difficulties (that was the great miraculous gift of Daniel), but to make clear the point my argument has aimed at from the beginning. And what was this? That the Divine Nature cannot be grasped by human reason, and that we cannot even represent to ourselves all its greatness. And this is not out of envy, for envy is far from the Divine Nature, which is without passion and only good and Lord of all—especially envy of what is the most honorable of all His creatures. For what does the Word prefer above rational and speaking creatures? Why, their very existence is proof of His supreme goodness. Nor is this incomprehensibility for the sake of His own glory and honor, Who is full, as if His possession of glory and majesty depended upon the impossibility of approaching Him. For it is utterly sophistical and foreign to the character—I will not say of God, but of any moderately good person who has any right ideas about himself—to seek his own supremacy by placing a hindrance in the way of another.

XI. Now, why have I gone into all this, perhaps too minutely for most people to listen to, and in accordance with the present manner of discourse, which despises noble simplicity, and has introduced a crooked and intricate style? That the tree may be known by its fruits; Luke 6:44 I mean, that the darkness which is at work in such teaching may be known by the obscurity of the arguments. For my purpose in doing so was, not to get credit for myself for astonishing utterances, or excessive wisdom, through tying knots and solving difficulties (this was the great miraculous gift of Daniel), but to make clear the point at which my argument has aimed from the first. And what was this? That the Divine Nature cannot be apprehended by human reason, and that we cannot even represent to ourselves all its greatness. And this not out of envy, for envy is far from the Divine Nature, which is passionless, and only good and Lord of all; especially envy of that which is the most honourable of all His creatures. For what does the Word prefer to the rational and speaking creatures? Why, even their very existence is a proof of His supreme goodness. Nor yet is this incomprehensibility for the sake of His own glory and honour, Who is full, Isaiah 1:11 as if His possession of His glory and majesty depended upon the impossibility of approaching Him. For it is utterly sophistical and foreign to the character, I will not say of God, but of any moderately good man, who has any right ideas about himself, to seek his own supremacy by throwing a hindrance in the way of another.

XII. But whether there are also other reasons for this, let those see who are closer to God and who are eyewitnesses and observers of His unsearchable judgments—if there are any who are so outstanding in virtue and who walk in the paths of the Infinite, as the saying goes. As far as we have understood, however, measuring with our small measure things that are hard to understand, perhaps one reason is to prevent us from too easily throwing away what we possess because we gained it so easily. For people hold tightly to what they acquire through effort, but what they acquire easily they quickly discard, because it can be easily regained. And so it becomes a blessing, at least to all sensible people, that this blessing is not too easily obtained. Or perhaps it is so that we may not share the fate of Lucifer, who fell—and as a result of receiving the full light, become arrogant against the Lord Almighty, and suffer a fall (the most pitiable of all things) from the height we had reached. Or perhaps it may be to give a greater reward in the life to come for their labor and glorious life to those who have been purified here and have exercised long patience regarding what they desired.

XII. But whether there be other causes for it also, let them see who are nearer God, and are eye witnesses and spectators of His unsearchable judgments; Romans 11:33 if there are any who are so eminent in virtue, and who walk in the paths of the Infinite, as the saying is. As far, however, as we have attained, who measure with our little measure things hard to be understood, perhaps one reason is to prevent us from too readily throwing away the possession because it was so easily come by. For people cling tightly to that which they acquire with labour; but that which they acquire easily they quickly throw away, because it can be easily recovered. And so it is turned into a blessing, at least to all men who are sensible, that this blessing is not too easy. Or perhaps it is in order that we may not share the fate of Lucifer, who fell, and in consequence of receiving the full light make our necks stiff against the Lord Almighty, and suffer a fall, of all things most pitiable, from the height we had attained. Or perhaps it may be to give a greater reward hereafter for their labour and glorious life to those who have here been purified, and have exercised long patience in respect of that which they desired.

Therefore this darkness of the body has been placed between us and God, like the cloud of old between the Egyptians and the Hebrews, and this is perhaps what is meant by "He made darkness His secret place"—namely our dullness, through which few can see even a little. But let those whose business it is discuss this point, and let them ascend as far as possible in their examination. To us who are, as Jeremiah says, prisoners of the earth and covered with the denseness of our fleshly nature, this much at least is known: just as it is impossible for a person to step over his own shadow, no matter how fast he moves (for the shadow will always move forward as quickly as it is being overtaken), or as it is impossible for the eye to approach visible objects without the intervening air and light, or for a fish to glide about outside the waters, so it is completely impractical for those who are in the body to engage with objects of pure thought apart altogether from bodily objects. For something from our own surroundings is always creeping in, even when the mind has most fully detached itself from the visible and collected itself, and is attempting to apply itself to those invisible things which are akin to itself.

Therefore this darkness of the body has been placed between us and God, like the cloud of old between the Egyptians and the Hebrews; Exodus 14:20 and this is perhaps what is meant by He made darkness His secret place, namely our dulness, through which few can see even a little. But as to this point, let those discuss it whose business it is; and let them ascend as far as possible in the examination. To us who are (as Jeremiah says), prisoners of the earth, Lamentations 3:34 and covered with the denseness of carnal nature, this at all events is known, that as it is impossible for a man to step over his own shadow, however fast he may move (for the shadow will always move on as fast as it is being overtaken) or, as it is impossible for the eye to draw near to visible objects apart from the intervening air and light, or for a fish to glide about outside of the waters; so it is quite impracticable for those who are in the body to be conversant with objects of pure thought apart altogether from bodily objects. For something in our own environment is ever creeping in, even when the mind has most fully detached itself from the visible, and collected itself, and is attempting to apply itself to those invisible things which are akin to itself.

This can be made clear to you as follows: Are not Spirit, Fire, Light, Love, Wisdom, Righteousness, Mind, and Reason—and similar terms—names for the First Nature? What then? Can you think of Spirit apart from movement and spreading outward? Or of Fire without something to burn, without rising upward, and without its characteristic color and shape? Or of Light unmixed with air and separated from what is, so to speak, its father and source? And how do you think of a mind? Is it not something that exists in a person distinct from itself, and are not its activities thoughts, whether silent or spoken? And Reason—what else can you consider it to be except something either silent within ourselves or poured out (for I hesitate to say "loosed")? And if you think of Wisdom, what is it but the disposition of mind that you recognize as such, concerned with contemplation of either divine or human things? And Justice and Love, are they not commendable dispositions, one opposed to injustice and the other to hatred, at times intensifying themselves and at other times relaxing, now taking hold of us and now leaving us alone—in short, making us what we are and changing us as colors change bodies? Or should we instead set aside all these things and look at the Deity absolutely, as best we can, gathering a fragmentary perception of it from its images? What then is this subtle thing that belongs to these things yet is not these things? Or how can that Unity, which is by nature uncomposite and incomparable, still be all of these and each one of them perfectly? Thus our mind grows faint trying to transcend bodily things and associate with the Incorporeal, stripped of all covering of bodily concepts, as long as it must look with its inherent weakness at things beyond its strength. For every rational nature longs for God and for the First Cause but is unable to grasp him for the reasons I have mentioned. Growing faint with desire and, as it were, restless and impatient with this inability, it attempts a second course: either to look at visible things and make a god out of some of them (a poor strategy, for in what respect and to what degree can what is seen be higher and more godlike than what sees, so that the latter should worship the former?), or else to reach what is above sight through the beauty and order of visible things—but not to suffer the loss of God through the splendor of visible things.

XIII. This will be made clear to you as follows:– Are not Spirit, and Fire, and Light, Love, and Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Mind and Reason, and the like, the names of the First Nature? What then? Can you conceive of Spirit apart from motion and diffusion; or of Fire without its fuel and its upward motion, and its proper color and form? Or of Light unmingled with air, and loosed from that which is as it were its father and source? And how do you conceive of a mind? Is it not that which is inherent in some person not itself, and are not its movements thoughts, silent or uttered? And Reason…what else can you think it than that which is either silent within ourselves, or else outpoured (for I shrink from saying loosed)? And if you conceive of Wisdom, what is it but the habit of mind which you know as such, and which is concerned with contemplations either divine or human? And Justice and Love, are they not praiseworthy dispositions, the one opposed to injustice, the other to hate, and at one time intensifying themselves, at another relaxed, now taking possession of us, now leaving us alone, and in a word, making us what we are, and changing us as colors do bodies? Or are we rather to leave all these things, and to look at the Deity absolutely, as best we can, collecting a fragmentary perception of It from Its images? What then is this subtle thing, which is of these, and yet is not these, or how can that Unity which is in its Nature uncomposite and incomparable, still be all of these, and each one of them perfectly? Thus our mind faints to transcend corporeal things, and to consort with the Incorporeal, stripped of all clothing of corporeal ideas, as long as it has to look with its inherent weakness at things above its strength. For every rational nature longs for God and for the First Cause, but is unable to grasp Him, for the reasons I have mentioned. Faint therefore with the desire, and as it were restive and impatient of the disability, it tries a second course, either to look at visible things, and out of some of them to make a god…(a poor contrivance, for in what respect and to what extent can that which is seen be higher and more godlike than that which sees, that this should worship that?) or else through the beauty and order of visible things to attain to that which is above sight; but not to suffer the loss of God through the magnificence of visible things.

Because of this, some people have made a god of the sun, others of the moon, others of the host of stars, others of heaven itself with all its hosts, to which they attributed the guidance of the universe based on the quality or quantity of their movement. Still others worshipped the elements—earth, air, water, fire—because of their usefulness, since human life cannot possibly exist without them. Others have worshipped whatever visible objects they happened upon, setting up the most beautiful things they saw as their gods. And there are those who worship pictures and images, at first of their own ancestors—at least among the more affectionate and emotional people—and honor the departed with memorials. Later, even images of strangers were worshipped by people of a later generation separated from them by a long period of time. This came from ignorance of the First Nature and from following traditional honor as if it were lawful and necessary, for custom when confirmed by time was considered to be law. And I think that some who were flatterers of arbitrary power, who praised physical strength and admired beauty, eventually made a god out of the person they honored, perhaps seizing upon some legend to help with their deception.

XIV. From this cause some have made a god of the Sun, others of the Moon, others of the host of Stars, others of heaven itself with all its hosts, to which they have attributed the guiding of the Universe, according to the quality or quantity of their movement. Others again of the Elements, earth, air, water, fire, because of their useful nature, since without them human life cannot possibly exist. Others again have worshipped any chance visible objects, setting up the most beautiful of what they saw as their gods. And there are those who worship pictures and images, at first indeed of their own ancestors — at least, this is the case with the more affectionate and sensual — and honour the departed with memorials; and afterwards even those of strangers are worshipped by men of a later generation separated from them by a long interval; through ignorance of the First Nature, and following the traditional honour as lawful and necessary; for usage when confirmed by time was held to be Law. And I think that some who were courtiers of arbitrary power and extolled bodily strength and admired beauty, made a god in time out of him whom they honoured, perhaps getting hold of some fable to help on their imposture.

Those who were most driven by their passions actually made gods out of those passions, or honored them among their deities—anger and bloodthirstiness, lust and drunkenness, and every similar wickedness. This gave them a shameful and unjust excuse for their own sins. They left some of these gods on earth, buried others beneath the earth (the only remotely wise thing they did), and raised still others to heaven. What a ridiculous way to divide up an inheritance! Then they gave each of these concepts the name of some god or demon, based solely on the authority and personal judgment of their own error. They set up statues whose expense is a trap, and thought to honor them with blood and the smoke of sacrifices, and sometimes even with the most shameful actions—frenzies and murder. Such honors were fitting for such gods. People have even gone so far as to worship monsters, four-footed animals, and reptiles, including the most vile and absurd creatures, offering them the glory that belongs to God. It's hard to say whether the worshippers or the objects of their worship deserve more contempt. Probably the worshippers are far more contemptible, because though they have a rational nature and have received grace from God, they have elevated the worse above the better. This was the Evil One's trick—he misuses what is good for evil purposes, as he does in most of his wicked schemes. He seized upon their desire as it wandered in search of God, twisting that power toward himself and stealing their desire, leading them by the hand like a blind man asking for directions. Then he threw them down and scattered them in different directions, into one pit of death and destruction.

XV. And those of them who were most subject to passion deified their passions, or honoured them among their gods; Anger and Blood-thirstiness, Lust and Drunkenness, and every similar wickedness; and made out of this an ignoble and unjust excuse for their own sins. And some they left on earth, and some they hid beneath the earth (this being the only sign of wisdom about them), and some they raised to heaven. O ridiculous distribution of inheritance! Then they gave to each of these concepts the name of some god or demon, by the authority and private judgment of their error, and set up statues whose costliness is a snare, and thought to honour them with blood and the steam of sacrifices, and sometimes even by most shameful actions, frenzies and manslaughter. For such honours were the fitting due of such gods. And before now men have insulted themselves by worshipping monsters, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things, Romans 1:23 and of the very vilest and most absurd, and have made an offering to them of the glory of God; so that it is not easy to decide whether we ought most to despise the worshippers or the objects of their worship. Probably the worshippers are far the most contemptible, for though they are of a rational nature, and have received grace from God, they have set up the worse as the better. And this was the trick of the Evil One, who abused good to an evil purpose, as in most of his evil deeds. For he laid hold of their desire in its wandering in search of God, in order to distort to himself the power, and steal the desire, leading it by the hand, like a blind man asking a road; and he hurled down and scattered some in one direction and some in another, into one pit of death and destruction.

XVI. This was their way. But reason, receiving us in our longing for God and in our awareness that we cannot be without a leader and guide, causes us to turn to visible things and to encounter what has existed from the beginning, yet does not stop even there. For it would not be the mark of Wisdom to grant supreme authority to things which, as we observe, are of equal rank. By these things, then, reason leads us to what is above them and what gives them their being. For what is it that ordered the things in heaven and the things on earth, and those that pass through air, and those that live in water—or rather the things that came before these: heaven and earth, air and water? Who mixed them and who distributed them? What do they each have in common with the others, and what accounts for their mutual dependence and harmony? For I praise the man, though he was a pagan, who said: What set these in motion and drives their ceaseless and unhindered movement? Is it not the Artificer who made them, who implanted reason in them all, according to which the universe is moved and governed? Is it not He who made them and brought them into being? For we cannot attribute such power to chance. For suppose its existence is by chance—to what shall we attribute its order? And if you wish, we will grant you this: to what then shall we attribute its preservation and protection according to the conditions of its first creation? Do these belong to chance, or to something else? Surely not to chance. And what can this something else be but God? Thus reason that proceeds from God, that is implanted in all from the beginning and is the first law within us, and is bound up in all things, leads us up to God through visible things. Let us begin again and reason this out.

XVI. This was their course. But reason receiving us in our desire for God, and in our sense of the impossibility of being without a leader and guide, and then making us apply ourselves to things visible and meeting with the things which have been since the beginning, does not stay its course even here. For it was not the part of Wisdom to grant the sovereignty to things which are, as observation tells us, of equal rank. By these then it leads to that which is above these, and by which being is given to these. For what is it which ordered things in heaven and things in earth, and those which pass through air, and those which live in water; or rather the things which were before these, heaven and earth, air and water? Who mingled these, and who distributed them? What is it that each has in common with the other, and their mutual dependence and agreement? For I commend the man, though he was a heathen, who said, What gave movement to these, and drives their ceaseless and unhindered motion? Is it not the Artificer of them Who implanted reason in them all, in accordance with which the Universe is moved and controlled? Is it not He who made them and brought them into being? For we cannot attribute such a power to the Accidental. For, suppose that its existence is accidental, to what will you let us ascribe its order? And if you like we will grant you this: to what then will you ascribe its preservation and protection in accordance with the terms of its first creation. Do these belong to the Accidental, or to something else? Surely not to the Accidental. And what can this Something Else be but God? Thus reason that proceeds from God, that is implanted in all from the beginning and is the first law in us, and is bound up in all, leads us up to God through visible things. Let us begin again, and reason this out.

What God is in nature and essence, no one has ever discovered or can discover. Whether it will ever be discovered is a question that anyone who wishes may examine and decide. In my opinion, it will be discovered when that which is godlike and divine within us—I mean our mind and reason—has mingled with what is like it, and the image has ascended to the Archetype of which it now has desire. And this, I think, is the solution to that difficult problem about "we shall know even as we are known." But in our present life, all that comes to us is only a little outpouring, like a small ray from a great light. So if anyone has known God, or has received Scripture's testimony to his knowledge of God, we should understand that such a person possessed a degree of knowledge that made him appear more fully enlightened than another who did not enjoy the same degree of illumination. This relative superiority is spoken of as if it were absolute knowledge, not because it really is such, but by comparison with the lesser capacity of the other person.

XVII. What God is in nature and essence, no man ever yet has discovered or can discover. Whether it will ever be discovered is a question which he who will may examine and decide. In my opinion it will be discovered when that within us which is godlike and divine, I mean our mind and reason, shall have mingled with its Like, and the image shall have ascended to the Archetype, of which it has now the desire. And this I think is the solution of that vexed problem as to We shall know even as we are known. But in our present life all that comes to us is but a little effluence, and as it were a small effulgence from a great Light. So that if anyone has known God, or has had the testimony of Scripture to his knowledge of God, we are to understand such an one to have possessed a degree of knowledge which gave him the appearance of being more fully enlightened than another who did not enjoy the same degree of illumination; and this relative superiority is spoken of as if it were absolute knowledge, not because it is really such, but by comparison with the power of that other.

XVIII. Thus Enos hoped to call upon the Name of the Lord. Hope was what he is commended for, and not that he should know God, but that he should call upon him. And Enoch was translated, but it is not yet clear whether this was because he already comprehended the Divine Nature, or in order that he might comprehend it. And Noah's glory was that he was pleasing to God. He who was entrusted with saving the whole world from the waters, or rather the seeds of the world, escaped the Deluge in a small Ark. And Abraham, great Patriarch though he was, was justified by faith and offered a strange victim, the type of the Great Sacrifice. Yet he did not see God as God, but gave Him food as a man. He was approved because he worshipped as far as he comprehended. And Jacob dreamed of a lofty ladder and stair of Angels, and in a mystery anointed a pillar—perhaps to signify the Rock that was anointed for our sake—and gave to a place the name of The House of God in honor of Him whom he saw. And he wrestled with God in human form, whatever this wrestling of God with man may mean—possibly it refers to the comparison of man's virtue with God's. And he bore on his body the marks of the wrestling, setting forth the defeat of created nature. And as a reward for his reverence he received a change of his name, being named Israel instead of Jacob—that great and honorable name. Yet neither he nor anyone on his behalf, to this day, of all the Twelve Tribes who were his children, could boast that he comprehended the whole nature or the pure sight of God.

XVIII. Thus Enos hoped to call upon the Name of the Lord. Hope was that for which he is commended; and that, not that he should know God, but that he should call upon him. And Enoch was translated, but it is not yet clear whether it was because he already comprehended the Divine Nature, or in order that he might comprehend it. And Noah's Genesis 6:8 glory was that he was pleasing to God; he who was entrusted with the saving of the whole world from the waters, or rather of the Seeds of the world, escaped the Deluge in a small Ark. And Abraham, great Patriarch though he was, was justified by faith, and offered a strange victim, the type of the Great Sacrifice. Yet he saw not God as God, but gave Him food as a man. He was approved because he worshipped as far as he comprehended. Genesis 32:28 And Jacob dreamed of a lofty ladder and stair of Angels, and in a mystery anointed a pillar — perhaps to signify the Rock that was anointed for our sake — and gave to a place the name of The House of God in honour of Him whom he saw; and wrestled with God in human form; whatever this wrestling of God with man may mean…possibly it refers to the comparison of man's virtue with God's; and he bore on his body the marks of the wrestling, setting forth the defeat of the created nature; and for a reward of his reverence he received a change of his name; being named, instead of Jacob, Israel — that great and honourable name. Yet neither he nor any one on his behalf, unto this day, of all the Twelve Tribes who were his children, could boast that he comprehended the whole nature or the pure sight of God.

For Elijah, it was neither the strong wind, nor the fire, nor the earthquake, as you learn from the story, but a gentle breeze that hinted at the presence of God—and not even this revealed His Nature. And who was this Elijah? The man whom a fiery chariot carried up to heaven, showing the superhuman excellence of the righteous man. And are you not amazed at Manoah the judge of old, and at Peter the disciple in later times? The first could not endure even the sight of one who bore a representation of God, saying, "We are doomed, my wife, we have seen God"—speaking as though even a vision of God could not be grasped by human beings, much less the Nature of God. The second could not endure the presence of Christ in his boat and therefore asked Him to leave, even though Peter was more eager than the others for knowledge of Christ, received a blessing for this, and was entrusted with the greatest gifts. What would you say about Isaiah or Ezekiel, who witnessed very great mysteries, and the other prophets? For one of them saw the Lord of Sabaoth sitting on the throne of glory, surrounded and praised and hidden by the six-winged Seraphim, and was himself purified by the burning coal and prepared for his prophetic office. And the other describes the cherubic chariot of God, and the throne upon them, and the firmament over it, and the One who appeared in the firmament, along with voices, powers, and deeds. Whether this was an appearance by day visible only to saints, or an infallible vision of the night, or an impression on the mind engaging with the future as if it were the present, or some other ineffable form of prophecy, I cannot say. The God of the prophets knows, and those who are thus inspired know. But neither these of whom I am speaking, nor any of their companions, ever stood before the council and ousia of God, as it is written, or saw or proclaimed the physis of God.

XIX. To Elias neither the strong wind, nor the fire, nor the earthquake, as you learn from the story, but a light breeze adumbrated the Presence of God, and not even this His Nature. And who was this Elias? The man whom a chariot of fire took up to heaven, signifying the superhuman excellency of the righteous man. And are you not amazed at Manoah the Judge of yore, and at Peter the disciple in later days; the one being unable to endure the sight even of one in whom was a representation of God; and saying, We are undone, O wife, we have seen God; Judges 13:22 speaking as though even a vision of God could not be grasped by human beings, let alone the Nature of God; and the other unable to endure the Presence of Christ in his boat and therefore bidding Him depart; Luke 5:8 and this though Peter was more zealous than the others for the knowledge of Christ, and received a blessing for this, Matthew 16:16-17 and was entrusted with the greatest gifts. What would you say of Isaiah or Ezekiel, who was an eyewitness of very great mysteries, and of the other Prophets; for one of these saw the Lord of Sabaoth sitting on the Throne of glory, and encircled and praised and hidden by the sixwinged Seraphim, and was himself purged by the live coal, and equipped for his prophetic office. And the other describes the Cherubic Chariot Ezekiel 1:4-28 of God, and the Throne upon them, and the Firmament over it, and Him that showed Himself in the Firmament, and Voices, and Forces, and Deeds. And whether this was an appearance by day, only visible to Saints, or an unerring vision of the night, or an impression on the mind holding converse with the future as if it were the present; or some other ineffable form of prophecy, I cannot say; the God of the Prophets knows, and they know who are thus inspired. But neither these of whom I am speaking, nor any of their fellows ever stood before the Council and Essence of God, as it is written, or saw, or proclaimed the Nature of God.

If Paul had been allowed to speak about what the Third Heaven contained and describe his own advance, ascension, or assumption there, perhaps we would know something more about God's Nature—if this was the mystery of the rapture. But since it was ineffable, we too will honor it by silence. We will hear Paul say this much about it: that we know in part and we prophesy in part. This and similar statements are the confessions of one who is not unskilled in knowledge, who promises to give proof of Christ speaking in him, the great teacher and champion of the truth. Therefore he regards all knowledge on earth only as through a glass darkly, as resting upon small images of the truth. Now, unless I seem to anyone too meticulous and overly anxious about examining this matter, perhaps it was about this very thing and nothing else that the Word Himself hinted when He said there were things that could not be borne now, but which would be borne and clarified later, and which John the Forerunner of the Word and great Voice of the Truth declared that even the whole world could not contain.

XX. If it had been permitted to Paul to utter what the Third Heaven 2 Corinthians 12:2 contained, and his own advance, or ascension, or assumption there, perhaps we should know something more about God's Nature, if this was the mystery of the rapture. But since it was ineffable, we too will honour it by silence. Thus much we will hear Paul say about it, that we know in part and we prophesy in part. 1 Corinthians 13:9 This and the like to this are the confessions of one who is not rude in knowledge, 2 Corinthians 11:6 who threatens to give proof of Christ speaking in him, the great doctor and champion of the truth. Wherefore he estimates all knowledge on earth only as through a glass darkly, 1 Corinthians 13:12 as taking its stand upon little images of the truth. Now, unless I appear to anyone too careful, and over anxious about the examination of this matter, perhaps it was of this and nothing else that the Word Himself intimated that there were things which could not now be borne, but which should be borne and cleared up hereafter, John 16:12 and which John the Forerunner of the Word and great Voice of the Truth declared even the whole world could not contain.

The truth, then—and all of Scripture—is full of difficulty and obscurity. We are undertaking a great work with a small tool when we pursue knowledge of the Self-existent using merely human wisdom. We work alongside the senses, or at least not apart from them—though these senses carry us back and forth and lead us into error—as we search for things that can only be grasped by the mind. We are unable to bring bare intellect into contact with bare realities in order to draw somewhat closer to the truth and shape the mind through its own concepts.

XXI. The truth then, and the whole Word is full of difficulty and obscurity; and as it were with a small instrument we are undertaking a great work, when with merely human wisdom we pursue the knowledge of the Self-existent, and in company with, or not apart from, the senses, by which we are borne hither and there, and led into error, we apply ourselves to the search after things which are only to be grasped by the mind, and we are unable by meeting bare realities with bare intellect to approximate somewhat more closely to the truth, and to mould the mind by its concepts.

Now the subject of God is harder to understand in proportion to how much more perfect it is than any other subject, and it is open to more objections, and the solutions to these objections are more laborious. For every objection, however small, stops and hinders the progress of our argument and cuts off its further advance, just like when riders suddenly check with the reins horses in full gallop and turn them completely around by the unexpected shock. Thus Solomon, who was the wisest of all men, whether before him or in his own time, to whom God gave breadth of heart and a flood of contemplation more abundant than the sand—even he, the more he entered into the depth, the more dizzy he became, and declared the furthest point of wisdom to be the discovery of how very far off she was from him. Paul also tries to arrive at—I will not say the nature of God, for this he knew was utterly impossible—but only the judgments of God; and since he finds no way out and no resting place in the ascent, and moreover, since the earnest searching of his mind after knowledge does not end in any definite conclusion, because some fresh unattained point is being continually disclosed to him (what a marvel, that I have a similar experience), he closes his discourse with astonishment and calls this the riches of God and the depth, and confesses the unsearchableness of the judgments of God, in almost the very words of David, who at one time calls God's judgments the great deep whose foundations cannot be reached by measure or sense, and at another says that His knowledge of him and of his own constitution was marvelous and had attained greater strength than was in his own power or grasp.

Now the subject of God is more hard to come at, in proportion as it is more perfect than any other, and is open to more objections, and the solutions of them are more laborious. For every objection, however small, stops and hinders the course of our argument, and cuts off its further advance, just like men who suddenly check with the rein the horses in full career, and turn them right round by the unexpected shock. Thus Solomon, who was the wisest of all men, 1 Kings 3:12 whether before him or in his own time, to whom God gave breadth of heart, and a flood of contemplation, more abundant than the sand, even he, the more he entered into the depth, the more dizzy he became, and declared the furthest point of wisdom to be the discovery of how very far off she was from him. Ecclesiastes 7:23 Paul also tries to arrive at, I will not say the nature of God, for this he knew was utterly impossible, but only the judgments of God; and since he finds no way out, and no halting place in the ascent, and moreover, since the earnest searching of his mind after knowledge does not end in any definite conclusion, because some fresh unattained point is being continually disclosed to him (O marvel, that I have a like experience), he closes his discourse with astonishment, and calls this the riches of God, Romans 11:23 and the depth, and confesses the unsearchableness of the judgments of God, in almost the very words of David, who at one time calls God's judgments the great deep whose foundations cannot be reached by measure or sense; and at another says that His knowledge of him and of his own constitution was marvellous, and had attained greater strength than was in his own power or grasp.

If, he says, I set everything else aside and simply examine myself—the whole nature and makeup of humanity, how we are put together, how we move, how the mortal was joined with the immortal—I find these questions: How is it that I flow downward yet am carried upward? How is the soul limited, yet how does it give life and participate in feelings? How is the mind both confined and unlimited, remaining in us yet traveling swiftly through the universe in motion and flow? How is it both received and communicated through speech, passing through air and entering into all things? How does it share in sense perception yet also withdraw from sense perception? And even before these questions—what was our first shaping and assembly in nature's workshop, and what is our final formation and completion? What is the desire for food and the receiving of nourishment, and what brought us instinctively to those first springs and sources of life? How is the body nourished by food and the soul by reason? What is nature's pull, and what is the mutual bond between parents and children that holds them together by a spell of love? How do species remain constant and differ in their features, even though there are so many that their individual characteristics cannot be fully described? How is the same living being both mortal and immortal—mortal by death, immortal by generation? For one passes away and another takes its place, just like the flow of a river that is never still yet always constant. And one could discuss many more points about human limbs and parts and their fitting together both for function and beauty, how some are joined and others separate, some more excellent and others less dignified, some unified and others divided, some containing and others contained, according to nature's law and principle. Much could also be said about voices and ears. How is the voice carried by the vocal organs and received by the ears, and how are both joined by the striking and echoing of the air between them? Much too about the eyes, which have an indescribable connection with visible objects and are moved by will alone, moving together and affected exactly as the mind is affected. For with equal speed the mind is joined to objects of thought, the eye to objects of sight. Much too about the other senses, which are not objects of rational investigation. And much about our rest in sleep and the images of dreams, and about memory and recollection, calculation and anger and desire—and in short, all the things by which this little world called man is governed.

XXII. For if, he says, I leave everything else alone, and consider myself and the whole nature and constitution of man, and how we are mingled, and what is our movement, and how the mortal was compounded with the immortal, and how it is that I flow downwards, and yet am borne upwards, and how the soul is circumscribed; and how it gives life and shares in feelings; and how the mind is at once circumscribed and unlimited, abiding in us and yet travelling over the Universe in swift motion and flow; how it is both received and imparted by word, and passes through air, and enters with all things; how it shares in sense, and enshrouds itself away from sense. And even before these questions — what was our first moulding and composition in the workshop of nature, and what is our last formation and completion? What is the desire for and imparting of nourishment, and who brought us spontaneously to those first springs and sources of life? How is the body nourished by food, and the soul by reason? What is the drawing of nature, and the mutual relation between parents and children, that it should be held together by a spell of love? How is it that species are permanent, and are different in their characteristics, although there are so many that their individual marks cannot be described? How is it that the same animal is both mortal and immortal, the one by decease, the other by coming into being? For one departs, and another takes its place, just like the flow of a river, which is never still, yet ever constant. And you might discuss many more points concerning men's members and parts, and their mutual adaptation both for use and beauty, and how some are connected and others disjoined, some are more excellent and others less comely, some are united and others divided, some contain and others are contained, according to the law and reason of Nature. Much too might be said about voices and ears. How is it that the voice is carried by the vocal organs, and received by the ears, and both are joined by the smiting and resounding of the medium of the air? Much too of the eyes, which have an indescribable communion with visible objects, and which are moved by the will alone, and that together, and are affected exactly as is the mind. For with equal speed the mind is joined to the objects of thought, the eye to those of sight. Much too concerning the other senses, not objects of the research of reason. And much concerning our rest in sleep, and the figments of dreams, and of memory and remembrance; of calculation, and anger, and desire; and in a word, all by which this little world called Man is swayed.

Should I list for you the differences among other animals, both from us and from each other—differences in nature, reproduction, nourishment, habitat, temperament, and what we might call social behavior? Why is it that some are herd animals while others are solitary, some eat plants while others eat meat, some are fierce while others are gentle, some are fond of humans and domesticated while others cannot be tamed and remain wild? And we might say that some are close to having reason and the ability to learn, while others are completely without reason and cannot be taught. Some have more developed senses, others less. Some cannot move, while some can walk, and some are very fast while others are very slow. Some excel in size or beauty, or in one or the other of these qualities, while others are very small or very ugly, or both. Some are strong, others weak. Some are good at defending themselves, while others are fearful and cunning, and still others are defenseless. Some are hardworking and industrious, while others are completely idle and wasteful. And before we even get to such matters as these, why is it that some are crawling creatures while others stand upright, some are fixed to one place while others live both on land and in water, some take pleasure in beauty while others have no adornment, some mate while others do not, some are self-controlled while others are excessive, some produce many offspring while others do not, some live long lives while others have only short ones? It would be a tiresome speech to go through all the details.

XXIII. Shall I reckon up for you the differences of the other animals, both from us and from each other — differences of nature, and of production, and of nourishment, and of region, and of temper, and as it were of social life? How is it that some are gregarious and others solitary, some herbivorous and others carnivorous, some fierce and others tame, some fond of man and domesticated, others untamable and free? And some we might call bordering on reason and power of learning, while others are altogether destitute of reason, and incapable of being taught. Some with fuller senses, others with less; some immovable, and some with the power of walking, and some very swift, and some very slow; some surpassing in size or beauty, or in one or other of these respects; others very small or very ugly, or both; some strong, others weak, some apt at self-defense, others timid and crafty and others again are unguarded. Some are laborious and thrifty, others altogether idle and improvident. And before we come to such points as these, how is it that some are crawling things, and others upright; some attached to one spot, some amphibious; some delight in beauty and others are unadorned; some are married and some single; some temperate and others intemperate; some have numerous offspring and others not; some are long-lived and others have but short lives? It would be a weary discourse to go through all the details.

Look also at the fishy tribe gliding through the waters, and as it were flying through the liquid element, and breathing its own air, but in danger when in contact with ours, as we are in the waters. Mark their habits and dispositions, their intercourse and their births, their size and their beauty, and their affection for places, and their wanderings, and their assemblings and departings, and their properties which so nearly resemble those of the animals that dwell on land—in some cases community, in others contrast of properties, both in name and shape. And consider the tribes of birds, and their varieties of form and color, both of those which are voiceless and of songbirds. What is the reason of their melody, and from whom came it? Who gave to the grasshopper the lute in his breast, and the songs and chirping on the branches, when they are moved by the sun to make their midday music, and sing among the groves, and escort the wayfarer with their voices? Who wove the song for the swan when he spreads his wings to the breezes, and makes melody of their rustling? For I will not speak of the forced voices, and all the rest that art contrives against the truth. Where does the peacock, that boastful bird of Media, get his love of beauty and of praise—for he is fully conscious of his own beauty—so that when he sees anyone approaching, or when, as they say, he would make a show before his hens, raising his neck and spreading his tail in a circle around him, glittering like gold and studded with stars, he makes a spectacle of his beauty to his lovers with pompous strides? Now Holy Scripture admires the cleverness in weaving even of women, saying, Who gave to woman skill in weaving and cleverness in the art of embroidery? This belongs to a living creature that has reason, and exceeds in wisdom and makes way even as far as the things of heaven.

XXIV. Look also at the fishy tribe gliding through the waters, and as it were flying through the liquid element, and breathing its own air, but in danger when in contact with ours, as we are in the waters; and mark their habits and dispositions, their intercourse and their births, their size and their beauty, and their affection for places, and their wanderings, and their assemblings and departings, and their properties which so nearly resemble those of the animals that dwell on land; in some cases community, in others contrast of properties, both in name and shape. And consider the tribes of birds, and their varieties of form and color, both of those which are voiceless and of songbirds. What is the reason of their melody, and from whom came it? Who gave to the grasshopper the lute in his breast, and the songs and chirruping on the branches, when they are moved by the sun to make their midday music, and sing among the groves, and escort the wayfarer with their voices? Who wove the song for the swan when he spreads his wings to the breezes, and makes melody of their rustling? For I will not speak of the forced voices, and all the rest that art contrives against the truth. Whence does the peacock, that boastful bird of Media, get his love of beauty and of praise (for he is fully conscious of his own beauty), so that when he sees any one approaching, or when, as they say, he would make a show before his hens, raising his neck and spreading his tail in circle around him, glittering like gold and studded with stars, he makes a spectacle of his beauty to his lovers with pompous strides? Now Holy Scripture admires the cleverness in weaving even of women, saying, Who gave to woman skill in weaving and cleverness in the art of embroidery? This belongs to a living creature that has reason, and exceeds in wisdom and makes way even as far as the things of heaven.

Look also at the natural knowledge of even irrational creatures, and if you can, explain what causes it. How is it that birds build their nests on rocks, trees, and roofs, arranging them both for safety and beauty and for the comfort of their young? Where do bees and spiders get their love of work and skill? Bees design their honeycombs and join them together with hexagonal, coordinated cells, and build the foundation through partitions and alternating angles with straight lines—and all this in such dim hives and dark combs. Spiders weave their intricate webs with delicate, almost weightless threads stretched in various directions, starting from nearly invisible points, creating both a fine dwelling and a trap for weaker creatures to provide themselves with food. What Euclid ever imitated these while pursuing philosophical investigations with lines that have no real existence, wearing himself out with proofs? From what Palamedes did cranes learn their military formations and, as people say, their movements and patterns, their organized flight in ranks and complicated aerial maneuvers? Who were their Phidiases and Zeuxises, their Parrhasiuses and Aglaophons, who knew how to draw and shape things of surpassing beauty? What harmonious Cretan chorus designed by Daedalus was crafted for a girl to the highest degree of beauty? What Cretan Labyrinth, difficult to navigate and difficult to escape, as the poets say, constantly doubling back on itself through the tricks of its design? I will not even mention the ants' storerooms and storekeepers, their gathering of provisions in amounts matching the time they will be needed, and all the other details we know are told about their processions, their leaders, and their orderly work.

XXV. But I would have you marvel at the natural knowledge even of irrational creatures, and if you can, explain its cause. How is it that birds have for nests rocks and trees and roofs, and adapt them both for safety and beauty, and suitably for the comfort of their nurslings? Whence do bees and spiders get their love of work and art, by which the former plan their honeycombs, and join them together by hexagonal and co-ordinate tubes, and construct the foundation by means of a partition and an alternation of the angles with straight lines; and this, as is the case, in such dusky hives and dark combs; and the latter weave their intricate webs by such light and almost airy threads stretched in various ways, and this from almost invisible beginnings, to be at once a precious dwelling, and a trap for weaker creatures with a view to enjoyment of food? What Euclid ever imitated these, while pursuing philosophical enquiries with lines that have no real existence, and wearying himself with demonstrations? From what Palamedes came the tactics, and, as the saying is, the movements and configurations of cranes, and the systems of their movement in ranks and their complicated flight? Who were their Phidiæ and Zeuxides, and who were the Parrhasii and Aglaophons who knew how to draw and mould excessively beautiful things? What harmonious Gnossian chorus of Dædalus, wrought for a girl to the highest pitch of beauty? What Cretan Labyrinth, hard to get through, hard to unravel, as the poets say, and continually crossing itself through the tricks of its construction? I will not speak of the ants' storehouses and storekeepers, and of their treasurings of wood in quantities corresponding to the time for which it is wanted, and all the other details which we know are told of their marches and leaders and their good order in their works.

If you have learned about these things and are familiar with these sciences, look also at the varieties of plants, including the artistic design of their leaves, which is suited both to give the greatest pleasure to the eye and to provide the greatest benefit to the fruit. Look too at the variety and abundant supply of fruits, and most of all at the remarkable beauty of those that are most necessary. And consider the power of roots, saps, flowers, and scents, not only so very sweet but also useful as medicines; and the attractiveness and qualities of colors; and again the precious value and brilliant clarity of gemstones. Since nature has placed before you all things as at an abundant banquet open to everyone, both the necessities and the luxuries of life, so that, if nothing else, you may at least know God through His gifts, and through your own sense of need become wiser than you were. Next, I ask you, explore the length and breadth of the earth, the common mother of all, and the seas connected with one another and with the land, and the beautiful forests, and the rivers and springs abundant and everlasting, not only of waters cold and suitable for drinking and on the surface of the earth, but also those that run beneath the earth and flow under caverns, which are then forced out by a violent blast and pushed back, and then heated by this violence of conflict and resistance, burst out little by little wherever they find an opening, and from this supply our need of hot baths in many parts of the earth, and together with the cold give us a healing that is without cost and natural. Tell me how and from where do these things come? What is this great fabric not made by human skill? These things are no less worthy of wonder in their relationships to one another than when looked at individually.

XXVI. If this knowledge has come within your reach and you are familiar with these branches of science, look at the differences of plants also, up to the artistic fashion of the leaves, which is adapted both to give the utmost pleasure to the eye, and to be of the greatest advantage to the fruit. Look too at the variety and lavish abundance of fruits, and most of all at the wondrous beauty of such as are most necessary. And consider the power of roots, and juices, and flowers, and odours, not only so very sweet, but also serviceable as medicines; and the graces and qualities of colors; and again the costly value, and the brilliant transparency of precious stones. Since nature has set before you all things as in an abundant banquet free to all, both the necessaries and the luxuries of life, in order that, if nothing else, you may at any rate know God by His benefits, and by your own sense of want be made wiser than you were. Next, I pray you, traverse the length and breadth of earth, the common mother of all, and the gulfs of the sea bound together with one another and with the land, and the beautiful forests, and the rivers and springs abundant and perennial, not only of waters cold and fit for drinking, and on the surface of the earth; but also such as running beneath the earth, and flowing under caverns, are then forced out by a violent blast, and repelled, and then filled with heat by this violence of strife and repulsion, burst out little by little wherever they get a chance, and hence supply our need of hot baths in many parts of the earth, and in conjunction with the cold give us a healing which is without cost and spontaneous. Tell me how and whence are these things? What is this great web unwrought by art? These things are no less worthy of admiration, in respect of their mutual relations than when considered separately.

How does the earth stand firm and unmoving? What supports it? What holds it up, and what does that rest on? For reason itself has nothing to lean on except the Will of God. And how is it that part of the earth is raised into mountain peaks while part is spread out in plains, and this in various different ways? And because these variations are each individually small, the earth both supplies our needs more generously and is more beautiful through its variety—part being divided into inhabited areas and part left uninhabited, namely all the great heights of mountains and the various inlets of its coastline cut into it. Is this not the clearest proof of the majestic working of God?

How is it that the earth stands solid and unswerving? On what is it supported? What is it that props it up, and on what does that rest? For indeed even reason has nothing to lean upon, but only the Will of God. And how is it that part of it is drawn up into mountain summits, and part laid down in plains, and this in various and differing ways? And because the variations are individually small, it both supplies our needs more liberally, and is more beautiful by its variety; part being distributed into habitations, and part left uninhabited, namely all the great height of Mountains, and the various clefts of its coast line cut off from it. Is not this the clearest proof of the majestic working of God?

Even if I didn't marvel at the Sea's greatness, I would still marvel at its gentleness—how it remains within its boundaries despite being loose. And if not at its gentleness, then surely at its greatness. But since I marvel at both, I will praise the Power that works in both. What gathered it together? What set its limits? How does it rise and fall as though respecting its neighbor, the earth? Moreover, how does it receive all the rivers yet remain the same, through the sheer immensity of its vastness, if that term is permissible? How is it that the boundary of this enormous element is only sand? Do your natural philosophers with their knowledge of useless details have anything to tell us—those men who are really trying to measure the sea with a wineglass and such mighty works by their own conceptions? Or shall I give the truly scientific explanation from Scripture concisely, yet more satisfactorily and truly than the longest arguments? He has fenced the face of the water with His command. This is the chain of fluid nature. And how does He bring upon it the sailor who inhabits the dry land—that is, man—in a little vessel and with a little breeze? Do you not marvel at this sight? Is your mind not astonished? All this so that earth and sea may be bound together by needs and commerce, and things so widely separated by nature may thus be brought together into one for man. What are the first sources of springs? Search, O man, if you can trace out or find any of these things. And who was it who split the plains and mountains for the rivers and gave them an unhindered course? And how does the marvel work on the other side—that the Sea never overflows, nor the rivers cease to flow? And what is the nourishing power of water, and what is the difference in it? For some things are watered from above, and others drink from their roots, if I may luxuriate a little in my language when speaking of the luxuriant gifts of God.

XXVII. And with respect to the Sea even if I did not marvel at its greatness, yet I should have marvelled at its gentleness, in that although loose it stands within its boundaries; and if not at its gentleness, yet surely at its greatness; but since I marvel at both, I will praise the Power that is in both. What collected it? What bounded it? How is it raised and lulled to rest, as though respecting its neighbour earth? How, moreover, does it receive all the rivers, and yet remain the same, through the very superabundance of its immensity, if that term be permissible? How is the boundary of it, though it be an element of such magnitude, only sand? Have your natural philosophers with their knowledge of useless details anything to tell us, those men I mean who are really endeavouring to measure the sea with a wineglass, and such mighty works by their own conceptions? Or shall I give the really scientific explanation of it from Scripture concisely, and yet more satisfactorily and truly than by the longest arguments? He has fenced the face of the water with His command. This is the chain of fluid nature. And how does He bring upon it the Nautilus that inhabits the dry land (i.e., man) in a little vessel, and with a little breeze (do you not marvel at the sight of this — is not your mind astonished?), that earth and sea may be bound together by needs and commerce, and that things so widely separated by nature should be thus brought together into one for man? What are the first fountains of springs? Seek, O man, if you can trace out or find any of these things. And who was it who cleft the plains and the mountains for the rivers, and gave them an unhindered course? And how comes the marvel on the other side, that the Sea never overflows, nor the Rivers cease to flow? And what is the nourishing power of water, and what the difference therein; for some things are irrigated from above, and others drink from their roots, if I may luxuriate a little in my language when speaking of the luxuriant gifts of God.

XXVIII. And now, leaving the earth and earthly things, soar into the air on the wings of thought, so that our argument may advance along its proper path. From there I will take you up to heavenly things, to heaven itself, and to things above heaven. My discourse hesitates to climb beyond that point, but still it shall ascend as far as possible. Who poured out the air, that great and abundant wealth, not measured out to people according to their rank or fortunes, not restrained by boundaries, not divided according to people's ages, but like the distribution of the manna, received in sufficiency and valued for its equal distribution? It is the chariot of winged creatures, the seat of the winds, the regulator of the seasons, the quickener of living things—or rather the preserver of natural life in the body. In it bodies exist, and by it we speak. In it is the light and all that it shines upon, and the sight that flows through it. And notice, if you will, what follows. I cannot give to the air the entire domain of all that is thought to belong to it. What are the storehouses of the winds? What are the treasuries of the snow? Who, as Scripture has said, has begotten the drops of dew? Out of whose womb came the ice? And who binds the waters in the clouds, and, fixing part in the clouds—O marvel!—held by His Word though its nature is to flow, pours out the rest upon the face of the whole earth, and scatters it abroad in due season and in proper proportions? He neither allows the whole substance of moisture to go out freely and uncontrolled (for the cleansing in the days of Noah was sufficient, and He who cannot lie does not forget His own covenant), nor does He restrain it entirely so that we should need another Elijah to bring the drought to an end. If He shall shut up heaven, it says, who shall open it? If He opens the floodgates, who shall shut them up? Who can bring excess rain or withhold sufficient rain, unless he governs the universe by his own measures and balances? What scientific laws, I ask, can you establish concerning thunder and lightning, O you who thunder from the earth and cannot shine with even small sparks of truth? To what vapors from earth will you attribute the creation of clouds, or is it due to some thickening of the air, or pressure or crash of clouds of excessive rarity, so as to make you think the pressure causes the lightning and the crash causes the thunder? Or what compression of wind having no outlet will explain to you the lightning by its compression and the thunder by its bursting out?

XXVIII. And now, leaving the earth and the things of earth, soar into the air on the wings of thought, that our argument may advance in due path; and thence I will take you up to heavenly things, and to heaven itself, and things which are above heaven; for to that which is beyond my discourse hesitates to ascend, but still it shall ascend as far as may be. Who poured forth the air, that great and abundant wealth, not measured to men by their rank or fortunes; not restrained by boundaries; not divided out according to people's ages; but like the distribution of the Manna, Exodus 16:18 received in sufficiency, and valued for its equality of distribution; the chariot of the winged creation; the seat of the winds; the moderator of the seasons; the quickener of living things, or rather the preserver of natural life in the body; in which bodies have their being, and by which we speak; in which is the light and all that it shines upon, and the sight which flows through it? And mark, if you please, what follows. I cannot give to the air the whole empire of all that is thought to belong to the air. What are the storehouses of the winds? Job 37:9-10 What are the treasuries of the snow? Who, as Scripture has said, has begotten the drops of dew? Out of Whose womb came the ice? And Who binds the waters in the clouds, and, fixing part in the clouds (O marvel!) held by His Word though its nature is to flow, pours out the rest upon the face of the whole earth, and scatters it abroad in due season, and in just proportions, and neither suffers the whole substance of moisture to go out free and uncontrolled (for sufficient was the cleansing in the days of Noah; and He who cannot lie is not forgetful of His own covenant);…nor yet restrains it entirely that we should not again stand in need of an Elias 1 Kings 18:44 to bring the drought to an end. If He shall shut up heaven, it says, who shall open it? If He open the floodgates, who shall shut them up? Job 12:14 Who can bring an excess or withhold a sufficiency of rain, unless he govern the Universe by his own measures and balances? What scientific laws, pray, can you lay down concerning thunder and lightning, O you who thunder from the earth, and cannot shine with even little sparks of truth? To what vapours from earth will you attribute the creation of cloud, or is it due to some thickening of the air, or pressure or crash of clouds of excessive rarity, so as to make you think the pressure the cause of the lightning, and the crash that which makes the thunder? Or what compression of wind having no outlet will account to you for the lightning by its compression, and for the thunder by its bursting out?

Now if you have passed through the air and all the things of air in your thought, reach with me to heaven and the things of heaven. And let faith lead us rather than reason, if at least you have learned the weakness of the latter in matters closer to you, and have come to know reason by knowing the things that are beyond reason, so as not to be altogether on the earth or of the earth, because you are ignorant even of your ignorance.

Now if you have in your thought passed through the air and all the things of air, reach with me to heaven and the things of heaven. And let faith lead us rather than reason, if at least you have learned the feebleness of the latter in matters nearer to you, and have known reason by knowing the things that are beyond reason, so as not to be altogether on the earth or of the earth, because you are ignorant even of your ignorance.

Who spread the sky around us and set the stars in order? Or rather, first, can you tell me from your own knowledge of the things in heaven what the sky and the stars actually are? You don't even know what lies at your very feet, and you can't even take the measure of yourself, yet you busy yourself with what is above your nature and gape at the limitless. You may understand orbits and periods, waxings and wanings, settings and risings, and various degrees and minutes, and all the other things that make you so proud of your wonderful knowledge. But you haven't arrived at understanding the realities themselves—only at observing certain movements. When these observations are confirmed by longer practice, and when the observations of many individuals are drawn together into one generalization from which a law is deduced, this acquires the name of science, just as the lunar phenomena have become generally known to our sight, forming the basis of this knowledge. But if you are very scientific on this subject and have a just claim to admiration, tell me what is the cause of this order and this movement. How did the sun become a beacon-fire to the whole world and to all eyes like the leader of some chorus, concealing all the rest of the stars by his brightness more completely than some of them conceal others? The proof of this is that they shine against him, but he outshines them and doesn't even allow it to be noticed that they rose at the same time as him—fair as a bridegroom, swift and great as a giant, for I will not let his praises be sung from any source other than my own Scriptures. He is so mighty in strength that from one end of the world to the other he embraces all things in his heat, and there is nothing hidden from the feeling of it. He fills every eye with light and every bodily creature with heat, warming yet not burning by the gentleness of his temperament and the order of his movement, present to all and equally embracing all.

XXIX. Who spread the sky around us, and set the stars in order? Or rather, first, can you tell me, of your own knowledge of the things in heaven, what are the sky and the stars; you who know not what lies at your very feet, and cannot even take the measure of yourself, and yet must busy yourself about what is above your nature, and gape at the illimitable? For, granted that you understand orbits and periods, and waxings and wanings, and settings and risings, and some degrees and minutes, and all the other things which make you so proud of your wonderful knowledge; you have not arrived at comprehension of the realities themselves, but only at an observation of some movement, which, when confirmed by longer practice, and drawing the observations of many individuals into one generalization, and thence deducing a law, has acquired the name of Science (just as the lunar phenomena have become generally known to our sight), being the basis of this knowledge. But if you are very scientific on this subject, and have a just claim to admiration, tell me what is the cause of this order and this movement. How came the sun to be a beacon-fire to the whole world, and to all eyes like the leader of some chorus, concealing all the rest of the stars by his brightness, more completely than some of them conceal others. The proof of this is that they shine against him, but he outshines them and does not even allow it to be perceived that they rose simultaneously with him, fair as a bridegroom, swift and great as a giant for I will not let his praises be sung from any other source than my own Scriptures — so mighty in strength that from one end to the other of the world he embraces all things in his heat, and there is nothing hid from the feeling thereof, but it fills both every eye with light, and every embodied creature with heat; warming, yet not burning, by the gentleness of its temper, and the order of its movement, present to all, and equally embracing all.

Have you considered the significance of the fact that a pagan writer says the sun holds the same position among material things as God does among objects of thought? For the sun gives light to our eyes, just as God gives light to the mind. The sun is the most beautiful thing we can see, just as God is the most beautiful thing we can think about. But who first set the sun in motion? And what keeps moving it in its orbit, even though by nature it is stable and immovable—truly tireless, giving and sustaining life, and deserving all the other titles poets rightly give it—never stopping in its course or in the benefits it provides? How does it create day when it's above the earth and night when it's below? Or whatever the right way is to describe this when we think about the sun? What explains the way day and night push against each other and yield to each other, and their orderly disorder—to use a somewhat strange phrase? How does the sun create and divide the seasons, which come and go in regular order, weaving together like a dance or standing apart through a law of both love and order, gradually mixing and encroaching on their neighbor, just as nights and days do, so they don't cause us pain by changing too suddenly? That's enough about the sun.

XXX. Have you considered the importance of the fact that a heathen writer speaks of the sun as holding the same position among material objects as God does among objects of thought? For the one gives light to the eyes, as the Other does to the mind; and is the most beautiful of the objects of sight, as God is of those of thought. But who gave him motion at first? And what is it which ever moves him in his circuit, though in his nature stable and immovable, truly unwearied, and the giver and sustainer of life, and all the rest of the titles which the poets justly sing of him, and never resting in his course or his benefits? How comes he to be the creator of day when above the earth, and of night when below it? Or whatever may be the right expression when one contemplates the sun? What are the mutual aggressions and concessions of day and night, and their regular irregularities — to use a somewhat strange expression? How comes he to be the maker and divider of the seasons, that come and depart in regular order, and as in a dance interweave with each other, or stand apart by a law of love on the one hand, and of order on the other, and mingle little by little, and steal on their neighbour, just as nights and days do, so as not to give us pain by their suddenness. This will be enough about the sun.

Do you know the nature and behavior of the moon, and the measurements and paths of light, and how the sun rules over the day while the moon presides over the night? And while she gives confidence to wild beasts, he stirs man up to work, raising or lowering himself as may be most helpful. Do you know the binding of the Pleiades or the barrier of Orion, as He does who counts the number of the stars and calls them all by their names? Do you know the differences in the glory of each star and the order of their movements, so that I should trust you when you use them to weave together the web of human affairs and turn the creature against the Creator?

Do you know the nature and phenomena of the Moon, and the measures and courses of light, and how it is that the sun bears rule over the day, and the moon presides over the night; and while She gives confidence to wild beasts, He stirs Man up to work, raising or lowering himself as may be most serviceable? Know you the bond of Pleiades, or the fence of Orion Job 38:31 as He who counts the number of the stars and calls them all by their names? Know you the differences of the glory 1 Corinthians 15:41 of each, and the order of their movement, that I should trust you, when by them you weave the web of human concerns, and arm the creature against the Creator?

What do you say? Shall we stop here, having discussed nothing more than matter and visible things? Or, since Scripture knows the Tabernacle of Moses to be a figure of the whole creation—I mean the entire system of visible and invisible things—shall we pass through the first veil and step beyond the realm of the senses? Shall we look into the Holy Place, the intellectual and heavenly creation? But we cannot see even this in a non-bodily way, though it is incorporeal, since it is called—or is—Fire and Spirit. For He is said to make His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire, though perhaps this "making" means preserving them by the same Word through which they came into existence. The angel, then, is called spirit and fire: Spirit, as being a creature of the intellectual realm; Fire, as having a purifying nature. I know that these same names belong to the First Nature as well. But in relation to us, at least, we must consider the angelic nature incorporeal, or at any rate as nearly so as possible. Do you see how we become dizzy over this subject and cannot advance to any clear point, except perhaps this far: that we know there are Angels and Archangels, Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, Powers, Glories, Ascents, Intelligent Powers or Intelligences—pure natures and unmixed, immovable toward evil or scarcely movable; ever circling in worship around the First Cause (or how else should we praise them?), illuminated from that source with the purest Illumination, some in one degree and some in another, according to their nature and rank, so conformed to beauty and shaped that they become secondary lights and can enlighten others through the overflow and generosity of the First Light? They are servants of God's will, strong with both innate and given strength, traveling through all space, readily present to all in any place through their zeal for service and the swiftness of their nature. Different ones among them embrace different parts of the world or are assigned to different regions of the universe, as He knows who ordered and distributed it all. They unite all things together solely with a view to the approval of the Creator of all things. They are singers of the majesty of the Godhead, eternally contemplating the eternal glory—not so that God may gain an increase of glory, for nothing can be added to what is already full, to Him who supplies goodness to all things outside Himself—but so that these first natures after God may never cease receiving blessings. If we have told these things as they deserve, it is by the grace of the Trinity and of the one Godhead in Three Persons. But if less perfectly than we desired, even so our discussion has achieved its purpose. For this is what we were working to show: that even the secondary natures exceed the power of our intellect; how much more, then, does the First Nature and (for I hesitate to say merely "That which is above all") the only Nature.

XXXI. What say you? Shall we pause here, after discussing nothing further than matter and visible things, or, since the Word knows the Tabernacle of Moses to be a figure of the whole creation — I mean the entire system of things visible and invisible — shall we pass the first veil, and stepping beyond the realm of sense, shall we look into the Holy Place, the Intellectual and Celestial creation? But not even this can we see in an incorporeal way, though it is incorporeal, since it is called — or is — Fire and Spirit. For He is said to make His Angels spirits, and His Ministers a flame of fire…though perhaps this making means preserving by that Word by which they came into existence. The Angel then is called spirit and fire; Spirit, as being a creature of the intellectual sphere; Fire, as being of a purifying nature; for I know that the same names belong to the First Nature. But, relatively to us at least, we must reckon the Angelic Nature incorporeal, or at any rate as nearly so as possible. Do you see how we get dizzy over this subject, and cannot advance to any point, unless it be as far as this, that we know there are Angels and Archangels, Thrones, Dominions, Princedoms, Powers, Splendours, Ascents, Intelligent Powers or Intelligencies, pure natures and unalloyed, immovable to evil, or scarcely movable; ever circling in chorus round the First Cause (or how should we sing their praises?) illuminated thence with the purest Illumination, or one in one degree and one in another, proportionally to their nature and rank…so conformed to beauty and moulded that they become secondary Lights, and can enlighten others by the overflowings and largesses of the First Light? Ministrants of God's Will, strong with both inborn and imparted strength, traversing all space, readily present to all at any place through their zeal for ministry and the agility of their nature…different individuals of them embracing different parts of the world, or appointed over different districts of the Universe, as He knows who ordered and distributed it all. Combining all things in one, solely with a view to the consent of the Creator of all things; Hymners of the Majesty of the Godhead, eternally contemplating the Eternal Glory, not that God may thereby gain an increase of glory, for nothing can be added to that which is full — to Him, who supplies good to all outside Himself but that there may never be a cessation of blessings to these first natures after God. If we have told these things as they deserve, it is by the grace of the Trinity, and of the one Godhead in Three Persons; but if less perfectly than we have desired, yet even so our discourse has gained its purpose. For this is what we were labouring to show, that even the secondary natures surpass the power of our intellect; much more then the First and (for I fear to say merely That which is above all), the only Nature.

Post Views: 0