--- title: "City of God · De civitate Dei" author: "Augustine" translator: "Marcus Dods" languages: [la, en] shelf: "Church Fathers" section: 58 of 116 url: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/58/ cite: "Augustine, tr. Marcus Dods, City of God · De civitate Dei, section 58. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/58/" --- # City of God · De civitate Dei *Augustine, tr. Marcus Dods* “Two loves have made two cities.” Augustine’s Latin, in Hoffmann’s critical text, beside Dods’s English, chapter by chapter. > Latin: Augustine, De civitate Dei, ed. Emanuel Hoffmann, CSEL 40 (Vienna: Tempsky, 1899–1900), as encoded by the Open Greek and Latin project, University of Leipzig (stoa0040.stoa003.opp-lat3, CC BY-SA 4.0); apparatus omitted. > English: Marcus Dods, The City of God (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, vol. 2, 1887). > Chapters are matched one to one except where the two editions divide them differently; within a chapter the Latin sentences are shared out over the English paragraphs by position. ## 58. How These Persons are to Be Answered, Who Find Fault with the Creation of Man on the Score of Its Recent Date. Source: https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/58/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/augustine-city-of-god/58/#p-N [¶0] Chapter 12.—How These Persons are to Be Answered, Who Find Fault with the Creation of Man on the Score of Its Recent Date. > Latin: Caput XIII. Quid respondendum sit his, qui primam conditionem hominis tardam esse causantur. [¶1] As to those who are always asking why man was not created during these countless ages of the infinitely extended past, and came into being so lately that, according to Scripture, less than 6000 years have elapsed since He began to be, I would reply to them regarding the creation of man, just as I replied regarding the origin of the world to those who will not believe that it is not eternal, but had a beginning, which even Plato himself most plainly declares, though some think his statement was not consistent with his real opinion. If it offends them that the time that has elapsed since the creation of man is so short, and his years so few according to our authorities, let them take this into consideration, that nothing that has a limit is long, and that all the ages of time being finite, are very little, or indeed nothing at all, when compared to the interminable eternity. Consequently, if there had elapsed since the creation of man, I do not say five or six, but even sixty or six hundred thousand years, or sixty times as many, or six hundred or six hundred thousand times as many, or this sum multiplied until it could no longer be expressed in numbers, the same question could still be put, Why was he not made before? For the past and boundless eternity during which God abstained from creating man is so great, that, compare it with what vast and untold number of ages you please, so long as there is a definite conclusion of this term of time, it is not even as if you compared the minutest drop of water with the ocean that everywhere flows around the globe. For of these two, one indeed is very small, the other incomparably vast, yet both are finite; but that space of time which starts from some beginning, and is limited by some termination, be it of what extent it may, if you compare it with that which has no beginning, I know not whether to say we should count it the very minutest thing, or nothing at all. For, take this limited time, and deduct from the end of it, one by one, the briefest moments (as you might take day by day from a man’s life, beginning at the day in which he now lives, back to that of his birth), and though the number of moments you must subtract in this backward movement be so great that no word can express it, yet this subtraction will sometime carry you to the beginning. But if you take away from a time which has no beginning, I do not say brief moments one by one, nor yet hours, or days, or months, or years even in quantities, but terms of years so vast that they cannot be named by the most skillful arithmeticians,—take away terms of years as vast as that which we have supposed to be gradually consumed by the deduction of moments,—and take them away not once and again repeatedly, but always, and what do you effect, what do you make by your deduction, since you never reach the beginning, which has no existence? Wherefore, that which we now demand after five thousand odd years, our descendants might with like curiosity demand after six hundred thousand years, supposing these dying generations of men continue so long to decay and be renewed, and supposing posterity continues as weak and ignorant as ourselves. The same question might have been asked by those who have lived before us and while man was even newer upon earth. The first man himself in short might the day after or the very day of his creation have asked why he was created no sooner. And no matter at what earlier or later period he had been created, this controversy about the commencement of this world’s history would have had precisely the same difficulties as it has now. > Latin: Quod autem respondimus, cum de mundi origine quaestio uerteretur, eis, qui nolunt credere non eum semper fuisse, sed esse coepisse, sicut etiam Plato apertissime confitetur, quamuis a nonnullis contra quam loquitur sensisse credatur: hoc etiam de prima hominis conditione responderim, propter eos, qui similiter mouentur, quur homo per innumerabilia adque infinita retro tempora creatus non sit tamque sero sit creatus, ut minus quam sex milia sint annorum, ex quo esse coepisse in sacris litteris inuenitur. Si enim breuitas eos offendit temporis, quod tam pauci eis uidentur anni, ex quo institutus homo in nostris auctoritatibus legitur: considerent nihil esse diuturnum, in quo est aliquid extremum, et omnia saeculorum spatia definita, si aeternitati interminae comparentur, non exigua existimanda esse, sed nulla. Ac per hoc si non quinque uel sex, uerum etiam sexaginta milia siue sescenta, aut sexagiens, aut sescentiens, aut sescentiens miliens dicerentur annorum, aut itidem per totidem totiens multiplicaretur haec summa, ubi iam nullum numeri nomen haberemus, ex quo Deus hominem fecit: similiter quaeri posset, quur ante non fecerit. Dei quippe ab hominis creatione cessatio retrorsus aeterna sine initio tanta est, ut, si ei conferatur quamlibet magna et ineffabilis numerositas temporum, quae tamen fine conclusa certi spatii terminatur, nec saltem tanta uideri debeat, quanta si umoris breuissimam guttam uniuerso mari, etiam quantum oceanus circumfluit, conparemus; quoniam istorum duorum unum quidem perexiguum est, alterum incomparabiliter magnum, sed utrumque finitum; illud uero temporis spatium, quod ab aliquo initio progreditur et aliquo termino cohercetur. magnitudine quantacumque tendatur, conparatum illi, quod initium non habet, nescio utrum pro minimo an potius pro nullo deputandum est. Hinc enim si a fine uel breuissima siugillatim momenta detrahantur, decrescente numero licet tam ingenti, ut uocabulum non inueniat, retrorsum redeundo (tamquam si hominis dies ab illo, in quo nunc uiuit, usque ad illum, in quo natus est, detrahas) quandoque ad initium illa detractio perducetur. Si autem detrahantur retrorsus in spatio, quod a nullo coepit exordio, non dico singillatim minuta momenta uel horarum aut dierum aut mensum aut annorum etiam quantitates, sed tam magna spatia, quanta illa summa conprehendit annorum, quae iam dici a quibuslibet conputatoribus non potest, quae tamen momentorum minutatim detractione consumitur, et detrahantur haec tanta spatia non semel adque iterum saepiusque, sed semper: quid fit, quid agitur, quando numquam ad initium, quod omnino nullum est, peruenitur? Quapropter quod nos modo quaerimus post quinque milia et quod excurrit annorum. possent et posteri etiam post annorum sescentiens miliens eadem curiositate requirere. si in tantum haec mortalitas hominum exoriendo et occubando et inperita perseueraret infirmitas. Potuerunt et qui fuerunt ante nos ipsis recentibus hominis creati temporibus istam mouere quaestionem. Ipse denique primus homo uel postridie uel eodem die postea quam factus est potuit inquirere, quur non ante sit factus; et quandocumque antea factus esset, non uires tunc alias et alias nunc uel etiam postea ista de initio rerum temporalium controuersia reperiret. ### Of the Revolution of the Ages, Which Some Philosophers Believe Will Bring All Things Round Again, After a Certain Fixed Cycle, to the Same Order and Form as at First. [¶3] Chapter 13.—Of the Revolution of the Ages, Which Some Philosophers Believe Will Bring All Things Round Again, After a Certain Fixed Cycle, to the Same Order and Form as at First. > Latin: Caput XIV. De reuolutione saeculorum, quibus certo fine conclusis uniuersa semper in eundem ordinem eandemque speciem reditura quidam philosophi crediderunt. [¶4] This controversy some philosophers have seen no other approved means of solving than by introducing cycles of time, in which there should be a constant renewal and repetition of the order of nature; and they have therefore asserted that these cycles will ceaselessly recur, one passing away and another coming, though they are not agreed as to whether one permanent world shall pass through all these cycles, or whether the world shall at fixed intervals die out, and be renewed so as to exhibit a recurrence of the same phenomena—the things which have been, and those which are to be, coinciding. And from this fantastic vicissitude they exempt not even the immortal soul that has attained wisdom, consigning it to a ceaseless transmigration between delusive blessedness and real misery. For how can that be truly called blessed which has no assurance of being so eternally, and is either in ignorance of the truth, and blind to the misery that is approaching, or, knowing it, is in misery and fear? Or if it passes to bliss, and leaves miseries forever, then there happens in time a new thing which time shall not end. Why not, then, the world also? Why may not man, too, be a similar thing? So that, by following the straight path of sound doctrine, we escape, I know not what circuitous paths, discovered by deceiving and deceived sages. > Latin: Hanc autem se philosophi mundi huius non aliter putauerunt posse uel debere dissoluere, nisi ut circuitus temporum inducerent, quibus eadem semper fuisse renouata adque repetita in rerum natura adque ita deinceps fore sine cessatione adseuerarent uolumina uenientium et praetereuntium saeculorum; siue in mundo permanente isti circuitus fierent, siue certis interuallis oriens et occidens mundus eadem semper quasi noua, quae transacta et uentura sunt, exhiberet. A quo ludibrio prorsus inmortalem animam, etiam cum sapientiam perceperit, liberare non possunt, euntem sine cessatione ad falsam beatitudinem et ad ueram miseriam sine cessatione redeuntem. Quo modo enim uera beatitudo est, de cuius numquam aeternitate confiditur, dum anima uenturam miseriam aut inperitissime in ueritate nescit aut infelicissime in beatitudine pertimescit? At si ad miserias numquam ulterius reditura ex his ad beatitudinem pergit: fit ergo aliquid noui in tempore, quod finem non habet temporis. Quur non ergo et mundus? quur non et homo factus in mundo? ut illi nescio qui falsi circuitus a falsis sapientibus fallacibusque conperti in doctrina sana tramite recti itineris euitentur. Nam quidam et illud, quod legitur in libro Salomonis, qui uocatur ecclesiastes: Quid est quod fuit? [¶5] Some, too, in advocating these recurring cycles that restore all things to their original cite in favor of their supposition what Solomon says in the book of Ecclesiastes: “What is that which hath been? It is that which shall be. And what is that which is done? It is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Who can speak and say, See, this is new? It hath been already of old time, which was before us.” This he said either of those things of which he had just been speaking—the succession of generations, the orbit of the sun, the course of rivers,—or else of all kinds of creatures that are born and die. For men were before us, are with us, and shall be after us; and so all living things and all plants. Even monstrous and irregular productions, though differing from one another, and though some are reported as solitary instances, yet resemble one another generally, in so far as they are miraculous and monstrous, and, in this sense, have been, and shall be, and are no new and recent things under the sun. However, some would understand these words as meaning that in the predestination of God all things have already existed, and that thus there is no new thing under the sun. At all events, far be it from any true believer to suppose that by these words of Solomon those cycles are meant, in which, according to those philosophers, the same periods and events of time are repeated; as if, for example, the philosopher Plato, having taught in the school at Athens which is called the Academy, so, numberless ages before, at long but certain intervals, this same Plato and the same school, and the same disciples existed, and so also are to be repeated during the countless cycles that are yet to be,—far be it, I say, from us to believe this. For once Christ died for our sins; and, rising from the dead, He dieth no more. “Death hath no more dominion over Him; and we ourselves after the resurrection shall be “ever with the Lord,” to whom we now say, as the sacred Psalmist dictates, “Thou shall keep us, O Lord, Thou shall preserve us from this generation.” And that too which follows, is, I think, appropriate enough: “The wicked walk in a circle,” not because their life is to recur by means of these circles, which these philosophers imagine, but because the path in which their false doctrine now runs is circuitous. > Latin: Ipsum quod erit. Et quid est quod factum est? Ipsum quod fiet; et non est omne recens sub sole. Qui loquetur et dicet: Ecce hoc nouum est: iam fuit saeculis quae fuerunt ante nos, propter hos circuitus in eadem redeuntes et in eadem cuncta reuocantes dictum intellegi uolunt; quod ille aut de his rebus dixit, de quibus superius loquebatur, hoc est de generationibus aliis euntibus. aliis uenientibus, de solis anfractibus, de torrentium lapsibus: aut certe de omnium rerum generibus, quae oriuntur adque occidunt. Fuerunt enim homines ante nos, sunt et nobiscum, erunt et post nos: ita quaeque animantia uel arbusta. Monstra quoque ipsa, quae inusitata nascuntur, quamuis inter se diuersa sint et quaedam eorum semel facta narrentur, tamen secundum id, quod generaliter miracula et monstra sunt, utique et fuerunt et erunt. nec recens et nouum est, ut monstrum sub sole nascatur. Quamuis haec uerba quidam sic intellexerint, tamquam in praedestinatione Dei iam facta fuisse omnia sapiens ille uoluisset intellegi, et ideo nihil recens esse sub sole. Absit autem a recta fide, ut his Salomonis uerbis illos circuitus significatos esse credamus, quibus illi putant sic eadem temporum temporaliumque rerum uolumina repeti, ut uerbi gratia, sicut isto saeculo Plato philosophus in urbe Atheniensi et in ea schola, quae Academia dicta est, discipulos docuit, ita per innumerabilia retro saecula multum quidem prolixis interuallis. sed tamen certis, et idem Plato et eadem ciuitas et eadem schola idemque discipuli repetiti et per innumerabilia deinde saecula repetendi sint. Absit, inquam, ut nos ista credamus. Semel enim Christus mortuus est pro peccatis nostris; surgens autem a mortuis iam non moritur, et mors ei ultra non dominabitur; et nos post resurrectionem semper cum Domino erimus, cui modo dicimus, quod sacer admonet psalmus: Tu, Domine, seruabis nos et custodies nos a generatione hac et in aeternum. Satis autem istis existimo conuenire quod sequitur: In circuitu inpii ambulabunt; non quia per circulos, quos opinantur, eorum uita est recursura, sed quia modo talis est erroris eorum uia, id est falsa doctrina. ### Of the Creation of the Human Race in Time, and How This Was Effected Without Any New Design or Change of Purpose on God’s Part. [¶7] Chapter 14.—Of the Creation of the Human Race in Time, and How This Was Effected Without Any New Design or Change of Purpose on God’s Part. > Latin: Caput XV. De temporali conditione generis humani, quam Deus nec nouo consilio instituerit nec mutabili uoluntate. [¶8] What wonder is it if, entangled in these circles, they find neither entrance nor egress? For they know not how the human race, and this mortal condition of ours, took its origin, nor how it will be brought to an end, since they cannot penetrate the inscrutable wisdom of God. For, though Himself eternal, and without beginning, yet He caused time to have a beginning; and man, whom He had not previously made He made in time, not from a new and sudden resolution, but by His unchangeable and eternal design. Who can search out the unsearchable depth of this purpose, who can scrutinize the inscrutable wisdom, wherewith God, without change of will, created man, who had never before been, and gave him an existence in time, and increased the human race from one individual? For the Psalmist himself, when he had first said, “Thou shalt keep us, O Lord, Thou shall preserve us from this generation for ever,” and had then rebuked those whose foolish and impious doctrine preserves for the soul no eternal deliverance and blessedness adds immediately, “The wicked walk in a circle.” Then, as if it were said to him, “What then do you believe, feel, know? Are we to believe that it suddenly occurred to God to create man, whom He had never before made in a past eternity,—God, to whom nothing new can occur, and in whom is no changeableness?” the Psalmist goes on to reply, as if addressing God Himself, “According to the depth of Thy wisdom Thou hast multiplied the children of men.” Let men, he seems to say, fancy what they please, let them conjecture and dispute as seems good to them, but Thou hast multiplied the children of men according to the depth of thy wisdom, which no man can comprehend. For this is a depth indeed, that God always has been, and that man, whom He had never made before, He willed to make in time, and this without changing His design and will. > Latin: Quid autem mirum est, si in his circuitibus errantes nec aditum nec exitum inueniunt? quia genus humanum adque ista nostra mortalitas nec quo initio coepta sit sciunt, nec quo fine claudatur; quando quidem altitudinem Dei penetrare non possunt, qua, cum ipse sit aeternus et sine initio, ab aliquo tamen initio exorsus est tempora et hominem, quem numquam antea fecerat, fecit in tempore, non tamen nouo et repentino, sed inmutabili aeternoque consilio. Quis hanc ualeat altitudinem inuestigabilem uestigare et inscrutabilem perscrutari, secundum quam Deus hominem temporalem, ante quem nemo umquam hominum fuit, non mutabili uoluntate in tempore condidit et genus humanum ex uno multiplicauit? Quando quidem psalmus ipse cum praemisisset adque dixisset: Tu, Domine, seruabis nos et custodies nos a generatione hac et in aeternum, ac deinde repercussisset eos, in quorum stulta inpiaque doctrina nulla liberationis et beatitudinis animae seruatur aeternitas, continuo subiciens: In circuitu inpii ambulabunt: tamquam ei diceretur: ‘Quid ergo tu credis, sentis, intellegis? numquidnam existimandum est subito Deo placuisse hominem facere, quem numquam antea infinita retro aeternitate fecisset, cui nihil noui accidere potest, in quo mutabile aliquid non est?’ continuo respondit ad ipsum Deum loquens: Secundum altitudinem tuam multiplicasti filios hominum. Sentiant, inquit, homines quod putant, et quod eis placet opinentur et disputent: Secundum altitudinem tuam, quam nullus potest nosse hominum, multiplicasti filios hominum. Valde quippe altum est et semper fuisse, et hominem, quem numquam fecerat, ex aliquo tempore primum facere uoluisse, nec consilium uoluntatemque mutasse. ### Whether We are to Believe that God, as He Has Always Been Sovereign Lord, Has Always Had Creatures Over Whom He Exercised His Sovereignty; And in What Sense We Can Say that the Creature Has Always Been, and Yet Cannot Say It is Co-Eternal. [¶10] Chapter 15.—Whether We are to Believe that God, as He Has Always Been Sovereign Lord, Has Always Had Creatures Over Whom He Exercised His Sovereignty; And in What Sense We Can Say that the Creature Has Always Been, and Yet Cannot Say It is Co-Eternal. > Latin: Caput XVI. An ut Deus semper etiam dominus fuisse intellegatur, credendum sit creaturam quoque numquam defuisse cui dominaretur, et quo modo dicatur semper creatum quod dici non potest coaeternum. [¶11] For my own part, indeed, as I dare not say that there ever was a time when the Lord God was not Lord, so I ought not to doubt that man had no existence before time, and was first created in time. But when I consider what God could be the Lord of, if there was not always some creature, I shrink from making any assertion, remembering my own insignificance, and that it is written, “What man is he that can know the counsel of God? or who can think what the will of the Lord is? For the thoughts of mortal men are timid, and our devices are but uncertain. For the corruptible body presseth down the soul, and the earthly tabernacle weigheth down the mind that museth upon many things.” Many things certainly do I muse upon in this earthly tabernacle, because the one thing which is true among the many, or beyond the many, I cannot find. If, then, among these many thoughts, I say that there have always been creatures for Him to be Lord of, who is always and ever has been Lord, but that these creatures have not always been the same, but succeeded one another (for we would not seem to say that any is co-eternal with the Creator, an assertion condemned equally by faith and sound reason), I must take care lest I fall into the absurd and ignorant error of maintaining that by these successions and changes mortal creatures have always existed, whereas the immortal creatures had not begun to exist until the date of our own world, when the angels were created; if at least the angels are intended by that light which was first made, or, rather, by that heaven of which it is said, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The angels, at least did not exist before they were created; for if we say that they have always existed, we shall seem to make them co-eternal with the Creator. Again, if I say that the angels were not created in time, but existed before all times, as those over whom God, who has ever been Sovereign, exercised His sovereignty, then I shall be asked whether, if they were created before all time, they, being creatures, could possibly always exist. It may perhaps be replied, Why not always, since that which is in all time may very properly be said to be “always?” Now so true is it that these angels have existed in all time that even before time was they were created; if at least time began with the heavens, and the angels existed before the heavens. And if time was even before the heavenly bodies, not indeed marked by hours, days, months, and years,—for these measures of time’s periods which are commonly and properly called times, did manifestly begin with the motion of the heavenly bodies, and so God said, when He appointed them, “Let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years,”—if, I say, time was before these heavenly bodies by some changing movement, whose parts succeeded one another and could not exist simultaneously, and if there was some such movement among the angels which necessitated the existence of time, and that they from their very creation should be subject to these temporal changes, then they have existed in all time, for time came into being along with them. And who will say that what was in all time, was not always? > Latin: Ego quidem sicut Dominum Deum aliquando dominum non fuisse dicere non audeo, ita hominem numquam antea fuisse et ex quodam tempore primum hominem creatum esse dubitare non debeo. Sed cum cogito cuius rei dominus semper fuerit, si semper creatura non fuit, adfirmare aliquid pertimesco, quia et me ipsum intueor et scriptum esse recolo: Quis hominum potest scire consilium Dei, aut quis poterit cogitare quid uelit Dominus? Cogitationes enim mortalium timidae et incertae adinuentiones nostrae. Corruptibile enim corpus adgrauat animam, et deprimit terrena inhabitatio sensum multa cogitantem. Ex his igitur, quae in hac terrena inhabitatione multa cogito (ideo utique multa, quia unum, quod ex illis uel praeter illa. quod forte non cogito, uerum est, inuenire non possum), si dixero semper fuisse creaturam, cuius dominus esset. qui semper est dominus nec dominus umquam non fuit; sed nunc illam, nunc aliam per alia adque alia temporum spatia, ne aliquam Creatori coaeternam esse dicamus, quod fides ratioque sana condemnat: cauendum est, ne sit absurdum et a luce ueritatis alienum mortalem quidem per uices temporum semper fuisse creaturam, decedentem aliam, aliam succedentem; inmortalem uero non esse coepisse, nisi cum ad nostrum saeculum uentum est, quando et angeli creati sunt, si eos recte lux illa primum facta significat aut illud potius caelum, de quo dictum est: In principio fecit Deus caelum et terram, cum tamen non fuerint, antequam fierent, ne inmortales, si semper fuisse dicuntur, Deo coaeterni esse credantur. Si autem dixero non in tempore creatos angelos, sed ante omnia tempora et ipsos fuisse, quorum Deus dominus esset, qui numquam nisi dominus fuit: quaeretur a me etiam, si ante omnia tempora facti sunt, utrum semper potuerint esse qui facti sunt. Hic respondendum forte uideatur: Quo modo non semper, cum id. quod est omni tempore, non inconuenienter semper esse dicatur? Usque adeo autem isti omni tempore fuerunt. ut etiam ante omnia tempora facti sint; si tamen a caelo coepta sunt tempora, et illi iam erant ante caelum. At si tempus non a caelo, uerum et ante caelum fuit; non quidem in horis et diebus et mensibus et annis (nam istae dimensiones temporalium spatiorum, quae usitate ac proprie dicuntur tempora, manifestum est quod a motu siderum coeperint; unde et Deus, cum haec institueret, dixit: Et sint in signa et in tempora et in dies et in annos), sed in aliquo mutabili motu, cuius aliud prius, aliud posterius praeterit, eo quod simul esse non possunt; — si ergo ante caelum in angelicis motibus tale aliquid fuit et ideo tempus iam fuit adque angeli, ex quo facti sunt, temporaliter mouebantur: etiam sic omni tempore fuerunt, quando quidem cum illis facta sunt tempora. Quis autem dicat: Non semper fuit, quod omni tempore fuit? [¶12] But if I make such a reply, it will be said to me, How, then, are they not co-eternal with the Creator, if He and they always have been? How even can they be said to have been created, if we are to understand that they have always existed? What shall we reply to this? Shall we say that both statements are true? that they always have been, since they have been in all time, they being created along with time, or time along with them, and yet that also they were created? For, similarly, we will not deny that time itself was created, though no one doubts that time has been in all time; for if it has not been in all time, then there was a time when there was no time. But the most foolish person could not make such an assertion. For we can reasonably say there was a time when Rome was not; there was a time when Jerusalem was not; there was a time when Abraham was not; there was a time when man was not, and so on: in fine, if the world was not made at the commencement of time, but after some time had elapsed, we can say there was a time when the world was not. But to say there was a time when time was not, is as absurd as to say there was a man when there was no man; or, this world was when this world was not. For if we are not referring to the same object, the form of expression may be used, as, there was another man when this man was not. Thus we can reasonably say there was another time when this time was not; but not the merest simpleton could say there was a time when there was no time. As, then, we say that time was created, though we also say that it always has been, since in all time time has been, so it does not follow that if the angels have always been, they were therefore not created. For we say that they have always been, because they have been in all time; and we say they have been in all time, because time itself could no wise be without them. For where there is no creature whose changing movements admit of succession, there cannot be time at all. And consequently, even if they have always existed, they were created; neither, if they have always existed, are they therefore co-eternal with the Creator. For He has always existed in unchangeable eternity; while they were created, and are said to have been always, because they have been in all time, time being impossible without the creature. But time passing away by its changefulness, cannot be co-eternal with changeless eternity. And consequently, though the immortality of the angels does not pass in time, does not become past as if now it were not, nor has a future as if it were not yet, still their movements, which are the basis of time, do pass from future to past; and therefore they cannot be co-eternal with the Creator, in whose movement we cannot say that there has been that which now is not, or shall be that which is not yet. Wherefore, if God always has been Lord, He has always had creatures under His dominion,—creatures, however, not begotten of Him, but created by Him out of nothing; nor co-eternal with Him, for He was before them though at no time without them, because He preceded them, not by the lapse of time, but by His abiding eternity. But if I make this reply to those who demand how He was always Creator, always Lord, if there were not always a subject creation; or how this was created, and not rather co-eternal with its Creator, if it always was, I fear I may be accused of recklessly affirming what I know not, instead of teaching what I know. I return, therefore, to that which our Creator has seen fit that we should know; and those things which He has allowed the abler men to know in this life, or has reserved to be known in the next by the perfected saints, I acknowledge to be beyond my capacity. But I have thought it right to discuss these matters without making positive assertions, that they who read may be warned to abstain from hazardous questions, and may not deem themselves fit for everything. Let them rather endeavor to obey the wholesome injunction of the apostle, when he says, “For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.” For if an infant receive nourishment suited to its strength, it becomes capable, as it grows, of taking more; but if its strength and capacity be overtaxed, it dwines away in place of growing. > Latin: Sed si hoc respondero, dicetur mihi: Quo modo ergo non coaeterni Creatori, si semper ille, semper illi fuerunt? Quo modo etiam creati dicendi sunt, si semper fuisse intelleguntur? Ad hoc quid respondebitur? An dicendum est et semper eos fuisse, quoniam omni tempore fuerunt, qui cum tempore facti sunt, aut cum quibus facta sunt tempora, et tamen creatos? Neque enim et ipsa tempora creata esse negabimus, quamuis omni tempore tempus fuisse nemo ambigat. Nam si non omni tempore fuit tempus, erat ergo tempus, quando nullum erat tempus. Quis hoc stultissimus dixerit? Possumus enim recte dicere: Erat tempus, quando non erat Roma; erat tempus, quando non erat Hierusalem; erat tempus, quando non erat Abraham; erat tempus, quando non erat homo, et si quid huius modi; postremo si non cum initio temporis, sed post aliquod tempus factus est mundus, possumus dicere: Erat tempus, quando non erat mundus; at uero: Erat tempus, quando nullum erat tempus, tam inconuenienter dicimus, ac si quisquam dicat: Erat homo, quando nullus erat homo, aut: Erat iste mundus, quando iste non erat mundus. Si enim de alio adque alio intellegatur, potest dici aliquo modo, hoc est: Erat alius homo, quando non erat iste homo; sic ergo: Erat aliud tempus, quando non erat hoc tempus, recte possumus dicere; at uero: Erat tempus, quando nullum erat tempus, quis uel insipientissimus dixerit? Sicut ergo dicimus creatum tempus, cum ideo semper fuisse dicatur, quia omni tempore tempus fuit: ita non est consequens, ut, si semper fuerunt angeli, ideo non sint creati, ut propterea semper fuisse dicantur, quia omni tempore fuerunt, et propterea omni tempore fuerunt, quia nullo modo sine his ipsa tempora esse potuerunt. Ubi enim nulla creatura est, cuius mutabilibus motibus tempora peragantur, tempora omnino esse non possunt; ac per hoc etsi semper fuerunt, creati sunt, nec si semper fuerunt, ideo Creatori coaeterni sunt. Ille enim semper fuit aeternitate inmutabili; isti autem facti sunt; sed ideo semper fuisse dicuntur, quia omni tempore fuerunt, sine quibus tempora nullo modo esse potuerunt; tempus autem quoniam mutabilitate transcurrit, aeternitati inmutabili non potest esse coaeternum. Ac per hoc etiamsi inmortalitas angelorum non transit in tempore, nec praeterita est quasi iam non sit, nec futura quasi nondum sit: tamen eorum motus, quibus tempora peraguntur, ex futuro in praeteritum transeunt, et ideo Creatori, in cuius motu dicendum non est uel fuisse quod iam non sit, uel futurum esse quod nondum sit, coaeterni esse non possunt. Quapropter si Deus semper dominus fuit, semper habuit creaturam suo dominatui seruientem; uerum tamen non de ipso genitam, sed ab ipso de nihilo factam nec ei coaeternam; erat quippe ante illam, quamuis nullo tempore sine illa; non eam spatio transcurrente, sed manente perpetuitate praecedens. Sed hoc si respondero eis qui requirunt, quo modo semper creator, semper dominus fuit, si creatura seruiens non semper fuit; aut quo modo creata est et non potius creatori coaeterna est, si semper fuit: uereor ne facilius iudicer adfirmare quod nescio, quam docere quod scio. Redeo igitur ad id, quod creator noster scire nos uoluit; illa uero, quae uel sapientioribus in hac uita scire permisit uel omnino perfectis in alia uita scienda seruauit, ultra uires meas esse’ confiteor. Sed ideo putaui sine adfirmatione tractanda, ut qui haec legunt uideant, a quibus quaestionum periculis debeant temperare, nec ad omnia se idoneos arbitrentur potiusque intellegant quam sit apostolo obtemperandum praecipienti salubriter, ubi ait: Dico autem per gratiam Dei quae data est mihi omnibus qui sunt in uobis, non plus sapere quam oportet sapere, sed sapere ad temperantiam, unicuique sicut Deus partitus est mensuram fidei. Si enim pro uiribus suis alatur infans, fiet, ut crescendo plus capiat; si autem uires suae capacitatis excedat, deficiet antequam crescat. ### How We are to Understand God’s Promise of Life Eternal, Which Was Uttered Before the ‘Eternal Times.’ [¶14] Chapter 16.—How We are to Understand God’s Promise of Life Eternal, Which Was Uttered Before the “Eternal Times.” > Latin: Caput XVII. Quo modo intellegenda sit promissa homini a Deo uita aeterna ante tempora aeterna. [¶15] I own that I do not know what ages passed before the human race was created, yet I have no doubt that no created thing is co-eternal with the Creator. But even the apostle speaks of time as eternal, and this with reference, not to the future, but, which is more surprising, to the past. For he says, “In hope of eternal life, which God that cannot lie promised before the eternal times, but hath in due times manifested His word.” You see he says that in the past there have been eternal times, which, however, were not co-eternal with God. And since God before these eternal times not only existed, but also, “promised” life eternal, which He manifested in its own times (that is to say, in due times), what else is this than His word? For this is life eternal. But then, how did He promise; for the promise was made to men, and yet they had no existence before eternal times? Does this not mean that, in His own eternity, and in His co-eternal word, that which was to be in its own time was already predestined and fixed? > Latin: Quae saecula praeterierint antequam genus institueretur humanum, me fateor ignorare; non tamen dubito nihil omnino creaturae Creatori esse coaeternum. Dicit etiam apostolus tempora aeterna, nec ea futura, sed, quod magis est mirandum, praeterita. Sic enim ait: In spem uitae aeternae, quam promisit non mendax Deus ante tempora aeterna; man i fe s tau ita autem temporibus suis uerbum suum. Ecce dixit retro quod fuerint tempora aeterna, quae tamen non fuerint Deo coaeterna, si quidem ille ante tempora aeterna non solum erat, uerum etiam promisit uitam aeternam, quam manifestauit temporibus suis, id est congruis, quid aliud quam Verbum suum? Hoc est enim uita aeterna. Quo modo autem promisit, cum hominibus utique promiserit, qui nondum erant ante tempora aeterna, nisi quia in eius aeternitate adque in ipso Verbo eius eidem coaeterno iam praedestinatione fixum erat, quod suo tempore futurum erat? ### What Defence is Made by Sound Faith Regarding God’s Unchangeable Counsel and Will, Against the Reasonings of Those Who Hold that the Works of God are Eternally Repeated in Revolving Cycles that Restore All Things as They Were. [¶17] Chapter 17.—What Defence is Made by Sound Faith Regarding God’s Unchangeable Counsel and Will, Against the Reasonings of Those Who Hold that the Works of God are Eternally Repeated in Revolving Cycles that Restore All Things as They Were. > Latin: Caput XVIII. Quid de incommutabili consilio ac uoluntate Dei fides sana defendat contra ratiocinationes eorum. qui opera Dei ex aeternitate repetita per eosdem semper uolunt saeculorum redire circuitus. [¶18] Of this, too, I have no doubt, that before the first man was created, there never had been a man at all, neither this same man himself recurring by I know not what cycles, and having made I know not how many revolutions, nor any other of similar nature. From this belief I am not frightened by philosophical arguments, among which that is reckoned the most acute which is founded on the assertion that the infinite cannot be comprehended by any mode of knowledge. Consequently, they argue, God has in his own mind finite conceptions of all finite things which He makes. Now it cannot be supposed that His goodness was ever idle; for if it were, there should be ascribed to Him an awakening to activity in time, from a past eternity of inactivity, as if He repented of an idleness that had no beginning, and proceeded, therefore, to make a beginning of work. This being the case, they say it must be that the same things are always repeated, and that as they pass, so they are destined always to return, whether amidst all these changes the world remains the same,—the world which has always been, and yet was created,—or that the world in these revolutions is perpetually dying out and being renewed; otherwise, if we point to a time when the works of God were begun, it would be believed that He considered His past eternal leisure to be inert and indolent, and therefore condemned and altered it as displeasing to Himself. Now if God is supposed to have been indeed always making temporal things, but different from one another, and one after the other, so, that He thus came at last to make man, whom He had never made before, then it may seem that He made man not with knowledge (for they suppose no knowledge can comprehend the infinite succession of creatures), but at the dictate of the hour, as it struck him at the moment, with a sudden and accidental change of mind. On the other hand, say they, if those cycles be admitted, and if we suppose that the same temporal things are repeated, while the world either remains identical through all these rotations, or else dies away and is renewed, then there is ascribed to God neither the slothful ease of a past eternity, nor a rash and unforeseen creation. And if the same things be not thus repeated in cycles, then they cannot by any science or prescience be comprehended in their endless diversity. Even though reason could not refute, faith would smile at these argumentations, with which the godless endeavor to turn our simple piety from the right way, that we may walk with them “in a circle.” But by the help of the Lord our God, even reason, and that readily enough, shatters these revolving circles which conjecture frames. For that which specially leads these men astray to refer their own circles to the straight path of truth, is, that they measure by their own human, changeable, and narrow intellect the divine mind, which is absolutely unchangeable, infinitely capacious, and without succession of thought, counting all things without number. So that saying of the apostle comes true of them, for, “comparing themselves with themselves, they do not understand.” For because they do, in virtue of a new purpose, whatever new thing has occurred to them to be done (their minds being changeable), they conclude it is so with God; and thus compare, not God,—for they cannot conceive God, but think of one like themselves when they think of Him,—not God, but themselves, and not with Him, but with themselves. For our part, we dare not believe that God is affected in one way when He works, in another when He rests. Indeed, to say that He is affected at all, is an abuse of language, since it implies that there comes to be something in His nature which was not there before. For he who is affected is acted upon, and whatever is acted upon is changeable. His leisure, therefore, is no laziness, indolence, inactivity; as in His work is no labor, effort, industry. He can act while He reposes, and repose while He acts. He can begin a new work with (not a new, but) an eternal design; and what He has not made before, He does not now begin to make because He repents of His former repose. But when one speaks of His former repose and subsequent operation (and I know not how men can understand these things), this “former” and “subsequent” are applied only to the things created, which formerly did not exist, and subsequently came into existence. But in God the former purpose is not altered and obliterated by the subsequent and different purpose, but by one and the same eternal and unchangeable will He effected regarding the things He created, both that formerly, so long as they were not, they should not be, and that subsequently, when they began to be, they should come into existence. And thus, perhaps, He would show, in a very striking way, to those who have eyes for such things, how independent He is of what He makes, and how it is of His own gratuitous goodness He creates, since from eternity He dwelt without creatures in no less perfect a blessedness. > Latin: Illud quoque non dubito, antequam homo primus creatus esset, numquam quemquam fuisse hominem; nec eundem ipsum nescio quibus circuitibus nescio quotiens reuolutum, nec alium aliquem, natura similem. Neque ab hac fide me philosophorum argumenta deterrent, quorum acutissimum illud putatur, quod dicunt nulla infinita ulla scientia posse conprehendi; ac per hoc Deus, inquiunt, rerum quas facit omnium finitarum omnes finitas aput se rationes habet; bonitas autem eius numquam uacua fuisse credenda est, ne sit temporalis eius operatio, cuius retro fuerit aeterna cessatio, quasi paenituerit eum prioris sine initio uacationis ac propterea sit operis adgressus initium; et ideo necesse est, inquiunt, eadem semper repeti eademque semper repetenda transcurrere, uel manente mundo mutabiliter, qui licet numquam non fuerit et sine initio temporis tamen factus est, uel eius quoque ortu et occasu semper illis circuitibus repetito semperque repetendo; ne uidelicet, si aliquando primum Dei opera coepta dicuntur, priorem suam sine initio uacationem tamquam inertem ac desidiosam et ideo sibi displicentem damnasse quodam modo adque ob hoc mutasse credatur; si autem semper quidem temporalia, sed alia adque alia perhibetur operatus ac sic aliquando etiam ad hominem faciendum, quem numquam antea fecerat, peruenisse, non scientia, qua putant non posse quaecumque infinita conprehendi, sed quasi ad horam, sicut ueniebat in mentem, fortuita quadam inconstantia uideatur fecisse quae fecit. Porro si illi circuitus admittantur, inquiunt, quibus uel manente mundo uel ipso quoque reuolubiles ortus suos et occasus eisdem circuitibus inserente eadem temporalia repetuntur, nec ignauum otium, praesertim tam longae sine initio diuturnitatis, Deo tribuitur, nec inprouida temeritas operum suorum; quoniam si non eadem repetantur, non possunt infinita diuersitate uariata ulla eius scientia uel praescientia conprehendi. Has argumentationes, quibus inpii nostram simplicem pietatem, ut cum illis in circuitu ambulemus, de uia recta conantur auertere, si ratio refutare non posset, fides inridere deberet. Huc accedit, quod in adiutorio Domini Dei nostri hos uolubiles circulos, quos opinio confingit, ratio manifesta confringit. Hinc enim maxime isti errant, ut in circuitu falso ambulare quam uero et recto itinere malint, quod mentem diuinam omnino inmutabilem, cuiuslibet infinitatis capacem et innumera omnia sine cogitationis alternatione numerantem, de sua humana mutabili angustaque metiuntur; et fit illis quod ait apostolus: Conparantes enim semet ipsos sibimet ipsis non intellegunt. Nam quia illis quidquid noui faciendum uenit in mentem, nouo consilio faciunt (mutabiles quippe mentes gerunt): profecto non Deum, quem cogitare non possunt, sed semet ipsos pro illo cogitantes, non illum, sed se ipsos, nec illi, sed sibi conparant. Nobis autem fas non est credere, aliter affici Deum cum uacat, aliter cum operatur; quia nec affici dicendus est, tamquam in eius natura fiat aliquid, quod ante non fuerit. Patitur quippe qui afficitur, et mutabile est omne quod aliquid patitur. Non itaque in eius uacatione cogitetur ignauia desidia inertia, sicut nec in eius opere labor conatus industria. Nouit quiescens agere et agens quiescere. Potest ad opus nouum non nouum, sed sempiternum adhibere consilium; nec paenitendo, quia prius cessauerat, coepit facere quod non fecerat. Sed et si prius cessauit et posterius operatus est (quod nescio quem ad modum ab homine possit intellegi): hoc procul dubio, quod dicitur prius et posterius, in rebus prius non existentibus et posterius existentibus fuit; in illo autem non alteram praecedentem altera subsequens mutauit aut abstulit uoluntatem, sed una eademque sempiterna et inmutabili uoluntate res, quas condidit, et ut prius non essent egit, quamdiu non fuerunt, et ut posterius essent, quando esse coeperunt, hinc eis. qui talia uidere possunt, mirabiliter fortassis ostendens, quam non eis indiguerit, sed eas gratuita bonitate condiderit, cum sine illis ex aeternitate initio carente in non minore beatitate permansit. ### Against Those Who Assert that Things that are Infinite Cannot Be Comprehended by the Knowledge of God. [¶20] Chapter 18.—Against Those Who Assert that Things that are Infinite Cannot Be Comprehended by the Knowledge of God. > Latin: Caput XIX. Contra eos, qui dicunt ea, quae infinita sunt, nec - Dei posse scientia conprehendi. [¶21] As for their other assertion, that God’s knowledge cannot comprehend things infinite, it only remains for them to affirm, in order that they may sound the depths of their impiety, that God does not know all numbers. For it is very certain that they are infinite; since, no matter of what number you suppose an end to be made, this number can be, I will not say, increased by the addition of one more, but however great it be, and however vast be the multitude of which it is the rational and scientific expression, it can still be not only doubled, but even multiplied. Moreover, each number is so defined by its own properties, that no two numbers are equal. They are therefore both unequal and different from one another; and while they are simply finite, collectively they are infinite. Does God, therefore, not know numbers on account of this infinity; and does His knowledge extend only to a certain height in numbers, while of the rest He is ignorant? Who is so left to himself as to say so? Yet they can hardly pretend to put numbers out of the question, or maintain that they have nothing to do with the knowledge of God; for Plato, their great authority, represents God as framing the world on numerical principles: and in our books also it is said to God, “Thou hast ordered all things in number, and measure, and weight.” The prophet also says,” Who bringeth out their host by number.” And the Saviour says in the Gospel, “The very hairs of your head are all numbered.” Far be it, then, from us to doubt that all number is known to Him “whose understanding,” according to the Psalmist, “is infinite.” The infinity of number, though there be no numbering of infinite numbers, is yet not incomprehensible by Him whose understanding is infinite. And thus, if everything which is comprehended is defined or made finite by the comprehension of him who knows it, then all infinity is in some ineffable way made finite to God, for it is comprehensible by His knowledge. Wherefore, if the infinity of numbers cannot be infinite to the knowledge of God, by which it is comprehended, what are we poor creatures that we should presume to fix limits to His knowledge, and say that unless the same temporal thing be repeated by the same periodic revolutions, God cannot either foreknow His creatures that He may make them, or know them when He has made them? God, whose knowledge is simply manifold, and uniform in its variety, comprehends all incomprehensibles with so incomprehensible a comprehension, that though He willed always to make His later works novel and unlike what went before them, He could not produce them without order and foresight, nor conceive them suddenly, but by His eternal foreknowledge. > Latin: Illud autem aliud quod dicunt, nec Dei scientia quae infinita sunt posse conprehendi: restat eis, ut dicere audeant adque huic se uoragini profundae inpietatis inmergant, quod non omnes numeros Deus nouerit. Eos quippe infinitos esse, certissimum est; quoniam in quocumque numero finem faciendum putaueris, idem ipse, non dico uno addito augeri, sed quamlibet sit magnus et quamlibet ingentem multitudinem continens, in ipsa ratione adque scientia numerorum non solum duplicari, uerum etiam multiplicari potest. Ita uero suis quisque numerus proprietatibus terminatur, ut nullus eorum par esse cuicumque alteri possit. Ergo et dispares inter se adque diuersi sunt, et singuli quique finiti sunt, et omnes infiniti sunt. Itane numeros propter infinitatem nescit omnes Deus, et usque ad quandam summam numerorum scientia Dei peruenit, ceteros ignorat? Quis hoc etiam dementissimus dixerit? Nec audebunt isti contemnere numeros et eos dicere ad Dei scientiam non pertinere, aput quos Plato Deum magna auctoritate commendat mundum numeris fabricantem. Et aput nos Deo dictum legitur: Omnia in mensura et numero et pondere disposuisti; de quo et propheta dicit: Qui profert numerose saeculum, et Saluator in euangelio: Capilli, inquit, uestri omnes numerati sunt. Absit itaque ut dubitemus, quod ei notus sit omnis numerus, cuius intellegentiae, sicut in psalmo canitur, non est numerus. Infinitas itaque numeri, quamuis infinitorum numerorum nullus sit numerus, non est tamen inconprehensibilis ei, cuius intellegentiae non est numerus. Quapropter si, quidquid scientia conprehenditur, scientis conprehensione finitur: profecto et omnis infinitas quodam ineffabili modo Deo finita est, quia scientiae ipsius inconprehensibilis non est. Quare si infinitas numerorum scientiae Dei, qua conprehenditur, esse non potest infinita: qui tandem nos sumus homunculi, qui eius scientiae limites figere praesumamus, dicentes quod, nisi eisdem circuitibus temporum eadem temporalia repetantur, non potest Deus cuncta quae facit uel praescire ut faciat, uel scire cum fecerit? cuius sapientia simpliciter multiplex et uniformiter multiformis tam inconprehensibili conprehensione omnia inconprehensibilia conprehendit, ut, quaecumque noua et dissimilia consequentia praecedentibus si semper facere uellet, inordinata et inprouisa habere non posset, nec ea prouideret ex proximo tempore, sed aeterna praescientia contineret. ### Of Worlds Without End, or Ages of Ages. [¶23] Chapter 19.—Of Worlds Without End, or Ages of Ages. > Latin: Caput XX. De saeculis saeculorum. [¶24] I do not presume to determine whether God does so, and whether these times which are called “ages of ages” are joined together in a continuous series, and succeed one another with a regulated diversity, and leave exempt from their vicissitudes only those who are freed from their misery, and abide without end in a blessed immortality; or whether these are called “ages of ages,” that we may understand that the ages remain unchangeable in God’s unwavering wisdom, and are the efficient causes, as it were, of those ages which are being spent in time. Possibly “ages” is used for “age,” so that nothing else is meant by “ages of ages” than by “age of age,” as nothing else is meant by “heavens of heavens” than by “heaven of heaven.” For God called the firmament, above which are the waters, “Heaven,” and yet the psalm says, “Let the waters that are above the heavens praise the name of the Lord.” Which of these two meanings we are to attach to “ages of ages,” or whether there is not some other and better meaning still, is a very profound question; and the subject we are at present handling presents no obstacle to our meanwhile deferring the discussion of it, whether we may be able to determine anything about it, or may only be made more cautious by its further treatment, so as to be deterred from making any rash affirmations in a matter of such obscurity. For at present we are disputing the opinion that affirms the existence of those periodic revolutions by which the same things are always recurring at intervals of time. Now whichever of these suppositions regarding the “ages of ages” be the true one, it avails nothing for the substantiating of those cycles; for whether the ages of ages be not a repetition of the same world, but different worlds succeeding one another in a regulated connection, the ransomed souls abiding in well-assured bliss without any recurrence of misery, or whether the ages of ages be the eternal causes which rule what shall be and is in time, it equally follows, that those cycles which bring round the same things have no existence; and nothing more thoroughly explodes them than the fact of the eternal life of the saints. > Latin: Quod utrum ita faciat, et continuata sibi conexione copulentur quae appellantur saecula saeculorum. alia tamen adque alia ordinata dissimilitudine procurrentia, eis dumtaxat, qui ex miseria liberantur, in sua beata inmortalitate sine fine manentibus; an ita dicantur saecula saeculorum, ut intellegantur saecula in sapientia Dei inconcussa stabilitate manentia istorum, quae cum tempore transeunt, tamquam efficientia saeculorum, definire non audeo. Fortassis enim possit dici saeculum, quae sunt saecula, ut nihil aliud perhibeatur saeculum saeculi quam saecula saeculorum, sicut nihil aliud dicitur caelum caeli quam caeli caelorum. Nam caelum Deus uocauit firmamentum super quod sunt aquae; et tamen psalmus: Et aquae, inquit, quae super caelos, laudent nomen Domini. Quid ergo istorum duorum sit, an praeter haec duo aliquid aliud de saeculis saeculorum possit intellegi, profundissima quaestio est, neque hoc quod nunc agimus inpedit, si indiscussa interim differatur; siue aliquid in ea definire ualeamus, siue nos faciat cautiores diligentior ipsa tractatio, ne in tanta obscuritate rerum adfirmare temere aliquid audeamus. Nunc enim contra opinionem disputamus, qua illi circuitus adseruntur, quibus semper eadem per interualla temporum necesse esse repeti existimantur. Quaelibet autem illarum sententiarum de saeculis saeculorum uera sit, ad hos circuitus nihil pertinet; quoniam siue saecula saeculorum sint non eadem repetita, sed alterum ex altero conexione ordinatissima procurrentia, liberatorum beatitudine sine ullo recursu miseriarum certissima permanente, siue saecula saeculorum aeterna sint temporalium tamquam dominantia subditorum, circuitus illi eadem reuoluentes locum non habent, quos maxime refellit aeterna uita sanctorum.