What We are to Understand of God’s Resting on the Seventh Day, After the Six Days’ Work.

Chapter 8.—What We are to Understand of God’s Resting on the Seventh Day, After the Six Days’ Work.

Caput VIII. Quae qualisque intellegenda sit Dei requies, qua post opera sex dierum requieuit in septimo.

When it is said that God rested on the seventh day from all His works, and hallowed it, we are not to conceive of this in a childish fashion, as if work were a toil to God, who “spake and it was done,”—spake by the spiritual and eternal, not audible and transitory word. But God’s rest signifies the rest of those who rest in God, as the joy of a house means the joy of those in the house who rejoice, though not the house, but something else, causes the joy. How much more intelligible is such phraseology, then, if the house itself, by its own beauty, makes the inhabitants joyful! For in this case we not only call it joyful by that figure of speech in which the thing containing is used for the thing contained (as when we say, “The theatres applaud,” “The meadows low,” meaning that the men in the one applaud, and the oxen in the other low), but also by that figure in which the cause is spoken of as if it were the effect, as when a letter is said to be joyful, because it makes its readers so. Most appropriately, therefore, the sacred narrative states that God rested, meaning thereby that those rest who are in Him, and whom He makes to rest. And this the prophetic narrative promises also to the men to whom it speaks, and for whom it was written, that they themselves, after those good works which God does in and by them, if they have managed by faith to get near to God in this life, shall enjoy in Him eternal rest. This was pre-figured to the ancient people of God by the rest enjoined in their sabbath law, of which, in its own place, I shall speak more at large.

Cum uero in die septimo requiescit Deus ab omnibus operibus suis et sanctificat eum, nequaquam est accipiendum pueriliter, tamquam Deus laborauerit operando, qui dixit et facta sunt uerbo intellegibili et sempiterno, non sonabili et temporali. Sed requies Dei requiem significat eorum qui requiescunt in Deo, sicut laetitia domus laetitiam significat eorum, qui laetantur in domo, etiamsi non eos domus ipsa, sed alia res aliqua laetos facit. Quanto magis, si eadem domus pulchritudine sua faciat laetos habitatores, ut non solum eo loquendi modo laeta dicatur, quo significamus per id quod continet id quod continetur (sicut theatra plaudunt, prata mugiunt, cum in illis homines plaudunt, in his boues mugiunt); sed etiam illo, quo significatur per efficientem id quod efficitur; sicut laeta epistula dicitur, significans eorum laetitiam, quos legentes efficit laetos. Conuenientissime itaque, cum Deum requieuisse prophetica narrat auctoritas, significatur requies eorum, qui in illo requiescunt et quos facit ipse requiescere; hoc etiam hominibus, quibus loquitur et propter quos utique conscripta est, promittente prophetia, quod etiam ipsi post bona opera, quae in eis et per eos operatur Deus, si ad illum prius in ista uita per fidem quodam modo accesserint, in illo habebunt requiem sempiternam. Hoc enim et sabbati uacatione ex praecepto legis in uetere Dei populo figuratum est, unde suo loco diligentius arbitror disserendum.

Chapter 9.—What the Scriptures Teach Us to Believe Concerning the Creation of the Angels.

Caput IX. De angelorum conditione quid secundum diuina testimonia sentiendum sit.

At present, since I have undertaken to treat of the origin of the holy city, and first of the holy angels, who constitute a large part of this city, and indeed the more blessed part, since they have never been expatriated, I will give myself to the task of explaining, by God’s help, and as far as seems suitable, the Scriptures which relate to this point. Where Scripture speaks of the world’s creation, it is not plainly said whether or when the angels were created; but if mention of them is made, it is implicitly under the name of “heaven,” when it is said, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” or perhaps rather under the name of “light,” of which presently. But that they were wholly omitted, I am unable to believe, because it is written that God on the seventh day rested from all His works which He made; and this very book itself begins, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” so that before heaven and earth God seems to have made nothing. Since, therefore, He began with the heavens and the earth,—and the earth itself, as Scripture adds, was at first invisible and formless, light not being as yet made, and darkness covering the face of the deep (that is to say, covering an undefined chaos of earth and sea, for where light is not, darkness must needs be),—and then when all things, which are recorded to have been completed in six days, were created and arranged, how should the angels be omitted, as if they were not among the works of God, from which on the seventh day He rested? Yet, though the fact that the angels are the work of God is not omitted here, it is indeed not explicitly mentioned; but elsewhere Holy Scripture asserts it in the clearest manner. For in the Hymn of the Three Children in the Furnace it was said, “O all ye works of the Lord bless ye the Lord;” and among these works mentioned afterwards in detail, the angels are named. And in the psalm it is said, “Praise ye the Lord from the heavens, praise Him in the heights. Praise ye Him, all His angels; praise ye Him, all His hosts. Praise ye Him, sun and moon; praise him, all ye stars of light. Praise Him, ye heaven of heavens; and ye waters that be above the heavens. Let them praise the name of the Lord; for He commanded, and they were created.” Here the angels are most expressly and by divine authority said to have been made by God, for of them among the other heavenly things it is said, “He commanded, and they were created.” Who, then, will be bold enough to suggest that the angels were made after the six days’ creation? If any one is so foolish, his folly is disposed of by a scripture of like authority, where God says, “When the stars were made, the angels praised me with a loud voice.” The angels therefore existed before the stars; and the stars were made the fourth day. Shall we then say that they were made the third day? Far from it; for we know what was made that day. The earth was separated from the water, and each element took its own distinct form, and the earth produced all that grows on it. On the second day, then? Not even on this; for on it the firmament was made between the waters above and beneath, and was called “Heaven,” in which firmament the stars were made on the fourth day. There is no question, then, that if the angels are included in the works of God during these six days, they are that light which was called “Day,” and whose unity Scripture signalizes by calling that day not the “first day,” but “one day.” For the second day, the third, and the rest are not other days; but the same “one” day is repeated to complete the number six or seven, so that there should be knowledge both of God’s works and of His rest. For when God said, “Let there be light, and there was light,” if we are justified in understanding in this light the creation of the angels, then certainly they were created partakers of the eternal light which is the unchangeable Wisdom of God, by which all things were made, and whom we call the only-begotten Son of God; so that they, being illumined by the Light that created them, might themselves become light and be called “Day,” in participation of that unchangeable Light and Day which is the Word of God, by whom both themselves and all else were made. “The true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,”—this Light lighteth also every pure angel, that he may be light not in himself, but in God; from whom if an angel turn away, he becomes impure, as are all those who are called unclean spirits, and are no longer light in the Lord, but darkness in themselves, being deprived of the participation of Light eternal. For evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name “evil.”

Nunc, quoniam de sanctae ciuitatis exortu dicere institui et prius quod ad sanctos angelos adtinet dicendum putaui, quae huius ciuitatis et magna pars est et eo beatior, quod numquam peregrinata, quae hinc diuina testimonia subpetant, quantum satis uidebitur, Deo largiente explicare curabo. Ubi de mundi constitutione sacrae litterae loquuntur, non euidenter dicitur, utrum uel quo ordine creati sint angeli; sed si praetermissi non sunt, uel caeli nomine, ubi dictum est: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram, uel potius lucis huius, de qua loquor, significati sunt. Non autem esse praetermissos hinc existimo, quod scriptum est, requieuisse Deum in die septimo ab omnibus operibus suis quae fecit, cum liber ipse ita sit exorsus: In principio fecit Deus caelum. et terram, ut ante caelum et terram nihil aliud fecisse uideatur. Cum ergo a caelo et terra coeperit, adque ipsa terra, quam primitus fecit, sicut scriptura consequenter eloquitur, inuisibilis et incomposita nondumque luce facta utique tenebrae fuerint super abyssum, id est super quandam terrae et aquae indistinctam confusionem (ubi enim lux non est, tenebrae sint necesse est); deinde si omnia creando disposita sunt, quae per sex dies consummata narrantur: quo modo angeli praetermitterentur, tamquam non essent in operibus Dei, a quibus in die septimo requieuit? Opus autem Dei esse angelos hic quidem etsi non praetermissum, non tamen euidenter expressum est; sed alibi hoc sancta scriptura clarissima uoce testatur. Nam et in hymno trium in camino uirorum cum praedictum esset: Benedicite omnia opera Domini Dominum, in executione eorundem operum etiam angeli nominati sunt: et in psalmo canitur: Laudate Dominum de caelis, laudate eum in excelsis; laudate eum omnes angeli eius, laudate eum omnes uirtutes eius; laudate eum sol et luna, laudate eum omnes stellae et lumen; laudate eum caeli caelorum, et aquae, quae super caelos sunt, laudent nomen Domini; quoniam ipse dixit, et facta sunt; ipse mandauit, et creata sunt. Etiam hic apertissime a Deo factos esse angelos diuinitus dictum est. cum eis inter cetera caelestia commemoratis infertur ad omnia: Ipse dixit, et facta sunt. Quis porro audebit opinari post omnia ista, quae sex diebus enumerata sunt, angelos factos? Sed etsi quisquam ita desipit, redarguit istam uanitatem illa scriptura paris auctoritatis, ubi Deus dicit: Quando facta sunt sidera, laudauerunt me uoce magna omnes angeli mei. Iam ergo erant angeli, quando facta sunt sidera. Facta sunt autem quarto die. Numquidnam ergo die tertio factos esse dicemus? Absit. In promtu est enim, quid illo die factum sit. Ab aquis utique terra discreta est et distinctas sui generis species duo ista elementa sumserunt et produxit terra quidquid ei radicitus inhaeret. Numquidnam secundo? Ne hoc quidem. Tunc enim firmamentum factum est inter aquas superiores et inferiores caelumque appellatum est; in quo firmamento quarto die facta sunt sidera. Nimirum ergo si ad istorum dierum opera Dei pertinent angeli, ipsi sunt illa lux, quae diei nomen accepit. cuius unitas ut commendaretur, non est dictus dies primus, sed dies unus. Nec alius est dies secundus aut tertius aut ceteri; sed idem ipse unus ad inplendum senarium uel septenarium numerum repetitus est propter senariam uel septenariam cognitionem; senariam scilicet operum, quae fecit Deus, et septenariam quietis Dei. Cum enim dixit Deus: Fiat lux, et facta est lux, si recte in hac luce creatio intellegitur angelorum, profecto facti sunt participes lucis aeternae, quod est ipsa incommutabilis sapientia Dei, per quam facta sunt omnia, quem dicimus unigenitum Dei filium; ut ea luce inluminati, qua creati, fierent lux et uocarentur dies participatione incommutabilis lucis et diei, quod est uerbum Dei, per quod et ipsi et omnia facta sunt. Lumen quippe uerum, quod inluminat omnem hominem uenientem in hunc mundum, hoc inluminat et omnem angelum mundum, ut sit lux non in se ipso, sed in Deo; a quo si auertitur angelus. fit inmundus; sicut sunt omnes, qui uocantur inmundi spiritus, nec iam lux in Domino, sed in se ipsis tenebrae, priuati participatione lucis aeternae. Mali enim nulla natura est; sed amissio boni mali nomen accepit.

Chapter 10.—Of the Simple and Unchangeable Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, One God, in Whom Substance and Quality are Identical.

Caput X. De simplici et incommutabili trinitate Dei Patris et Dei Filii et Dei Spiritus sancti, unius Dei, cui non est aliud qualitas aliudque substantia.

There is, accordingly, a good which is alone simple, and therefore alone unchangeable, and this is God. By this Good have all others been created, but not simple, and therefore not unchangeable. “Created,” I say,—that is, made, not begotten. For that which is begotten of the simple Good is simple as itself, and the same as itself. These two we call the Father and the Son; and both together with the Holy Spirit are one God; and to this Spirit the epithet Holy is in Scripture, as it were, appropriated. And He is another than the Father and the Son, for He is neither the Father nor the Son. I say “another,” not “another thing,” because He is equally with them the simple Good, unchangeable and co-eternal. And this Trinity is one God; and none the less simple because a Trinity. For we do not say that the nature of the good is simple, because the Father alone possesses it, or the Son alone, or the Holy Ghost alone; nor do we say, with the Sabellian heretics, that it is only nominally a Trinity, and has no real distinction of persons; but we say it is simple, because it is what it has, with the exception of the relation of the persons to one another. For, in regard to this relation, it is true that the Father has a Son, and yet is not Himself the Son; and the Son has a Father, and is not Himself the Father. But, as regards Himself, irrespective of relation to the other, each is what He has; thus, He is in Himself living, for He has life, and is Himself the Life which He has.

Est itaque bonum solum simplex et ob hoc solum incommutabile, quod est Deus. Ab hoc bono creata sunt omnia bona, sed non simplicia et ob hoc mutabilia. Creata sane, inquam, id est facta, non genita. Quod enim de simplici bono genitum est, pariter simplex est et hoc est quod illud de quo genitum est; quae duo Patrem et Filium dicimus; et utrumque hoc cum spiritu suo unus Deus est; qui spiritus Patris et Filii Spiritus sanctus propria quadam notione huius nominis in sacris litteris nuncupatur. Alius est autem quam Pater et Filius, quia nec Pater est nec Filius; sed […] dixi, non ‛aliud’, quia et hoc pariter simplex pariterque incommutabile bonum est et coaeternum. Et haec trinitas unus est Deus; nec ideo non simplex, quia trinitas. Neque enim propter hoc naturam istam boni simplicem dicimus, quia Pater in ea solus aut solus Filius aut solus Spiritus sanctus, aut uero sola est ista nominis trinitas sine subsistentia personarum, sicut Sabelliani haeretici putauerunt; sed ideo simplex dicitur, quoniam quod habet hoc est, excepto quod relatiue quaeque persona ad alteram dicitur. Nam utique Pater habet Filium, nec tamen ipse est Filius [et Filius habet Patrem, nec tamen ipse est Pater]. In quo ergo ad semet ipsum dicitur, non ad alterum, hoc est quod habet; sicut ad se ipsum dicitur uiuus habendo utique uitam, et eadem uita ipse est.

It is for this reason, then, that the nature of the Trinity is called simple, because it has not anything which it can lose, and because it is not one thing and its contents another, as a cup and the liquor, or a body and its color, or the air and the light or heat of it, or a mind and its wisdom. For none of these is what it has: the cup is not liquor, nor the body color, nor the air light and heat, nor the mind wisdom. And hence they can be deprived of what they have, and can be turned or changed into other qualities and states, so that the cup may be emptied of the liquid of which it is full, the body be discolored, the air darken, the mind grow silly. The incorruptible body which is promised to the saints in the resurrection cannot, indeed, lose its quality of incorruption, but the bodily substance and the quality of incorruption are not the same thing. For the quality of incorruption resides entire in each several part, not greater in one and less in another; for no part is more incorruptible than another. The body, indeed, is itself greater in whole than in part; and one part of it is larger, another smaller, yet is not the larger more incorruptible than the smaller. The body, then, which is not in each of its parts a whole body, is one thing; incorruptibility, which is throughout complete, is another thing;—for every part of the incorruptible body, however unequal to the rest otherwise, is equally incorrupt. For the hand, e.g., is not more incorrupt than the finger because it is larger than the finger; so, though finger and hand are unequal, their incorruptibility is equal. Thus, although incorruptibility is inseparable from an incorruptible body, yet the substance of the body is one thing, the quality of incorruption another. And therefore the body is not what it has. The soul itself, too, though it be always wise (as it will be eternally when it is redeemed), will be so by participating in the unchangeable wisdom, which it is not; for though the air be never robbed of the light that is shed abroad in it, it is not on that account the same thing as the light. I do not mean that the soul is air, as has been supposed by some who could not conceive a spiritual nature; but, with much dissimilarity, the two things have a kind of likeness, which makes it suitable to say that the immaterial soul is illumined with the immaterial light of the simple wisdom of God, as the material air is irradiated with material light, and that, as the air, when deprived of this light, grows dark, (for material darkness is nothing else than air wanting light,) so the soul, deprived of the light of wisdom, grows dark.

Propter hoc utique natura dicitur simplex, cui non sit aliquid habere, quod uel possit amittere; uel aliud sit habens, aliud quod habet; sicut uas aliquem liquorem aut corpus colorem aut aer lucem siue feruorem aut anima sapientiam. Nihil enim horum est id quod habet; nam neque uas liquor est, nec corpus color, nec aer lux siue feruor, neque anima sapientia eat. Hinc est quod etiam priuari possunt rebus quas habent, et in alios habitus uel qualitates uerti adque mutari, ut et uas euacuetur umore quo plenum est, et corpus decoloretur et aer tenebrescat siue frigescat et anima desipiat. Sed etsi sit corpus incorruptibile, quale sanctis in resurrectione promittitur, habet quidem ipsius incorruptionis inamissibilem qualitatem, sed manente substantia corporali non hoc est, quod ipsa incorruptio. Nam illa etiam per singulas partes corporis tota est nec alibi maior, alibi minor; neque enim ulla pars est incorruptior quam altera; corpus uero ipsum maius est in toto quam in parte; et cum aliqua pars est in eo amplior, alia minor, non ea quae amplior est incorruptior quam ea quae minor. Aliud est itaque corpus, quod non ubique sui totum est, alia incorruptio, quae ubique eius tota est, quia omnis pars incorruptibilis corporis etiam ceteris inaequalis aequaliter incorrupta est. Neque enim uerbi gratia, quia digitus minor est quam tota manus, ideo incorruptibilior manus quam digitus. Ita cum sint inaequales manus et digitus, aequalis est tamen incorruptibilitas manus et digiti. Ac per hoc quamuis a corpore incorruptibili inseparabilis incorruptibilitas sit, aliud est tamen substantia, qua corpus dicitur, aliud qualitas eius, qua incorruptibile nuncupatur. Et ideo etiam sic non hoc est quod habet. Anima quoque ipsa, etiamsi semper sit sapiens, sicut erit cum liberabitur in aeternum, participatione tamen incommutabilis sapientiae sapiens erit, quae non est quod ipsa. Neque enim si aer infusa luce numquam deseratur, ideo non aliud est ipse, aliud lux qua inluminatur. Neque hoc ita dixerim, quasi aer sit anima, quod putauerunt quidam qui non potuerunt incorpoream cogitare naturam. Sed habent haec ad illa etiam in magna disparilitate quandam similitudinem, ut non inconuenienter dicatur sic inluminari animam incorpoream luce incorporea simplicis sapientiae Dei, sicut inluminatur aeris corpus luce corporea; et sicut aer tenebrescit ista luce desertus (nam nihil sunt aliud quae dicuntur locorum quorumcumque corporalium tenebrae quam aer carens luce), ita tenebrescere animam sapientiae luce priuatam.

According to this, then, those things which are essentially and truly divine are called simple, because in them quality and substance are identical, and because they are divine, or wise, or blessed in themselves, and without extraneous supplement. In Holy Scripture, it is true, the Spirit of wisdom is called “manifold” because it contains many things in it; but what it contains it also is, and it being one is all these things. For neither are there many wisdoms, but one, in which are untold and infinite treasures of things intellectual, wherein are all invisible and unchangeable reasons of things visible and changeable which were created by it. For God made nothing unwittingly; not even a human workman can be said to do so. But if He knew all that He made, He made only those things which He had known. Whence flows a very striking but true conclusion, that this world could not be known to us unless it existed, but could not have existed unless it had been known to God.

Secundum hoc ergo dicuntur illa simplicia, quae principaliter uereque diuina sunt, quod non aliud est in eis qualitas, aliud substantia, nec aliorum participatione uel diuina uel sapientia uel beata sunt. Ceterum dictus est in scripturis sanctis Spiritus sapientiae multiplex, eo quod multa in sese habeat; sed quae habet, haec et est, et ea omnia unus est. Neque enim multae, sed una sapientia est, in qua sunt infiniti quidam eique finiti thensauri rerum intellegibilium, in quibus sunt omnes inuisibiles adque incommutabiles rationes rerum etiam uisibilium et mutabilium, quae. per ipsam factae sunt. Quoniam Deus non aliquid nesciens fecit, quod nec de quolibet homine artifice recte dici potest; porro si sciens fecit omnia, ea utique fecit quae nouerat. Ex quo occurrit animo quiddam mirum, sed tamen uerum, quod iste mundus nobis notus esse non posset, nisi esset; Deo autem nisi notus esset, esse non posset._,

Chapter 11.—Whether the Angels that Fell Partook of the Blessedness Which the Holy Angels Have Always Enjoyed from the Time of Their Creation.

Caput XI. An eius beatitudinis, quam sancti angeli ab initio sui semper habuerunt, etiam illos spiritus, qui in ueritate non steterunt, participes fuisse credendum sit.

And since these things are so, those spirits whom we call angels were never at any time or in any way darkness, but, as soon as they were made, were made light; yet they were not so created in order that they might exist and live in any way whatever, but were enlightened that they might live wisely and blessedly. Some of them, having turned away from this light, have not won this wise and blessed life, which is certainly eternal, and accompanied with the sure confidence of its eternity; but they have still the life of reason, though darkened with folly, and this they cannot lose even if they would. But who can determine to what extent they were partakers of that wisdom before they fell? And how shall we say that they participated in it equally with those who through it are truly and fully blessed, resting in a true certainty of eternal felicity? For if they had equally participated in this true knowledge, then the evil angels would have remained eternally blessed equally with the good, because they were equally expectant of it. For, though a life be never so long, it cannot be truly called eternal if it is destined to have an end; for it is called life inasmuch as it is lived, but eternal because it has no end. Wherefore, although everything eternal is not therefore blessed (for hell-fire is eternal), yet if no life can be truly and perfectly blessed except it be eternal, the life of these angels was not blessed, for it was doomed to end, and therefore not eternal, whether they knew it or not. In the one case fear, in the other ignorance, prevented them from being blessed. And even if their ignorance was not so great as to breed in them a wholly false expectation, but left them wavering in uncertainty whether their good would be eternal or would some time terminate, this very doubt concerning so grand a destiny was incompatible with the plenitude of blessedness which we believe the holy angels enjoyed. For we do not so narrow and restrict the application of the term “blessedness” as to apply it to God only, though doubtless He is so truly blessed that greater blessedness cannot be; and, in comparison of His blessedness, what is that of the angels, though, according to their capacity, they be perfectly blessed?

Quae cum ita sint, nullo modo quidem secundum spatium aliquod temporis prius erant spiritus illi tenebrae, quos angelos dicimus; sed simul ut facti sunt, lux facti sunt; non tamen tantum ita creati, ut quoquo modo essent et quoquo modo uiuerent; sed etiam inluminati, ut sapienter beateque uiuerent. Ab hac inluminatione auersi quidam angeli non obtinuerunt excellentiam sapientis beataeque uitae. quae procul dubio non nisi aeterna est aeternitatisque suae certa adque secura; sed rationalem uitam licet insipientem sic habent, ut eam non possint amittere, nec si uelint. Quatenus autem, antequam peccassent, illius sapientiae fuerint participes, definire quis potest? In eius tamen participatione aequales fuisse istos illis, qui propterea uere pleneque beati sunt, quoniam nequaquam de suae beatitudinis aeternitate falluntur, quo modo dicturi sumus? quando quidem si aequales in ea fuissent, etiam isti in eius aeternitate mansissent pariter beati, quia pariter certi. Neque enim sicut uita, quamdiucumque fuerit, ita aeterna uita ueraciter dici poterit, si finem habitura sit; si quidem uita tantummodo uiuendo, aeterna uero finem non habendo nominata est. Quapropter quamuis non, quidquid aeternum, continuo beatum sit (dicitur enim etiam poenalis ignis aeternus): tamen si uere perfecteque beata uita non nisi aeterna est, non erat talis istorum, quandoque desitura et propterea non aeterna, siue id scirent, siue nescientes aliud putarent; quia scientes timor, nescientes error beatos esse utique non sinebat. Si autem hoc ita nesciebant, ut falsis incertisue non fiderent, sed utrum sempiternum an quandoque finem habiturum esset bonum suum, in neutram partem firma adsensione ferrentur: ipsa de tanta felicitate cunctatio eam beatae uitae plenitudinem, quam in sanctis angelis esse credimus, non habebat. Neque enim beatae uitae uocabulum ita contrahimus ad quasdam significationis angustias, ut solum Deum dicamus beatum; qui tamen uere ita beatus est, ut maior beatitudo esse non possit, in cuius conparatione, quod angeli beati sunt summa quadam sua beatitudine, quanta esse in angelis potest, quid aut quantum est?

Chapter 12.—A Comparison of the Blessedness of the Righteous, Who Have Not Yet Received the Divine Reward, with that of Our First Parents in Paradise.

Caput XII. De conparatione beatitudinis iustorum necdum obtinentium promissionis diuinae praemium et primorum in paradiso hominum ante peccatum.

And the angels are not the only members of the rational and intellectual creation whom we call blessed. For who will take upon him to deny that those first men in Paradise were blessed previously to sin, although they were uncertain how long their blessedness was to last, and whether it would be eternal (and eternal it would have been had they not sinned),—who, I say, will do so, seeing that even now we not unbecomingly call those blessed whom we see leading a righteous and holy life, in hope of immortality, who have no harrowing remorse of conscience, but obtain readily divine remission of the sins of their present infirmity? These, though they are certain that they shall be rewarded if they persevere, are not certain that they will persevere. For what man can know that he will persevere to the end in the exercise and increase of grace, unless he has been certified by some revelation from Him who, in His just and secret judgment, while He deceives none, informs few regarding this matter? Accordingly, so far as present comfort goes, the first man in Paradise was more blessed than any just man in this insecure state; but as regards the hope of future good, every man who not merely supposes, but certainly knows that he shall eternally enjoy the most high God in the company of angels, and beyond the reach of ill,—this man, no matter what bodily torments afflict him, is more blessed than was he who, even in that great felicity of Paradise, was uncertain of his fate.

Nec ipsos tantum, quod adtinet ad rationalem uel intellectualem creaturam, beatos nuncupandos putamus. Quis enim primos illos homines in paradiso negare audeat beatos fuisse ante peccatum, quamuis sua beatitudo quam diuturna uel utrum aeterna esset incertos (esset autem aeterna, nisi peccassent), cum hodie non inpudenter beatos uocemus, quos uidemus iuste ac pie cum spe futurae inmortalitatis hanc uitam ducere sine crimine uastante conscientiam, facile inpetrantes peccatis huius infirmitatis diuinam misericordiam. Qui licet de suae perseuerantiae praemio certi sint, de ipsa tamen perseuerantia sua reperiuntur incerti. Quis enim hominum se in actione prouectuque iustitiae perseueraturum usque in finem sciat, nisi aliqua reuelatione ab illo fiat certus, qui de hac re iusto latentique iudicio non omnes instruit, sed neminem fallit? Quantum itaque pertinet ad delectationem praesentis boni, beatior erat primus homo in paradiso, quam quilibet iustus in hac infirmitate mortali; quantum autem ad spem futuri, beatior quilibet in quibuslibet cruciatibus corporis, cui non opinione, sed certa ueritate manifestum est, sine fine se habiturum omni molestia carentem societatem angelorum in participatione summi Dei, quam erat ille homo sui casus incertus in magna illa felicitate paradisi.

Chapter 13.—Whether All the Angels Were So Created in One Common State of Felicity, that Those Who Fell Were Not Aware that They Would Fall, and that Those Who Stood Received Assurance of Their Own Perseverance After the Ruin of the Fallen.

Caput XIII. An ita unius felicitatis omnes angeli sint creati, ut neque lapsuros se possent nosse qui lapsi sunt, et post ruinam labentium perseuerantiae suae praescientiam acceperint qui steterunt.

From all this, it will readily occur to any one that the blessedness which an intelligent being desires as its legitimate object results from a combination of these two things, namely, that it uninterruptedly enjoy the unchangeable good, which is God; and that it be delivered from all dubiety, and know certainly that it shall eternally abide in the same enjoyment. That it is so with the angels of light we piously believe; but that the fallen angels, who by their own default lost that light, did not enjoy this blessedness even before they sinned, reason bids us conclude. Yet if their life was of any duration before they fell, we must allow them a blessedness of some kind, though not that which is accompanied with foresight. Or, if it seems hard to believe that, when the angels were created, some were created in ignorance either of their perseverance or their fall, while others were most certainly assured of the eternity of their felicity,—if it is hard to believe that they were not all from the beginning on an equal footing, until these who are now evil did of their own will fall away from the light of goodness, certainly it is much harder to believe that the holy angels are now uncertain of their eternal blessedness, and do not know regarding themselves as much as we have been able to gather regarding them from the Holy Scriptures. For what catholic Christian does not know that no new devil will ever arise among the good angels, as he knows that this present devil will never again return into the fellowship of the good? For the truth in the gospel promises to the saints and the faithful that they will be equal to the angels of God; and it is also promised them that they will “go away into life eternal.” But if we are certain that we shall never lapse from eternal felicity, while they are not certain, then we shall not be their equals, but their superiors. But as the truth never deceives, and as we shall be their equals, they must be certain of their blessedness. And because the evil angels could not be certain of that, since their blessedness was destined to come to an end, it follows either that the angels were unequal, or that, if equal, the good angels were assured of the eternity of their blessedness after the perdition of the others; unless, possibly, some one may say that the words of the Lord about the devil “He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,” are to be understood as if he was not only a murderer from the beginning of the human race, when man, whom he could kill by his deceit, was made, but also that he did not abide in the truth from the time of his own creation, and was accordingly never blessed with the holy angels, but refused to submit to his Creator, and proudly exulted as if in a private lordship of his own, and was thus deceived and deceiving. For the dominion of the Almighty cannot be eluded; and he who will not piously submit himself to things as they are, proudly feigns, and mocks himself with a state of things that does not exist; so that what the blessed Apostle John says thus becomes intelligible: “The devil sinneth from the beginning,”—that is, from the time he was created he refused righteousness, which none but a will piously subject to God can enjoy. Whoever adopts this opinion at least disagrees with those heretics the Manichees, and with any other pestilential sect that may suppose that the devil has derived from some adverse evil principle a nature proper to himself. These persons are so befooled by error, that, although they acknowledge with ourselves the authority of the gospels, they do not notice that the Lord did not say, “The devil was naturally a stranger to the truth,” but “The devil abode not in the truth,” by which He meant us to understand that he had fallen from the truth, in which, if he had abode, he would have become a partaker of it, and have remained in blessedness along with the holy angels.

Quocirca cuiuis iam non difficulter occurrit utroque coniuncto effici beatitudinem, quam recto proposito intellectualis natura desiderat, hoc est, ut et bono incommutabili, quod Deus est, sine ulla molestia perfruatur et in eo se in aeternum esse mansurum nec ulla dubitatione cunctetur nec ullo errore fallatur. Hanc habere angelos lucis pia fide credimus; hanc nec antequam caderent habuisse angelos peccatores, qui sua prauitate illa luce priuati sunt, consequenti ratione colligimus; habuisse tamen aliquam, etsi non praesciam, beatitudinem, si uitam egerunt ante peccatum, profecto credendi sunt. Aut si durum uidetur, quando facti sunt angeli, alios credere ita factos ut non acciperent praescientiam uel perseuerantiae uel casus sui, alios autem ita ut ueritate certissima aeternitatem suae beatitudinis nossent, sed aequalis felicitatis omnes ab initio creati sunt, et ita fuerunt, donec isti, qui nunc mali sunt, ab illo bonitatis lumine sua uoluntate cecidissent: procul dubio multo est durius nunc putare angelos sanctos aeternae suae beatitudinis incertos, et ipsos de semet ipsis ignorare, quod nos de illis per scripturas sanctas nosse potuimus. Quis enim catholicus Christianus ignorat nullum nouum diabolum ex bonis angelis ulterius futurum, sicut nec istum in societatem bonorum angelorum ulterius rediturum? Veritas quippe in euangelio sanctis fidelibusque promittit, quod erunt aequales angelis Dei; quibus etiam promittitur, quod ibunt in uitam aeternam. Porro autem si nos certi sumus numquam nos ex illa inmortali felicitate casuros, illi uero si certi non sunt, iam potiores, non aequales eis erimus. Sed quia nequaquam Veritas fallit et aequales eis erimus, profecto etiam ipsi certi sunt suae felicitatis aeternae. Cuius illi alii quia certi non fuerunt (non enim erat eorum aeterna felicitas cuius certi essent, quae finem fuerat habitura), restat, ut aut inpares fuerint, aut, si pares fuerunt, post istorum ruinam illis certa scientia suae sempiternae felicitatis accesserit. Nisi forte quis dicat id, quod Dominus ait de diabolo in euangelio: Ille homicida erat ab initio et in ueritate non stetit, sic esse accipiendum, ut non solum homicida fuerit ab initio, id est initio humani generis, ex quo utique homo factus est, quem decipiendo posset occidere, uerum etiam ab initio suae conditionis in ueritate non steterit et ideo numquam beatus cum sanctis angelis fuerit, suo recusans esse subditus creatori et sua per superbiam uelut priuata potestate laetatus, ac per hoc falsus et fallax, quia nec quisquam potestatem Omnipotentis euadit, et qui per piam subiectionem noluit tenere quod uere est, adfectat per superbam elationem simulare quod non est, ut sic intellegatur etiam quod beatus Iohannes apostolus ait: Ab initio diabolus peccat, hoc est, ex quo creatus est, iustitiam recusauit, quam nisi pia Deoque subdita uoluntas habere non posset. Huic sententiae quisquis adquiescit, non cum illis haereticis sapit. id est Manichaeis, et si quae aliae pestes ita sentiunt, quod suam quandam propriam tamquam ex aduerso quodam principio diabolus habeat naturam mali; qui tanta uanitate desipiunt, ut, cum uerba ista euangelica in auctoritate nobiscum habeant, non adtendant non dixisse Dominum: A ueritate alienus fuit; sed: In ueritate non stetit, ubi a ueritate lapsum intellegi uoluit, in qua utique si stetisset, eius particeps factus beatus cum sanctis angelis permaneret.

Chapter 14.—An Explanation of What is Said of the Devil, that He Did Not Abide in the Truth, Because the Truth Was Not in Him.

Caput XIV. Quo genere locutionis dictum sit de diabolo, quod in ueritate non steterit, quia ueritas non est in eo.

Moreover, as if we had been inquiring why the devil did not abide in the truth, our Lord subjoins the reason, saying, “because the truth is not in him.” Now, it would be in him had he abode in it. But the phraseology is unusual. For, as the words stand, “He abode not in the truth, because the truth is not in him,” it seems as if the truth’s not being in him were the cause of his not abiding in it; whereas his not abiding in the truth is rather the cause of its not being in him. The same form of speech is found in the psalm: “I have called upon Thee, for Thou hast heard me, O God,” where we should expect it to be said, Thou hast heard me, O God, for I have called upon Thee. But when he had said, “I have called,” then, as if some one were seeking proof of this, he demonstrates the effectual earnestness of his prayer by the effect of God’s hearing it; as if he had said, The proof that I have prayed is that Thou hast heard me.

Subiecit autem indicium, quasi quaesissemus, unde ostendatur, quod in ueritate non steterit, adque ait: Quia non est ueritas in eo. Esset autem in eo, si in illa stetisset. Locutione autem dictum est minus usitata. Sic enim uidetur sonare: In ueritate non stetit, quia ueritas non est in eo, tamquam ea sit causa, ut in ueritate non steterit, quod in eo ueritas non sit; cum potius ea sit causa, ut in eo ueritas non sit, quod in ueritate non stetit. Ista locutio est et in psalmo: Ego clamaui, quoniam exaudisti me Deus; cum dicendum fuisse uideatur: Exaudisti me Deus, quoniam clamaui. Sed cum dixisset: ‘Ego clamaui, tamquam ab eo quaereretur, unde se clamasse monstraret, ab effectu exauditionis Dei clamoris sui ostendit affectum; tamquam diceret: ‘Hinc ostendo clamasse me, quoniam exaudisti me.’

Chapter 15.—How We are to Understand the Words, “The Devil Sinneth from the Beginning.”

Caput XV. Quid sentiendum sit de eo, quod dictum est: Ab initio diabolus peccat.

As for what John says about the devil, “The devil sinneth from the beginning” they who suppose it is meant hereby that the devil was made with a sinful nature, misunderstand it; for if sin be natural, it is not sin at all. And how do they answer the prophetic proofs,—either what Isaiah says when he represents the devil under the person of the king of Babylon, “How art thou fallen, O Lucifer, son of the morning!” or what Ezekiel says, “Thou hast been in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering,” where it is meant that he was some time without sin; for a little after it is still more explicitly said, “Thou wast perfect in thy ways?” And if these passages cannot well be otherwise interpreted, we must understand by this one also, “He abode not in the truth,” that he was once in the truth, but did not remain in it. And from this passage, “The devil sinneth from the beginning,” it is not to be supposed that he sinned from the beginning of his created existence, but from the beginning of his sin, when by his pride he had once commenced to sin. There is a passage, too, in the Book of Job, of which the devil is the subject: “This is the beginning of the creation of God, which He made to be a sport to His angels,” which agrees with the psalm, where it is said, “There is that dragon which Thou hast made to be a sport therein.” But these passages are not to lead us to suppose that the devil was originally created to be the sport of the angels, but that he was doomed to this punishment after his sin. His beginning, then, is the handiwork of God; for there is no nature, even among the least, and lowest, and last of the beasts, which was not the work of Him from whom has proceeded all measure, all form, all order, without which nothing can be planned or conceived. How much more, then, is this angelic nature, which surpasses in dignity all else that He has made, the handiwork of the Most High!

Illud etiam, quod ait de diabolo Iohannes: Ab initio diabolus peccat, non intellegunt, si natura talis est, nullo modo esse peccatum. Sed quid respondetur propheticis testimoniis, siue quod ait Esaias sub figurata persona principis Babyloniae diabolum notans: Quo modo cecidit Lucifer. qui mane oriebatur; siue quod Hiezechiel: In deliciis paradisi Dei fuisti, omni lapide pretioso ornatus es? Ubi intellegitur fuisse aliquando sine peccato. Nam expresses ei paulo post dicitur: Ambulasti in diebus tuis sine uitio. Quae si aliter conuenientius intellegi nequeunt, oportet etiam illud, quod dictum est: In ueritate non stetit, sic accipiamus, quod in ueritate fuerit, sed non permanserit; et illud, quod ab initio diabolus peccat, non ab initio, ex quo creatus est, peccare putandus est, sed ab initio peccati, quod ab ipsius superbia coeperit esse peccatum. Nec illud, quod scriptum est in libro Iob, cum de diabolo sermo esset: Hoc est initium figmenti Domini, quod fecit ad inludendum ab angelis suis (cui consonare uidetur et psalmus, ubi legitur: Draco hic, quem finxisti ad inludendum ei), sic intellegendum est, ut existimemus talem ab initio creatum, cui ab angelis inluderetur, sed in hac poena post peccatum ordinatum. Initium ergo eius figmentum est Domini; non enim est ulla natura etiam in extremis infimisque bestiolis, quam non ille constituit, a quo est omnis modus, omnis species, omnis ordo, sine quibus nihil rerum inueniri uel cogitari potest; quanto magis angelica creatura, quae omnia cetera, quae Deus condidit, naturae dignitate praecedit!