LatineEnglish
The Work of the First Day.1
Opus Primi Diei.
Verse 3. God said, Let there be light: And there was light.2
Vers. 3. Dixit Deus, Fiat lux: Et facta est lux.
Effectis primis mundi corporibus, indigestis tamen atque tenebrosis, lux ante alia omnia primo die a Deo apte profecto sapienterque creata est. Etenim lux est prima qualitas activa primi corporis, hoc est caeli — non intra caelum tamen contracta, sed ad omnes res corporeas effusa. Est lux generale principaleque instrumentum causarum caelestium, quo vis omnis syderum omnisque defluxus et effectus ad nos defertur, et quo uno fit in hoc nostrate mundo quicquid a caelo fit. Et massa illa elementorum et caelorum erat tenebrosa, confusa et vacua: primo die creata luce sublata est tenebrositas; secundo et tertio die confusio ab aquis et terra est remota; reliquis diebus caelum stellis, aër avibus, piscibus aqua, terra animantibus completa est. Adde quod, cum Caelum et terra inornata essent creata, decuit primum ornari Caelum, cuius duplex ornamentum est, motus et lumen; sed principalius est lumen, nam motus est propter lumen.
The first bodies of the world having been made — unsorted, however, and dark — light, before all else, was on the first day created by God, fitly indeed and wisely. For light is the first active quality of the first body, that is, of the heaven — not, however, confined within the heaven, but poured out upon all corporeal things. Light is the general and principal instrument of the celestial causes, by which all the power of the stars and all their influence and effect is conveyed to us, and by which alone whatever comes to be in this world of ours from the heaven is brought about. And that mass of the elements and heavens was dark, confused, and empty: on the first day, light being created, the darkness was removed; on the second and third days, the confusion was removed from the waters and the earth; on the remaining days, the heaven was filled with stars, the air with birds, the water with fishes, the earth with living creatures. Add to this that, since Heaven and earth had been created unadorned, it was fitting that Heaven be adorned first, whose adornment is twofold — motion and light; but light is the more principal, for motion is for the sake of light.3
Et licet hoc primo die data sit Caelo lux et motus, primo Caelo mobili, expressa tamen mentio solius fit lucis, quia haec per se nota est sensibus, vulgo etiam; motus autem non nisi doctis, et per lucem: quamvis cum dicitur hanc lucem fecisse vicissitudinem diei ac noctis, mane ac vespere, satis indicatur motus eius, sine quo ea vicissitudo constare non potest. Nec tantum lux est ornamentum colorum, sed omnium etiam corporum: per lucem (ut Basilius, Beda, et Damascenus aiunt) omnia fiunt conspicua et manifesta, non ut cernantur modo, sed ut etiam cum voluptate cernantur; per eam enim varietas, decor, et pulchritudo rerum omnium apparet.
And although on this first day light and motion were given to the Heaven — to the first mobile Heaven — yet express mention is made of light alone, because this is of itself known to the senses, even to the common people; but motion only to the learned, and through light: although, when this light is said to have made the vicissitude of day and night, of morning and evening, its motion is sufficiently indicated, without which that vicissitude cannot exist. Nor is light only the adornment of colors, but also of all bodies: through light (as Basil, Bede, and Damascene say) all things become conspicuous and manifest — not only that they may be seen, but that they may also be seen with pleasure; for through it the variety, beauty, and loveliness of all things appears.4
"In principio" (ait Damascenus libro secundo de Fide orthodoxa capite septimo) "Deus fecit lucem, id est, prima die pulchritudinem et ornamentum omnis visibilis creaturae: aufer enim lucem, et omnia in tenebris ignota manebunt, proprium non valentia demonstrare decorem." Atque hanc unam rationem cur lux creata fuerit reddit Auctor libri quarti Esdrae in capite sexto, ubi commemorans hanc ipsam Mosis de creatione lucis historiam, sic ait, "Tunc dixisti de thesauris tuis proferri lumen luminosum, quo appareret opus tuum."
"In the beginning" (says Damascene, in the second book of On the Orthodox Faith, ch. 7) "God made light, that is, on the first day, the beauty and adornment of all visible creation: for take away light, and all things will remain unknown in darkness, unable to show their proper comeliness." And this one reason why light was created the Author of the fourth book of Ezra gives, in ch. 6, where, recalling this very history of Moses about the creation of light, he says thus, "Then thou didst command that a shining light be brought forth from thy treasures, that thy work might appear."5
Hunc etiam principatum loci in describendo sex dierum opere promeruit lucis praestantia: nihil enim ea est in rebus corporatis praestantius; et eorum quae sub aspectum cadunt, nihil est vel ad aspectum iucundius, vel ad hilarandos animos laetius, vel ad usum commodius, vel ad effectum potentius et foecundius, vel ad mundi decorem et ornamentum pulchrius, vel ad percipiendam rerum omnium (praesertim autem caelestium) cognitionem aptius, vel denique ad exprimendas et repraesentandas res spirituales et divinas accommodatius. Quo factum est ut tam in sacris litteris quam ab iis qui res divinas tractarunt, saepenumero et nomen et similitudo lucis ad explicandas res sacras usurpetur. Lege Dionysium capite quarto primae partis eius libri qui est de Divinis nominibus, et caput decimum quintum libri de caelesti Hierarchia, in quo recensentur ad quatuor et triginta proprietates lucis et ignis, Deo divinisque rebus mirifice congruentes.
This precedence of place in describing the work of the six days the excellence of light also merited: for nothing among corporeal things is more excellent than it; and of the things that fall under sight, there is nothing either more pleasant to behold, or more gladdening to cheer the spirits, or more convenient for use, or more powerful and fruitful in effect, or more beautiful for the world's adornment, or more apt for perceiving the knowledge of all things (especially of the celestial ones), or finally more suited for expressing and representing spiritual and divine things. Whence it came about that, both in the sacred writings and by those who have treated of divine matters, the name and likeness of light is very often used to explain sacred things. Read Dionysius, in chapter 4 of the first part of his book On the Divine Names, and chapter 15 of the book On the Celestial Hierarchy, in which are reckoned up some thirty-four properties of light and fire, wondrously congruent with God and divine things.6
Porro cum mundi constructio per sex dies continuanda, et sexto demum die consumanda esset, quis non videt primo die creari lucem debuisse, sine qua dierum et noctium nec ratio, nec distinctio, nec vicissitudo constare potest? Ob has igitur causas lucem primo die effici conveniebat. Quare, sicut magnificam domum designanti (utar enim similitudine Ambrosii) in primis curae est lumen, scilicet ut ipsum quam commodissime et largissime domus accipiat: ita Deus huic quod moliebatur amplissimo pulcherrimoque mundi palatio, ante alia lucem, ut opus erat, providentissime comparavit. Vide apud Hugonem libro primo de Sacramentis, partis primae capite septimo, aliam quandam rationem quare Deus opera sex dierum a creatione lucis exordiri voluit — pulchram sane, sed tropologicam tamen potius quam historicam; quamobrem nos eam hoc loco brevitatis causa...
Furthermore, since the construction of the world was to be continued through six days, and at last completed on the sixth day, who does not see that light had to be created on the first day, without which neither the account, nor the distinction, nor the vicissitude of days and nights can stand? For these reasons, then, it was fitting that light be made on the first day. Wherefore, just as for one designing a magnificent house (for I shall use Ambrose's simile) the first care is the light — namely, that the house may receive it as conveniently and abundantly as possible — so God, for this most ample and beautiful palace of the world that he was building, before all else most providently provided light, as was needful. See in Hugh [of St. Victor], in the first book On the Sacraments, part 1, chapter 7, a certain other reason why God wished to begin the works of the six days from the creation of light — a beautiful reason, indeed, but tropological (moral) rather than historical; wherefore we, for the sake of brevity, in this place...7
...causa taciti praetermisimus.
...we have, for a particular reason, passed over in silence.8
Sed cur inducitur a Mose Deus creans lucem dicendo, “Dixit Deus, Fiat lux: Et facta est lux”? Respondeo, phrasi Hebraica “dicere” idem significare quod iubere, decernere, statuere, et velle efficaciter ut aliquid fiat: sic etiam verbum Dei significat imperium, decretum, et voluntatem eius efficacem. Dixit igitur, “Fiat lux”, hoc est, iussit, statuit, et voluit efficaciter ut lux fieret; deinde inducitur Deus solo verbo et imperio efficiens lucem, ut appareat incomparabilis eius auctoritas et potestas in res omnes, tam quae sunt quam quae non sunt. Ipse enim, ut Paulus ait ad Romanos, “Vocat ea quae non sunt tanquam ea quae sunt”, et omnia obediunt ei.
But why is God introduced by Moses as creating light by saying, “God said, Let there be light: And there was light”? I answer that in the Hebrew idiom “to say” means the same as to command, to decree, to ordain, and to will effectually that something should come to be; so too the word of God signifies his command, his decree, and his effectual will. He said, therefore, “Let there be light” — that is, he commanded, ordained, and effectually willed that light should come to be; and then God is introduced as producing light by his word and command alone, so that his incomparable authority and power over all things might appear, both over those that exist and those that do not. For he himself, as Paul says to the Romans, “calls the things that are not as though they were,” and all things obey him.9
Praeterea, ut innotescat quanta Deus celeritate et facilitate quodcumque vult perficere valeat: namque infinitis partibus facilius est Deo facere quodcumque fuerit ei collibitum, quam est homini verbo id explicare vel cogitatione fingere. Recte igitur Paulus ad Hebraeos primo ait Deum “portare omnia verbo virtutis suae.” Ad hoc, ut palam fiat quam sit potens et efficax Dei voluntas: “Omnia,” inquit David, “quaecumque voluit, fecit in Caelo et in terra, in mari, et in omnibus abyssis”; et in libro Sapientiae de Deo scriptum est, “Subest tibi, cum volueris, posse”; et in Apocalypsi, “Tu Domine creasti omnia, et propter voluntatem tuam erant et creata sunt.”
Furthermore, [Moses speaks thus] so that it may be known with how great speed and ease God is able to accomplish whatever he wills: for it is infinitely easier for God to make whatever pleases him than it is for a man to express it in words or to frame it in thought. Rightly, then, Paul says in the first chapter to the Hebrews that God “upholds all things by the word of his power.” Besides, that it may be plain how powerful and effectual God’s will is: “All things whatsoever he willed,” says David, “he made in Heaven and on earth, in the sea, and in all the deeps”; and in the book of Wisdom it is written of God, “It is in thy power, whensoever thou wilt, to be able”; and in the Apocalypse, “Thou, O Lord, hast created all things, and for thy will they were and have been created.”10
His accedit, ut intelligatur Deum non esse velut agens naturale, necessitate quadam et sine cognitione faciens opus suum, sed ratione, consilio et libera voluntate lucem totumque mundum condidisse: dicere enim et iubere eorum est tantummodo qui ad agendum et rationem et consilium adhibent.
To this is added, that it may be understood that God is not like a natural agent, producing his work by some necessity and without knowledge, but that he founded light and the whole world by reason, deliberation, and free will: for to speak and to command belong only to those who bring both reason and deliberation to their acting.11
Ad extremum, ut sic insinuetur secunda persona sanctissimae Trinitatis, quae est Verbum aeternum: nam si Deus dicendo fecit lucem et mundum, ergo per Verbum suum fecit; ut verissime dictum sit a Davide, “Verbo Domini caeli firmati sunt,” et a Ioanne, “Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil”; in libro quoque Sapientiae capite nono sic est, “Tu, Deus, qui fecisti omnia Verbo tuo.”
Lastly, [Moses speaks thus] so that the second person of the most holy Trinity, who is the eternal Word, may thereby be intimated: for if God made light and the world by speaking, then he made them through his Word; so that it was most truly said by David, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were established,” and by John, “All things were made through him, and without him was made nothing”; in the book of Wisdom too, chapter nine, it stands thus, “Thou, O God, who hast made all things by thy Word.”12
Theodoretus, in libro quaestionum super Genesim, ponit hanc quaestionem numero nonam: Cuinam “Dixit Deus, Fiat lux”? Et respondet ita: “Non praecepit Deus alteri cuidam creare, sed quae non sunt vocat: ita ut hic praeceptum sit ipsa voluntas. Omnia enim,” ait David, “quaecumque voluit, Deus fecit. Quod si creando voce quadam usus est, certum est hoc non elementorum inanimatorum causa, sed invisibilium virtutum gratia factum esse, ut sciant quod, ipso iubente, ea quae non sunt subsistant.” Sic Theodoretus.
Theodoret, in his book of Questions on Genesis, sets this down as the ninth question: To whom did God say “Let there be light”? And he answers thus: “God did not command some other to create, but he calls the things that are not: so that here the command is the will itself. For all things whatsoever he willed,” says David, “God has made. And if in creating he used a kind of voice, it is certain that this was done not for the sake of the inanimate elements, but for the sake of the invisible powers [the angels], that they might know that, at his command, the things that are not come to subsist.” So Theodoret.13
Ad hanc lucis creationem post tenebras spectavit Paulus, cum in posterioris Epistolae ad Corinthios capite quarto ait, “Deus qui dixit de tenebris lucem splendescere,” etc.; et ad Hebraeos 11, “Fide intelligimus aptata esse saecula verbo Dei, ut ex invisibilibus visibilia fierent.”
To this creation of light after darkness Paul looked when, in the fourth chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians, he says, “God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness,” etc.; and in Hebrews 11, “By faith we understand that the ages were framed by the word of God, that from invisible things visible things might be made.”14
Sed vetus et gravis controversia est inter Theologos qualisnam fuerit lux illa primo die condita; utrum spiritualis an corporalis? Nam cum in Scriptura appelletur Deus lux, et dicatur habitare lucem inacces[sibilem]...
But there is an old and weighty controversy among the theologians as to what sort that light was which was created on the first day: whether it was spiritual or corporeal. For since in Scripture God is called light, and is said to dwell in light inacces[sible]...15
...inaccessibilem; cumque Christus dixit Apostolis, “Vos estis lux mundi,” et Paulus fidelibus scripsit, “Eratis aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in Domino”; non dubium est quin praedictis locis nomen lucis spiritualiter intelligendum sit.
...inaccessible; and since Christ said to the Apostles, “You are the light of the world,” and Paul wrote to the faithful, “You were once darkness, but now light in the Lord”; there is no doubt that in these passages the name of light is to be understood spiritually.16
Primam igitur videamus quid ea de re senserit Augustinus. Is libro 11 de Civitate Dei capite septimo ponit in dubio utrum lux illa fuerit corporalis an spiritualis: ita enim scribit, “Qualis illa sit lux, et quo alternante motu qualemque vesperam et mane fecerit, remotum est a sensibus nostris, nec ita ut est intelligi a nobis potest. Aut enim aliqua lux corporea est, sive in superioribus mundi partibus longe a conspectibus nostris, sive unde Sol postmodum accensus est; aut lucis nomine significata est sancta civitas in sanctis Angelis et Spiritibus beatis. Fit tamen et vespera diei huius, et mane aliquatenus, quoniam scientia creaturae, in comparatione scientiae creatoris, quodammodo vesperascit; itemque lucescit et mane fit, cum et ipsa refertur ad laudem dilectionemque creatoris: nec in noctem vergitur, ubi non Creator creatura dilectione relinquitur. Cognitio quippe creaturae in seipsa decoloratior est, ut ita dicam, quam cum in Dei sapientia cognoscitur, velut in arte qua facta est.”
First, then, let us see what Augustine thought on this matter. In book 11 of the City of God, chapter seven, he leaves it in doubt whether that light was corporeal or spiritual; for he writes thus: “What that light is, and by what alternating motion, and what kind of evening and morning it made, is remote from our senses, and cannot be understood by us as it really is. For either it is some corporeal light, whether in the upper parts of the world far from our sight, or in the region from which the Sun was afterward kindled; or by the name of light is signified the holy city in the holy Angels and blessed Spirits. Yet there comes to be an evening of this day, and in some measure a morning, since the knowledge of the creature, compared with the knowledge of the Creator, in a manner grows toward evening; and again it grows light and morning comes, when that knowledge too is referred to the praise and love of the Creator; nor does it sink into night, where the creature is not abandoned by the leaving off of the love of the Creator. For the knowledge of the creature in itself is, so to speak, more faded than when it is known in the wisdom of God, as in the art by which it was made.”17
Haec Augustinus illo loco dubitanter dixit. At paulo infra, capite nono eiusdem libri, probabilius censet nomine caeli, quod in principio creatum est, significatam esse a Mose naturam angelicam; nomine autem lucis die primo creatae insinuari confirmationem et consummationem Angelorum in gratia; per divisionem autem lucis et tenebrarum indicari segregationem malorum Angelorum a bonorum consortio. Hoc ut probet, ad hunc modum argumentatur Augustinus. “Moses,” inquit, “in principio creatum esse Caelum et terram [scripsit], ergo antehac nihil erat creatum. Idem Moses postea scripsit Deum septimo die requievisse a cunctis operibus quae fecerat. Porro Angelos esse Dei opera nefas est dubitare, cum et in Hymno trium puerorum et in Psalmo 148 scriptum sit, ‘Laudate Deum omnes Angeli eius, laudate eum omnes virtutes eius,’ et postea subiicitur, ‘Quoniam ipse dixit et facta sunt, ipse mandavit et creata sunt.’ Ex his concluditur Angelos esse factos intra unum aliquem illorum sex dierum. Et quidem factos esse ante quartum diem, quo sydera omnia sunt condita, liquet ex illis Domini verbis quae sunt apud Iob capite 38, secundum translationem 70 Interpretum, ‘Quando facta sunt sydera, laudaverunt me voce magna Angeli mei.’ Nec tertio aut secundo die factos esse existimandum est: in promptu est enim quid factum sit illis diebus, nempe tertio die separata est aqua a terra, et terra produxit herbas et stirpes; die autem secundo factum est firmamentum, disterminans aquas quae supra firmamentum sunt ab iis quae sunt infra firmamentum. Relinquitur igitur creationem Angelorum, si ad istorum operum dierum referenda est, pertinere ad opus primi diei, quo lux facta est.” Haec ibi Augustinus.
These things Augustine said in that place hesitantly. But a little further on, in the ninth chapter of the same book, he judges it more probable that by the name of “heaven,” which was created in the beginning, Moses signified the angelic nature; and that by the name of the “light” created on the first day is intimated the confirmation and consummation of the Angels in grace; and that by the division of light and darkness is indicated the separation of the evil Angels from the fellowship of the good. To prove this, Augustine argues in this way: “Moses,” he says, “[wrote] that in the beginning Heaven and earth were created; therefore before this nothing was created. The same Moses afterward wrote that God rested on the seventh day from all the works which he had made. Now that the Angels are works of God it is impious to doubt, since both in the Hymn of the Three Children and in Psalm 148 it is written, ‘Praise God all his Angels, praise him all his hosts,’ and afterward it is added, ‘For he spoke and they were made, he commanded and they were created.’ From these things it is concluded that the Angels were made within some one of those six days. And indeed that they were made before the fourth day, on which all the stars were founded, is clear from those words of the Lord in Job, chapter 38, according to the translation of the Seventy: ‘When the stars were made, my Angels praised me with a loud voice.’ Nor is it to be thought that they were made on the third or second day: for it is plain what was made on those days — namely, on the third day the water was separated from the land, and the land brought forth herbs and plants; and on the second day was made the firmament, dividing the waters that are above the firmament from those that are below it. It remains, therefore, that the creation of the Angels, if it is to be referred to the work of these days, belongs to the work of the first day, on which light was made.” These are Augustine’s words there.18
Idemque confirmat libro primo super Genesim ad litteram capite tertio, et libro duodecimo Confessionum capite nono et decimosexto. Hoc ipsum tradit Eucherius in commentario super hunc locum. Rupertus vero in primo libro de Trinitate et operibus eius, capite 10, non modo ita sentit, sed etiam argumento probare [conatur]...
And he confirms the same in the first book of the Literal Commentary on Genesis, chapter three, and in the twelfth book of the Confessions, chapters nine and sixteen. Eucherius hands down this very same thing in his commentary on this passage. But Rupert, in the first book On the Trinity and Its Works, chapter 10, not only holds this view but even [tries] to prove it by argument...19
...probare conatur non fuisse lucem illam corpoream: “Non conveniebat,” inquit, “primum Dei opus esse ceteris ignobilius: lux autem illa si corporalis fuit, quid aliud fuit quam accidentaria quaedam aëris illuminatio? Namque astra omnia postea quarto die formata sunt, tum necesse fuit illam lucem non diutius quam primo triduo durasse, factoque sole et ceteris astris prorsus evanuisse. Quis autem in animum suum inducat credere, in molitione mundi primum Dei opus fuisse ignobilissimum, in triduo duntaxat duraturum, in hoc factum ut mox aboleretur?” Sic Rupertus.
...he tries to prove that that light was not corporeal: “It was not fitting,” he says, “that the first work of God should be more ignoble than the rest; but if that light was corporeal, what else was it than a kind of accidental illumination of the air? For since all the stars were afterward formed on the fourth day, that light must then have lasted no longer than the first three days, and, once the sun and the other stars were made, have vanished entirely. But who would bring himself to believe that, in the building of the world, the first work of God was the most ignoble — destined to last a mere three days, made only to be presently abolished?” So Rupert.20
Verumtamen communis fere Patrum tam Graecorum quam Latinorum, et prope omnium Theologorum sententia est, lucem illam fuisse corporalem et sensibilem: quin etiam probarunt hanc sententiam Beda et Magister sententiarum, ceteroqui doctrinae Augustini studiosissimi et acerrimi defensores. Eandem quoque Ecclesia videtur amplexata in Hymno qui canitur ad Vesperas diei Dominici, in quo Deum ob creationem primigeniae lucis ad hunc modum laudat:
Nevertheless, the common opinion of almost all the Fathers, both Greek and Latin, and of nearly all the theologians, is that that light was corporeal and sensible: indeed Bede and the Master of the Sentences [Peter Lombard] approved this opinion, though otherwise most zealous and keen defenders of Augustine’s teaching. The Church too seems to have embraced the same in the hymn that is sung at Vespers on the Lord’s Day, in which she praises God for the creation of the first-born light in this manner:21
O best Creator of the light, / bringing forth the light of days, / with the first beginnings of new light / preparing the world’s origin; / who biddest that the day be called / when morning is joined to evening.22
Lucis creator optime, / Lucem dierum proferens, / Primordiis lucis novae / Mundi parans originem; / Qui mane iunctum vesperi / Diem vocari praecipis.
Sanctus Bonaventura in secundo Sententiarum, distinctione 13, supradictam opinionem Augustini aliquot rationibus, non sane invalidis, confutat. Primum, inquit, ante creationem illius lucis Moses dicit fuisse tenebras super faciem abyssi, haud dubie corporales tenebras; ad quarum expulsionem, cum lux primo die creata fuerit, eam fuisse corporalem necesse est. Deinde per illam lucem distincti sunt tres priores dies, qui solis et astrorum creationem praecesserunt; sed illi tres fuerunt sensibiles, non minus profecto quam reliqui tres post creatum solem: ergo prima illa lux fuit etiam corporalis et sensibilis. Ad hoc, satis apparet interpretationem Augustini sententiae verborum Mosis nequaquam inhaerere et congruere, nec esse, ut vocant, litteralem, sed ad mysticum et allegoricum sensum pertinere: quippe qui illis vocibus “lux,” “tenebrae,” “dies,” “vesper,” et “mane,” a propria et usitata earum significatione ad figuratam et mysticam translatis, utitur; cum tamen non semel supra dictum et inculcatum sit hanc Mosis narrationem esse historicam, ob idque secundum propriam et communem vocum significationem et usum interpretandam. His adde illud argumentum: si primo die et Angeli facti sunt, et boni a malis separati, illis glorificatis, his vero damnatis, efficeretur simul et nulla interiecta mora factos esse Angelos, eorumque alios cecidisse, alios stetisse, et illos damnatos, hos vero beatificatos; praesertim autem cum Augustinus putet quae hic narrantur facta per sex dies, ea omnia simul unoque temporis momento esse facta.
Saint Bonaventure, in the second book of the Sentences, distinction 13, refutes the aforesaid opinion of Augustine by several arguments, which are by no means weak. First, he says, before the creation of that light Moses says there was darkness upon the face of the deep — beyond doubt corporeal darkness; and since light was created on the first day for the expulsion of it, it must needs have been corporeal. Next, by that light the first three days were marked off, which preceded the creation of the sun and the stars; but those three days were sensible, no less surely than the remaining three after the sun was made: therefore that first light too was corporeal and sensible. Besides, it is plain enough that Augustine’s interpretation in no way cleaves to and agrees with the meaning of Moses’ words, and is not, as they say, literal, but pertains to a mystical and allegorical sense; inasmuch as he uses those words “light,” “darkness,” “day,” “evening,” and “morning” transferred from their proper and customary signification to a figurative and mystical one — whereas it has more than once been said above and pressed home that this narrative of Moses is historical, and for that reason is to be interpreted according to the proper and common signification and use of the words. Add to these this argument: if on the first day both the Angels were made, and the good separated from the evil, the former glorified and the latter damned, it would follow that at one and the same instant, with no interval intervening, the Angels were made, and that some of them fell and others stood firm, and that the former were damned and the latter beatified — especially since Augustine holds that the things here narrated as done through six days were all done together in one single moment of time.23
Ad rationes contrarias in promptu est respondere. Etenim licet [Angeli sint Dei opera]...
To the contrary arguments it is easy to reply. For although [the Angels are works of God]...24
...licet Angeli sint Dei opera, hic tamen a Mose eorum creatio non est commemorata, propter multas et satis idoneas rationes a nobis infra proferendas, cum de creatione Angelorum separatim et proprie disputabimus. Dicitur autem Deus septimo die requievisse ab omnibus operibus suis, nempe ab operibus mundi sensibilis ante expositis, et quorum effectio distincte fuerat enarrata. Caelum autem fuisse in principio creatum significat fuisse recens factum, et ab aliquo principio temporis; vel fuisse factum ante alia omnia, non quidem simpliciter, sed ante omnia quae deinceps per sex dies condita memorantur. Nec vero fuit prima lux, ut putat Rupertus, accidentaria tantum aëris illuminatio, nec ea post triduum evanuit. Verum hoc mox proprie et accurate tractabitur.
...although the Angels are works of God, yet their creation is not here recorded by Moses, for many and sufficiently fitting reasons that we shall bring forward below, when we treat separately and properly of the creation of the Angels. And God is said to have rested on the seventh day from all his works — namely, from the works of the sensible world expounded above, and whose making had been distinctly recounted. That “heaven was created in the beginning” signifies that it was newly made, and from some beginning of time; or that it was made before all other things — not indeed absolutely, but before all the things that are recorded as founded thereafter through the six days. Nor indeed was the first light, as Rupert supposes, merely an accidental illumination of the air, nor did it vanish after three days. But this will presently be treated properly and accurately.25
Hugo, libri primi de Sacramentis parte 1 capite decimo, existimat Angelos simul esse creatos cum Caelo et terra; et per illam moram, qua terra fuit inanis, vacua et tenebrosa, usque ad creationem lucis, fuisse eos in via ad merendum vel demerendum. Prima die, cum facta est lux et a tenebris divisa, bonos Angelos esse in bono confirmatos, malos autem obfirmatos in malo et a bonis segregatos; et ita quod agebatur in mundo sensibili imago erat eorum quae in mundo intelligibili agebantur. Quae Hugonis imaginatio et coniectura mihi quidem maiorem in modum placet et probatur. Vide Aegidium in Hexaëmeron capite 16 primae partis.
Hugh, in the first book On the Sacraments, part 1, chapter ten, holds that the Angels were created together with Heaven and earth; and that through that interval, in which the earth was void, empty, and dark, up to the creation of light, they were on the way to meriting or demeriting. On the first day, when light was made and divided from the darkness, the good Angels were confirmed in good, while the evil were hardened in evil and separated from the good; and thus what took place in the sensible world was an image of what was taking place in the intelligible world. This imagining and conjecture of Hugh’s pleases and commends itself to me in a high degree. See Giles [of Rome] on the Hexaëmeron, chapter 16 of the first part.26
Damascenus videtur existimasse lucem illam fuisse elementum ignis: sic enim in capite septimo libri secundi de Fide orthodoxa scribit: “Ignis, unum quatuor elementorum, existit ceterorum levissimum et ocissime sursum emicans, adustivum et illuminativum, prima die a rerum opifice conditum: inquit enim divina Scriptura, ‘Et dixit Deus, Fiat lux: Et facta est lux’; neque enim aliud est ignis quam lux, ut quidam aiunt.” Hactenus Damascenus. Cuius sententia, ne falsa videatur, sic est interpretanda: ut nomine ignis significare voluerit omne corpus lucens, ex se lumen fundens caloremque producens. Plato quidem in Timaeo, et Aristoteles in libris Topicorum, tres faciunt species ignis: aiunt enim quendam esse ignem caelestem, qui est lux syderum, plus lucens quam calefaciens; alterum esse ignem aëreum, ut est flamma, aeque lucens atque calefaciens; tertium esse ignem terreum et densum, qualis est carbo, vel ferrum candens et accensum, quod nimirum parum lucet, sed vehementer urit. Idem significat Hugo in annotationibus in Genesim capite sexto. Et videtur hoc sumptum ex Gregorio Nysseno in homilia super Hexaëmeron, ubi ait ignem qui latebat in terra, Dei potentia exiluisse et subvolasse in supremam mundi oram, indeque mundo claritatem lucemque impertivisse. At enim lux primo die facta permansit postea, et permanet etiamnum, non autem nunc luce ignis illuminatur mundus: quin cum elementum ignis totam terram et aquam aëremque circundet undique, to[tum orbem]...
Damascene seems to have thought that that light was the element of fire; for he writes thus in the seventh chapter of the second book On the Orthodox Faith: “Fire, one of the four elements, is the lightest of the rest and the swiftest to dart upward, burning and illuminating, made on the first day by the Maker of things: for the divine Scripture says, ‘And God said, Let there be light: And there was light’; for fire is nothing else than light, as some say.” Thus far Damascene. His opinion, lest it seem false, must be interpreted thus: that by the name of fire he meant to signify every luminous body, pouring forth light of itself and producing heat. Plato indeed in the Timaeus, and Aristotle in the books of the Topics, make three species of fire: for they say that there is a certain celestial fire, which is the light of the stars, giving more light than heat; that a second is the aerial fire, such as flame, giving light and heat alike; and that a third is the earthy and dense fire, such as a coal, or iron glowing and kindled, which gives little light but burns vehemently. Hugh signifies the same in his annotations on Genesis, chapter six. And this seems to be taken from Gregory of Nyssa in his homily on the Hexaëmeron, where he says that the fire which lay hidden in the earth, by the power of God, leapt forth and flew up to the highest border of the world, and from there imparted brightness and light to the world. But indeed the light made on the first day remained afterward and remains even now, whereas the world is not now illuminated by the light of fire: rather, since the element of fire surrounds the whole earth and water and air on every side, the whole [orb]...27
...tum orbem semper illuminaret, nec usquam sineret ullo tempore esse tenebras, nullaque esset diei et noctis vicissitudo: cumque ignis in suo loco non luceat, non esset id factum secundum naturam, nec sine miraculo. Alienum est hoc loco in quaestionem vocare sit lux corpus necne, sit forma substantialis an accidentalis, quas quaestiones erudite tractat Beatus Thomas prima parte, quaestione sexagesima septima. B. Bonaventura in secundum sententiarum, distinctione decima tertia, articulo secundo, quaestione secunda, censet lucem, quae inhaeret in corpore lucente, formam esse eius substantialem; fulgorem autem et lumen, quod inde dimanat et diffunditur ad alia corpora, esse accidens. Sed eam opinionem merito refellit Sanctus Thomas prima parte, quaestione sexagesima tertia, articulo tertio, et Scotus in secundo Sententia[rum], distinctione decima tertia.
...it would always illuminate the whole orb, and would never at any time allow there to be darkness, and there would be no alternation of day and night; and since fire does not give light in its own place, this would not have come about according to nature, nor without a miracle. It is beside the point here to raise the question whether light is a body or not, whether it is a substantial form or an accidental one — questions that Blessed Thomas treats learnedly in the First Part, question sixty-seven. Bonaventure, on the second book of the Sentences, distinction thirteen, article two, question two, holds that the light which inheres in a luminous body is its substantial form, while the brightness and illumination that flow and are diffused from it to other bodies is an accident. But Saint Thomas rightly refutes that opinion in the First Part, question sixty-three, article three, as does Scotus on the second book of the Sentences, distinction thirteen.28
Non est silentio praetereundum quod Theodoretus tradit in quaestionibus super Genesim, quaestione septima: videtur enim sentire lucem esse substantiam quandam per se subsistentem. Verba eius sic habent: “Lumen substantia est, et subsistit: et cum occidit rursus oritur, et cum abierit revertitur. Quemadmodum enim corpus nostrum est substantia, umbra vero quam facit accidens est, non substantia: ita lux substantia est, tenebra autem minime.” Sed proculdubio Theodoretus nomine substantiae non aliud significare voluit quam rem solidam, et (ut in scholis Philosophorum et Theologorum appellatur) ens reale positivum: opponit enim lumen tenebris, quas negat esse substantiam, hoc est rem quampiam existentem, sed nudam modo luminis privationem. Verum deinceps quaenam res fuerit prima illa lux disquirere oportet.
Nor should what Theodoret hands down in his Questions on Genesis, question seven, be passed over in silence: for he seems to think that light is a kind of substance subsisting of itself. His words run thus: “Light is a substance, and subsists: and when it sets it rises again, and when it has gone away it returns. For just as our body is a substance, while the shadow it casts is an accident, not a substance, so light is a substance, but darkness by no means.” But without doubt Theodoret meant by the name of “substance” nothing else than a solid thing — what in the schools of the Philosophers and Theologians is called a positive real being (ens reale positivum); for he opposes light to darkness, which he denies to be a substance, that is, any existing thing, but merely a bare privation of light. But it is now time to inquire what that first light actually was.29
Ambrosius Catharinus in commentario huius loci affirmat lucem primo die creatam non aliam fuisse quam lucem solis perfectam aeque ac nunc est: cuius perfectionis et pulchritudinis magnum esse argumentum, quod eam Deus ipse suo iudicio et sententia comprobavit. “Vidit enim Deus,” inquit Scriptura, “Lucem quod esset bona.” Cum autem non sit alia lux distinguens noctes atque dies nisi lux solis, nec tres dies posteriores diversae conditionis fuerint quam tres priores, sed omnium illorum sex dierum par sit ratio et origo: profecto cogit nos ipsa ratio non aliam fuisse primi diei lucem quam Solis arbitrari. Itaque Catharinus existimat primo die factum esse solem cum suo orbe, unaque sex reliquos planetarum orbes esse factos, eodemque die simul esse conditum primum mobile, quod putat ipse nonum esse Caelum; neque enim Sol diem et noctem motu proprio, sed motu raptuque primi mobilis circumactus efficit. Illo etiam primo die censet factam esse terram, ut quae opacitate sua dies noctesque constituat, ut in Timaeo tradit Plato. Tunc etiam aërem et ignem creatum putat, quippe cum sint corpora media per quae lumina caelestia ad terram transmittuntur. Quare totus prope mundus visibilis, secundum [partes quas vocant integrales]...
Ambrosius Catharinus, in his commentary on this passage, affirms that the light created on the first day was none other than the light of the sun, as perfect as it is now: and that a great proof of its perfection and beauty is that God himself approved it by his own judgment and verdict. “For God saw,” says Scripture, “the Light, that it was good.” And since there is no other light distinguishing nights and days except the light of the sun, nor were the latter three days of a different condition than the first three, but the reckoning and origin of all those six days is alike: reason itself surely compels us to judge that the light of the first day was none other than that of the Sun. And so Catharinus holds that on the first day the sun was made with its sphere, and along with it the six remaining spheres of the planets, and that on the same day the prime mobile was at once founded — which he supposes to be the ninth Heaven; for the Sun produces day and night not by its own motion, but as it is whirled round by the motion and sweep of the prime mobile. On that first day too he judges that the earth was made, since by its opacity it constitutes days and nights, as Plato teaches in the Timaeus. And then too he supposes that air and fire were created, inasmuch as they are intermediate bodies through which the heavenly lights are transmitted to the earth. So that almost the whole visible world, according to [the parts they call integral]...30
...secundum partes quas vocant integrales, hoc est caelos et elementa excepto firmamento seu octava sphaera secundo die condita, est a Deo primo die fabricatus. Cur igitur Moses quarto die solis et lunae omniumque syderum creationem commemorat? Respondet revera solem reliquosque planetas primo die esse factos: sed quia die quarto stellae inerrantes sunt conditae, per recapitulationem Moses mentionem tunc fecit insigniorum astrorum, ut simul ostenderet perfectum et omnibus numeris absolutum caeli ornatum. Atque haec est opinio Catharini.
...according to the parts they call integral — that is, the heavens and the elements, except the firmament or eighth sphere founded on the second day — was fashioned by God on the first day. Why then does Moses record the creation of the sun and moon and all the stars on the fourth day? He answers that in truth the sun and the rest of the planets were made on the first day; but because the fixed stars were founded on the fourth day, Moses then, by way of recapitulation, made mention of the more notable heavenly bodies, so as to display at the same time the adornment of the heaven complete and finished in every respect. And this is the opinion of Catharinus.31
Quae mihi quidem certe multis de causis videtur reprobanda, nec absimilis figmento. Etenim terram et aquam ante primam diem et lucis creationem in obscuritate et tenebris esse facta Mose narrante liquido cognovimus: “In principio,” inquit, “creavit Deus caelum et terram: Terra autem erat inanis et vacua, et tenebrae erant super faciem abyssi, et Spiritus Domini ferebatur super aquas.” Nam quod Catharinus per terram et aquam interpretatus est materiam primam, supra confutavimus. Deinde, quale est fecisse Deum simul primum mobile et septem orbes planetarum, relicto intermedio spatio penitus vacuo, in quo postero die formandum erat firmamentum seu octavum caelum? Vacuum enim horret natura, fugitque bona mundi partium dispositio omniumque corporum continuata series atque connexio. Ad haec, qui potuit sol tanto intervallo vacuo inter primum caelum et orbes planetarum interiecto, motu primi mobilis cieri? Non enim proprio motu, sed raptu primi caeli circumactus sol dies et noctes efficit: nam movens et mobile debent esse simul; nec potuit motus primi mobilis, per vacuum tantum quantum scilicet est omne spatium quod tenet octava sphaera, pertinere ad orbem solis. Quid quod divina Scriptura apertis verbis docet principale opus quartae diei fuisse solis et lunae creationem? Iisdem enim verbis inducitur Deus uti quarto die in fabricando solem et lunam, quibus in aliarum rerum effectione superioribus tribus diebus usus fuerat.
But this opinion seems to me, for many reasons, to deserve rejection, and to be not unlike a fiction. For we have plainly learned, on Moses' own narration, that earth and water were made before the first day and before the creation of light, in obscurity and darkness: “In the beginning,” he says, “God created heaven and earth: but the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Lord was borne over the waters.” For Catharinus's interpretation of “earth and water” as prime matter we have refuted above. Next, what kind of thing is it to say that God made at once the prime mobile and the seven spheres of the planets, leaving an intervening space wholly empty, in which on the following day the firmament or eighth heaven was to be formed? For nature abhors a vacuum, and the good arrangement of the world's parts and the continuous series and connection of all bodies shrinks from it. Besides, how could the sun, with so great an empty interval set between the first heaven and the spheres of the planets, be moved by the motion of the prime mobile? For the sun produces days and nights not by its own motion, but as it is whirled round by the sweep of the first heaven: for mover and moved must be together; nor could the motion of the prime mobile reach the sphere of the sun across so great a void — namely, the whole space occupied by the eighth sphere. And what of the fact that divine Scripture in plain words teaches that the principal work of the fourth day was the creation of the sun and moon? For God is introduced as using, on the fourth day in fashioning the sun and moon, the very same words he had used in the making of other things on the three preceding days.32
Sed persequamur aliorum sententias. Beda in suo Hexameron, Hugo de sancto Victore libro primo de Sacramentis, Magister sententia[rum] libro 2 et ibidem Bonaventura, aliique complures scholastici, Nicolaus quoque de Lyra et Tostatus in Commentariis suis super hunc locum Geneseos, arbitrantur primam illam lucem non fuisse solem, sed corpus quoddam lucidum ad similitudinem densae lucentisque nubis in superiore parte mundi, videlicet in qua postea Sol est positus, quod, circum densiorem materiae partem quae medium mundi locum circumplectebatur in orbem conversum, dierum et noctium vicissitudines efficiebat. Erat autem lux illa perquam tenuis et languida atque imperfecta: talis nimirum, ut inquit Beda, qualis est lux solis in aurora, priusquam Sol appareat supra nostrum horizontem, non habens vim calefaciendi, nedum vivificandi. Ex illo [autem corpore lucido]...
But let us pursue the opinions of others. Bede in his Hexaëmeron, Hugh of St. Victor in the first book On the Sacraments, the Master of the Sentences in book 2 and Bonaventure on the same place, and several other scholastics — Nicholas of Lyra too, and Tostatus in their commentaries on this passage of Genesis — judge that that first light was not the sun, but a certain luminous body, like a dense and shining cloud in the upper part of the world (namely, in the region where the Sun was afterward placed), which, revolving in a circle about the denser portion of matter that enclosed the middle place of the world, produced the alternations of days and nights. But that light was exceedingly thin, faint, and imperfect: such, indeed, as Bede says, as is the light of the sun at dawn, before the Sun appears above our horizon — having no power to give heat, much less to give life. From that [luminous body]...33
...autem corpore lucido postea quarto die formatus est Sol, amplioris praestantiorisque lucis additione. Hanc sententiam esse falsam beatus Thomas prima parte quaestione sexagesima septima articulo ultimo ad hunc modum argumentatur: “Aut illa nubes lucida facto sole evanuit — atqui non est credibile primum Dei opus statim interiisse, praesertim ceterorum dierum operibus permanentibus; aut mansit separata et per se cohaerens — verum hoc non apparet, et facto sole nubes illa plane supervacua fuisset; aut mansit adiuncta et cohaerens soli — sed quid illa adiunctione opus erat soli, tantam per se lucis copiam et ad perfecte illuminandum mundum sufficientem habenti? Restat ut illud dicatur (et vero id censent eius opinionis auctores) ex illa nube formatum esse solem.” Sed hoc Thomas valde absurdum iudicat: cum enim Sol sit corpus incorruptibile, non potuit eius materia fuisse sub alia forma; alioqui materia illa capax esset multarum formarum, ob idque in potentia contradictionis; in quo autem ea potentia est, id nullo modo esse incorruptibile multis locis confirmat Aristoteles. Ceterum hanc Thomae argumentationem non valde formidarent adversarii, quin facillime repellerent: responderent enim nubem illam lucidam fuisse non ex materia elementari, sed caelesti, quae facta sit Sol non per mutationem substantialem, sed per diversam illius materiae condensationem atque figurationem, et uberioris, nobilioris ac efficacioris lucis accessionem.
...luminous body the Sun was afterward formed on the fourth day, by the addition of an ampler and more excellent light. Blessed Thomas, in the First Part, question sixty-seven, the last article, argues that this opinion is false in this way: “Either that luminous cloud vanished once the sun was made — but it is not credible that the first work of God perished at once, especially while the works of the other days remained; or it stayed separate and self-cohering — but this does not appear, and once the sun was made that cloud would have been plainly superfluous; or it stayed joined and cohering to the sun — but what need had the sun of that adjunction, having of itself so great a store of light, sufficient to illuminate the world perfectly? It remains, then, to say (and indeed the authors of this opinion do hold it) that the sun was formed out of that cloud.” But Thomas judges this very absurd: for since the Sun is an incorruptible body, its matter could not have existed under another form; otherwise that matter would be capable of many forms, and therefore in a potency of contradiction; and that whatever is in such a potency is in no way incorruptible Aristotle confirms in many places. Yet his opponents would not much fear this argument of Thomas's, but would very easily repel it: for they would answer that that luminous cloud was not of elemental, but of celestial matter, which became the Sun not through a substantial change, but through a different condensation and configuration of that matter, and the accession of a richer, nobler, and more efficacious light.34
Basilius homilia in Genesim sexta tradit primo die creatam esse lucem per se et immaterialem; quarto autem die factum esse corpus solis tanquam eius vehiculum, cui insita et impressa est. Sed forte gratius erit lectori verba ipsa Basilii cognoscere: “Primo die,” inquit, “ipsa natura lucis producta est: quarto autem die solis corpus, ut esset illi primogenitae luci vehiculum, est conditum. Nam, ut alia diversaque sunt et non eadem ignis atque lucerna — et ignis quidem illuminandi vim obtinet, lucerna autem idcirco facta est ut moderatam lucem subministret egentibus — sic et illi purissimae, sincerae immaterialique luci, ceu vehiculum, nunc luminaria sunt extructa. Ut enim Apostolus quosdam asserit fuisse luminaria in mundo, cum interim alia sit vera lux mundi, cuius participatione sancti animarum facti sunt luminaria, quas erudiebant, eas eximentes ignorantiae tenebris: ad eundem quoque modum vel nunc, post conditam lucem illam micatissimam, hunc solem, quem creavit ipse opifex, ad illustrandum mundi ambitum sua luce perfudit. Atqui incredibile nemini videatur et a fide abhorrens quod dictum a me est, aliud nimirum quiddam esse a luce splendorem, aliud item corpus subsidens luci ac subiectum. Primum enim res omnes compositae sic a nobis dividi solent: in ipsam essentiam susceptricem, et in eam quae ipsi accidit qualitatem. Ut igitur diversa sunt haec natura, albedo inquam et corpus dealbatum, sic et ea quae modo diximus differunt quidem, unita tamen sunt potentia Creatoris. Itaque ne mihi dixeris fieri haec non posse, ut lux a corpore Solis separetur. Neque enim ego lucis a Solis corpore separationem mihi ac tibi possibilem esse dico, sed asserendum esse censeo quae mentis sola agitatione...
Basil, in his sixth homily on Genesis, hands down that on the first day light was created of itself and immaterial; but that on the fourth day the body of the sun was made as its vehicle, into which it was set and impressed. But it will perhaps be more agreeable to the reader to learn Basil's own words: “On the first day,” he says, “the very nature of light was produced; but on the fourth day the body of the sun was founded, to be a vehicle for that first-born light. For just as fire and a lamp are different things and not the same — fire possessing the power of illuminating, while a lamp is made for this purpose, to furnish a measured light to those in need — so too for that purest, sincere, and immaterial light the luminaries have now been built up, as a vehicle. For just as the Apostle asserts that certain men were lights in the world, while meanwhile there is another, the true light of the world, by participation in which the saints became lights of souls, whom they instructed, drawing them out of the darkness of ignorance: in the same way too, even now, after the creation of that most sparkling light, He flooded with its light this sun, which the Maker himself created, to illuminate the compass of the world. And let it seem to no one incredible or repugnant to faith, what I have said — namely, that splendor is one thing distinct from light, and the body underlying light and subject to it another. For all composite things are wont to be divided by us thus: into the receiving essence itself, and into the quality that befalls it. As, then, these are diverse in nature — whiteness, I mean, and the whitened body — so too the things we have just spoken of do indeed differ, yet are united by the power of the Creator. Therefore do not tell me that these things cannot come to pass, that light should be separated from the body of the Sun. For I do not say that the separation of light from the Sun's body is possible for me and for you; but I judge it must be asserted that the things which, by the sole activity of the mind...35
...agitatione cogitationeque disparari a se possunt, ea re ipsa seiungi facultate Creatoris utriusque naturae posse. Nam et ignis vim ustivam ab eius splendore tu quidem ipse separare minime vales: Deus autem, volens famulum suum reddere sibi attentiorem, illo admirabili spectaculo in rubum ignem splendore solum agentem, otiosam autem flagrandi urendique facultatem habentem, immisit, ut et Psaltes testatur dicens, ‘Vox Domini intercidentis flammam ignis.’ Unde arcana quadam doctrina nos docet, cum pro iis quae in vita gessimus mercedes nobis retribuentur, naturam ignis in hac distributum iri: lux sane iustis in perennem et peramoenam fruitionem cedet, e diverso autem supplicio addicendis seorsum attribuetur vis ustiva. Ad haec, ex Lunae affectibus eorum quae in quaestione posuimus invenire possumus fidem. Deficiens enim deliquio Luna, decrementaque suscipiens, non corpore toto absumitur, sed lumen quod accesserat ipsa deponens iterumque assumens, speciem nobis incrementi decrementique exhibet. Enimvero Lunae corpus haud absumi, cum in deliquio est, argumento dilucido sunt ea quae cernimus. Licet enim tibi, liquido in aëre atque omni nebula liberata, cum potissimum in cornua Luna curvatur, partem ipsius obscuram lumineque carentem tanta orbis sui curvatura circumscribi conspicere, quanta totum splendorem, cum sinuatur in orbem, obit: ut, aspectu sinu obscurum aëris aemulum ad eam referente parte qua lucet, integer totusque orbis perspicue videatur. Et noli mihi proferre lucem adventitiam esse Lunae, propterea quod imminuitur quidem cum solem versus motu cietur, accrescit autem cum ab eodem digreditur: non enim hoc in praesenti nobis investigandum proponitur, sed illud, aliud esse Lunae corpus, aliud lucem ipsius qua lucet.” Huc usque sanctus Basilius.
...activity and thought can be set apart from one another, can, in actual fact, be sundered by the power of the Creator of both natures. For you yourself are by no means able to separate the burning power of fire from its splendor; yet God, wishing to make his servant more attentive to himself, sent upon him, by that wonderful spectacle, a fire in the bush acting by its splendor alone, but holding its capacity to blaze and burn idle — as the Psalmist too testifies, saying, ‘The voice of the Lord that divideth the flame of fire.’ Whence by a certain hidden teaching he instructs us that, when rewards shall be rendered to us for the things we have done in life, the nature of fire will be apportioned in this way: light will assuredly fall to the just for a perpetual and most pleasant enjoyment, while, on the other side, the burning power will be assigned separately to those condemned to punishment. Besides, from the behavior of the Moon we can find confirmation of the things we have set down in our question. For the Moon, failing in eclipse and undergoing diminutions, is not consumed in its whole body, but, laying aside and again taking up the light that had accrued to it, exhibits to us the appearance of increase and decrease. And indeed that the Moon's body is not consumed when it is in eclipse, the things we observe are a clear proof. For you may, in clear air freed from all mist, when above all the Moon is curved into horns, behold the dark part of it, lacking light, circumscribed by just so great a curvature of its orb as the full splendor covers when it rounds into a circle: so that, while the dark side (a rival of the air) is referred by sight to that part which shines, the whole entire orb is plainly seen. And do not allege to me that the Moon's light is adventitious because it is indeed diminished when it is moved toward the sun, and grows when it departs from it: for this is not what is presently proposed for our inquiry, but that other thing — that the Moon's body is one thing, and the light by which it shines another.” Thus far Saint Basil.36
Qui si (ut prae se fert) sensit lucem, quae est accidens, ab omni materia separatam esse a Deo primo die creatam, maximum profecto inducit miraculum, et nunquam alias factum, praeterquam in unico Eucharistiae Sacramento: in prima vero rerum effectione, institutione et dispositione ad miracula confugere, praesertim cum illis minime sit opus, nec placet Augustino, nec mihi probatur. Quod si Basilius existimavit primam illam lucem fuisse factam in aliqua materia, quae postea Soli sit adiecta, vel ex qua Sol formatus fuerit, non discrepat ab opinione Bedae paulo superius exposita. Simile quiddam Basilio, vel potius idem, significat Gregorius Nazianzenus in Oratione de novo die Dominico.
Now if he meant (as he seems to profess) that light, which is an accident, separated from all matter, was created by God on the first day, he assuredly introduces a very great miracle, and one never wrought elsewhere except in the single Sacrament of the Eucharist: but in the first making, institution, and ordering of things to have recourse to miracles — especially when there is no need of them at all — neither pleases Augustine nor commends itself to me. But if Basil supposed that that first light was made in some matter, which was afterward added to the Sun, or out of which the Sun was formed, then he does not disagree with the opinion of Bede set out a little above. Something similar to Basil's view, or rather the same, Gregory Nazianzen signifies in his Oration on the New Lord's Day [Low Sunday].37
Theodoretus in quaestionibus super Genesim quaestione decima quarta et decima sexta docet primo die factam esse universam lucem splendidissimam, et quam, simul confertam, nec hominum nec animalium visus potuisset sustinere; quamobrem quarto die fuisse eam in Solem et Lunam ceteraque sydera dispertitam, ut ita et animalium oculis esset accommodatior, et ad rerum sublunarium generationem et conservationem commodior. Verum si iam omnes Caeli ab initio creati fuerant, quomodo illa lux una numero inseri potuit tot et tam diversis Caelis? Non enim potest unum numero accidens ex uno subiecto transferri in alia, cum accidens omnino pendeat a subiecto; nec possit explicari qualis fuerit [mutatio]...
Theodoret, in his Questions on Genesis, questions fourteen and sixteen, teaches that on the first day there was made one universal, most splendid light, which, gathered all together, neither the sight of men nor of animals could have endured; for which reason, on the fourth day, it was distributed into the Sun and the Moon and the other stars, so as to be both better suited to the eyes of animals and more serviceable for the generation and conservation of sublunary things. But if all the Heavens had already been created from the beginning, how could that light, one in number, be inserted into so many and so diverse Heavens? For one numerical accident cannot be transferred from one subject into others, since an accident depends entirely on its subject; nor could it be explained what sort of [change]...38
...mutatio illa lucis, translatio et distributio: nec est recurrendum ad omnipotentiam Dei et ad miracula, quibus in creatione mundi, cum Deus rerum naturas condidit et naturalem eorum ordinem legesque constituit, locum dare non oportet; quemadmodum supra in principio huius commentationis in secunda regula ex beato Augustino probavimus. His adiiciam sententiam Augustini ex undecimo capite primi libri de Genesi ad litteram: quamquam eo loco Augustinus magis dubitanter loquitur quam affirmate quicquam decernit, ad hunc autem modum scribit: “Ut quid ergo factus est sol in potestatem diei, qui luceret super terram, si lux illa primo die facta diei faciendo suffecerat, qua dies etiam vocata est? An illa prior lux regiones superiores a terra longinquas illustrabat, ut sentiri non posset in terris, atque ita oportebat solem fieri, per quem dies inferioribus mundi partibus appareret? Potest et hoc dici, auctum esse fulgorem diei, sole addito, ut per illam lucem, minus fulgens dies quam nunc est, fuisse credatur.” Sic Augustinus.
...that change, transference, and distribution of light; nor must we have recourse to the omnipotence of God and to miracles, to which, in the creation of the world — when God founded the natures of things and established their natural order and laws — no place should be given, as we proved above at the beginning of this commentary, in the second rule, out of blessed Augustine. To these things I will add the opinion of Augustine from the eleventh chapter of the first book of the Literal Commentary on Genesis — though in that place Augustine speaks more hesitantly than he decides anything by assertion. He writes in this manner: “Why, then, was the sun made for the rule of the day, to shine upon the earth, if that light made on the first day had sufficed for making the day, by which it was even called day? Or did that earlier light illuminate the upper regions far from the earth, so that it could not be perceived on earth — and so the sun had to be made, through which the day might appear in the lower parts of the world? It can also be said that the brightness of the day was increased once the sun was added, so that it may be believed that, by that [first] light, the day shone less brightly than it now does.” So Augustine.39
Mihi praeter ceteras probatur eorum sententia qui censent primam illam lucem non aliam fuisse quam lucem solis, sed primo quidem die velut informem et imperfectam esse factam, quarto autem die fuisse absolutam et consummatam: quam sententiam eo proniori assensu amplector, quod eam Dionysio Areopagitae placuisse video. Is enim in quarto capite primae partis eius libri qui est de Divinis nominibus ita scribit: “Lux est mensura et numerus horarum, dierum, totiusque labentis temporis. Ipsa est enim ea lux (etsi tunc erat informis, quod et divinus Moses ait) quae primam distinxit et diffinivit dierum nostrorum Trinitatem.” Dionysium secutus est Sanctus Thomas, prima parte, quaestione sexagesima septima, articulo quarto, et quaestione septuagesima, articulo primo, et Dionysius Carthusianus super primum caput Geneseos articulo nono.
For my part, beyond all the rest I approve the opinion of those who hold that that first light was none other than the light of the sun, but that on the first day it was made, as it were, unformed and imperfect, while on the fourth day it was finished and consummated: and I embrace this opinion with the readier assent because I see that it pleased Dionysius the Areopagite. For he writes thus in the fourth chapter of the first part of his book On the Divine Names: “Light is the measure and number of the hours, the days, and of all the passing time. For it is that very light (although it was then unformed, as the divine Moses too says) which first distinguished and defined the Trinity of our days.” Saint Thomas followed Dionysius, in the First Part, question sixty-seven, article four, and question seventy, article one; and Dionysius the Carthusian, on the first chapter of Genesis, article nine.40
Duo autem in hac sententia nos docere et probare oportet: et lucem illam fuisse lucem solis, et fuisse tamen primo triduo imperfectam, quarto autem die absolutionem et perfectionem ei accessisse: utrumque breviter expediam. Fuisse illam primam lucem eandem quae est lux solis non dubiis colligitur argumentis. Etenim in principio creavit Deus Caelum et terram et aquam in statu imperfecto et inornato; deinde per sex dies eadem corpora disposuit, ornavit, et suis ea velut incolis complevit. Ratio autem et ordo naturae poscebat ut primo ornaret Caelum tanquam nobilissimum et principale mundi corpus: Caeli autem ornamentum vel solum vel maximum est lux; fuit igitur prima illa lux caelestis; nec alia quaelibet lux, nisi caelestis, efficere potuisset sine miraculo quod primam illam lucem praestitisse narrat Moses: quod si non fuisset lux caelestis, vel utique fuisset elementum ignis, vel nubes lucida, vel aliud eorum quae paulo ante refutata sunt; fuit igitur proculdubio caelestis. At quaenam alia lux quam solis esse poterat ornamentum Caeli, et quae Dei sententia tanquam bona et pulchra [comprobaretur]...
Now in this opinion we must teach and prove two things: both that that light was the light of the sun, and that nevertheless it was imperfect for the first three days, while on the fourth day its completion and perfection accrued to it. I will dispatch both briefly. That that first light was the same as the light of the sun is gathered by no doubtful arguments. For in the beginning God created Heaven and earth and water in an imperfect and unadorned state; then through the six days he arranged, adorned, and filled those same bodies, as it were, with their own inhabitants. But reason and the order of nature demanded that he should first adorn the Heaven, as the noblest and chief body of the world: and the adornment of the Heaven is either solely or chiefly light; therefore that first light was celestial. Nor could any other light but a celestial one have accomplished, without a miracle, what Moses relates that first light accomplished: for if it had not been a celestial light, it would surely have been either the element of fire, or a luminous cloud, or some other of the things refuted a little before; therefore it was without doubt celestial. But what other light than the sun's could have been the adornment of the Heaven, and could have been [approved] by God's verdict as good and beautiful...41
...pulchra comprobaretur? Postea, cum Sol esset futurus prima et generalissima causa generationis et conservationis rerum omnium sublunarium, conveniebat eius lucem, unde pendet illius vis et efficientia, primo die creari. Deinde nomen lucis absolute positum designare solet lucem solis, quae propter suam copiam et pulchritudinem et efficacitatem simpliciter solet lux appellari: saepenumero enim Scriptura divina lucis nomen usurpat pro luce solis, velut Esaiae capite sexagesimo: “Non erit,” inquit, “tibi amplius Sol ad lucendum per diem.” Pro “ad lucendum” Hebraice est לאור Laor, hoc est ad lucem; nam etiam lux primo die facta hic vocatur אור Or. Et Hieremias capite quarto: “Aspexi terram, et ecce vacua erat et nihil; et Caelos, et non erat lux in eis.” Nec in sacris litteris modo, sed etiam in Latino et vulgari sermone frequens est lucem simpliciter ponere pro luce solis, vel pro die qui fit a sole: sic dicitur “Hodierna luce,” et “Nondum illuxit.”
...approved as beautiful? Moreover, since the Sun was to be the first and most general cause of the generation and conservation of all sublunary things, it was fitting that its light, on which its power and efficacy depend, be created on the first day. Again, the name of “light” used absolutely usually designates the light of the sun, which, on account of its abundance, beauty, and efficacy, is wont to be called simply “light”: for very often divine Scripture uses the name of light for the light of the sun, as in Isaiah, chapter sixty: “The Sun,” it says, “shall no more be to thee for light by day.” For “for light” in Hebrew is לאור (Laor), that is, “for light”; for the light made on the first day is here too called אור (Or). And Jeremiah, chapter four: “I beheld the earth, and lo, it was void and empty; and the heavens, and there was no light in them.” And not only in the sacred writings, but also in Latin and common speech it is frequent to put “light” simply for the light of the sun, or for the day that comes from the sun: thus we say, “by today's light,” and “it has not yet grown light.”42
Ad haec, munus separandi lucem a tenebris et distinguendi diem et noctem, quod hic tribuitur primogenitae luci, idem postea quarto die assignatur soli, ut nullus ambigat non aliam fuisse primam illam lucem quam solis. Etenim illa prima lux mansit postea, sicut cetera Dei opera illis sex diebus facta; ergo mansit manetque etiamnum vis eius lucis effectusque, pellere ex mundo tenebras, distinguere diem et noctem, facere vespere ac mane; atqui haec ipsa facit nunc lux solis, ergo etiam tunc faciebat. Atque huic opinioni mire congruit nomen huius primi diei antiquissimo gentium more usurpatum usuque tritum: dictus est enim Dies Solis. Siquidem septimus ab hoc dies, in quo Deus requievit ab operibus suis, fuit dies ab Ethnicis Saturni, a Iudaeis Sabbathi nominatus: ut propterea fortasse dies solis appellatus sit, quod is dies creatione solis decoratus ac nobilitatus fuerit.
Besides, the office of separating light from darkness and of distinguishing day and night, which is here attributed to the first-born light, is afterward assigned, on the fourth day, to the sun — so that no one may doubt that that first light was none other than the sun's. For that first light remained afterward, like the other works of God made in those six days; therefore the power and effect of that light remained and remains even now — to drive darkness from the world, to distinguish day and night, to make evening and morning; but these very things the sun's light now does; therefore it did them then too. And with this opinion the name of this first day, used by the most ancient custom of the nations and worn smooth by use, wonderfully agrees: for it was called the Day of the Sun [Sunday]. Since the seventh day from this one, on which God rested from his works, was named by the pagans the day of Saturn, and by the Jews the Sabbath — so that this first day was perhaps called the day of the sun because it was adorned and ennobled by the creation of the sun.43
Ad extremum, qui aliam faciunt lucem quam solis multis et propemodum inexplicabilibus difficultatibus tenentur impediti et implicati: sive dicant illam lucem post primum triduum evanuisse, sive ex illa formatum esse solem; utrumvis enim dicatur, nec pauca nec levia consequuntur incommoda, quorum haec nostra opinio nullum patitur. Nec mirum cuiquam accidat cur Moses primi diei lucem solis nomine non appellaverit: nam nec quarto die ponitur nomen proprium Solis, quod est Hebraice שמש Semesh, sed appellatur vocabulo luminaris; dicitur enim fecisse Deus duo luminaria magna, quae vocantur Hebraice מאור Maor, voce ducta a luce, quae Hebraeis dicitur אור Or, quasi sic dicta sint quod contineant et praebeant lucem. Maluit autem Moses appellare lucem et luminare quam nominare Solem: tum ut indicaret finem et usum solis esse lucere et illuminare terram; tum ut intelligeretur ex luce accidere soli omnem quam habet vim et pulchritudinem et efficientiam, et quem inter caelestia sydera obtinet dignitatis principatum.
Finally, those who make the light something other than the sun's are held entangled and ensnared by many and well-nigh inexplicable difficulties: whether they say that that light vanished after the first three days, or that the sun was formed out of it; for either way one says it, no few nor slight inconveniences follow, of which this opinion of ours suffers none. Nor should it seem strange to anyone why Moses did not call the light of the first day by the name of the sun: for not even on the fourth day is the proper name of the Sun set down — which in Hebrew is שמש (Semesh) — but it is called by the word “luminary”; for God is said to have made two great luminaries, which in Hebrew are called מאור (Maor), a word derived from “light,” which in Hebrew is said אור (Or), as if they were so called because they contain and furnish light. And Moses preferred to call it “light” and “luminary” rather than to name it “Sun”: both to indicate that the end and use of the sun is to shine and illuminate the earth; and that it might be understood that all the power, beauty, and efficacy the sun has, and the primacy of dignity it holds among the heavenly stars, accrue to it from light.44
Deinceps sequitur ut doceamus qualis quantaque accessio quarto die sit facta. Hanc accessionem breviter exponit beatus Thomas prima parte quaestione sexagesima septima articulo quarto, ad hunc fere modum: “Dicendum est, secundum Dionysium, primam illam lucem fuisse lucem Solis; tunc enim iam fuit Sol secundum substantiam, habens lucem informem, hoc est quae habebat vim illuminandi in communi: sed postea quarto die data est ei specialis et determinata virtus ad particulares effectus.” Et infra quaestione septuagesima articulo primo idem repetens ait, “primo die fuisse productam lucem secundum communem lucis naturam; quarto vero die tributam esse luminaribus determinatam virtutem ad determinatos effectus, secundum quod videmus alios effectus habere radium Solis et alios radium Lunae, et sic de aliis. Et propter hanc determinationem virtutis dixit Dionysius quarto capite de Divinis nominibus lumen solis, quod in principio erat informe, quarto die fuisse formatum.” Haec Sanctus Thomas.
It follows next that we should teach what sort, and how great, the accession was that was made on the fourth day. This accession blessed Thomas briefly sets out in the First Part, question sixty-seven, article four, more or less in this way: “It must be said, according to Dionysius, that that first light was the light of the Sun; for then the Sun already existed in its substance, possessing an unformed light — that is, a light which had the power of illuminating in general: but afterward, on the fourth day, there was given to it a special and determinate power directed to particular effects.” And further on, in question seventy, article one, repeating the same, he says: “On the first day light was produced according to the common nature of light; but on the fourth day a determinate power was bestowed on the luminaries for determinate effects, according as we see the ray of the Sun to have some effects, and the ray of the Moon others, and so of the rest. And on account of this determination of power, Dionysius said, in the fourth chapter of On the Divine Names, that the light of the sun, which in the beginning was unformed, was on the fourth day formed.” These are Saint Thomas's words.45
Quibus addi posset quarto die accessisse soli eam quam postea habuit magnitudinem, figuram, et pulchritudinem: non enim primo die globus solis usquequaque accensus est, sed aliquatenus tantum; quarto autem die totus est splendidissima luce completus, peculiares item vires et influxus, maiorem quoque copiam lucis, applicationemque ad ipsum proprii motoris, qui proprio solis motu eum circumageret. Ad haec, numerosissimum comitatum aliorum syderum et planetarum, quorum motus, ut Astronomi tradunt, secundum motum solis disponi et dirigi videntur. Quarto die coepit Sol dare signa et praebere praesagia futurarum tempestatum et effectuum naturalium; tunc incepit quadripartita variatio anni, hoc est Hyemis, Veris, Aestatis, Autumni; tunc coepit dissimilitudo et inaequalitas dierum, nam primi tres dies fuerant omnino aequales et uniformes; tunc denique accessit dependentia Lunae a Sole: nam pro vario Lunae congressu cum Sole vel ab eo digressu varie lumen eius commutatur; varius quoque Solis cum reliquis planetis concursus et coitio varios parit influxus et effectus. Sed de hac quaestione satis dictum sit.
To these things it could be added that on the fourth day there accrued to the sun the magnitude, figure, and beauty it had afterward: for not on the first day was the globe of the sun kindled through and through, but only in part; whereas on the fourth day the whole was filled with most splendid light. Likewise [there accrued to it] its peculiar powers and influences, a greater store of light too, and the application to it of its own proper mover, which by the sun's own motion would whirl it round. Besides, [there accrued] the most numerous retinue of the other stars and planets, whose motions, as the Astronomers hand down, seem to be arranged and directed according to the motion of the sun. On the fourth day the Sun began to give signs and to furnish presages of coming weather and natural effects; then began the fourfold variation of the year — that is, of Winter, Spring, Summer, Autumn; then began the dissimilarity and inequality of days (for the first three days had been wholly equal and uniform); then at last came the dependence of the Moon on the Sun: for, according to the Moon's varying approach to or departure from the Sun, its light is variously changed; and the varying concurrence and conjunction of the Sun with the other planets begets varied influences and effects. But on this question let enough have been said.46
And he divided the light from the darkness; and he called the light Day, and the darkness Night.47
Divisit lucem a tenebris, appellavitque lucem diem, et tenebras noctem.
Duae quaestiones existunt hoc loco. Prior quaestio est qua ratione prima illa lux toto illo triduo diem et noctem distincte fecerit. Basilius et Damascenus censent id esse factum non propter motum illius lucis in orbem circum terram, sicut nunc fit per motum solis, sed per emissionem et contractionem radiorum, non quidem naturali illius lucis vi facultateque, sed Dei omnipotentia: similiter, ut factum in Aegypto quidam putant, cum, plaga nona illata, totum triduum Aegyptiis, ubicunque locorum Aegypti essent, lux solis non est visa, quae tamen Hebraeis, qui erant in terra Gessen, aliisque hominibus extra Aegyptum commorantibus clarissime fulgebat. Verba Basilii in secunda homilia super Genesim sic habent: “Tunc (id est primo illo triduo) diei cedenti nox vicissim succedebat, non quidem secundum motionem solis, sed primigenia illa luce suum splendorem diffundente seque rursum contrahente, idque pro mensura a Deo definita.” Damascenus autem libro secundo de Fide orthodoxa capite septimo ita scribit: “In tribus primis diebus, refuso et contracto lumine, divino praecepto dies et nox fiebat.”
Two questions arise in this place. The first question is by what means that first light, through that whole three days, distinctly made day and night. Basil and Damascene hold that this was done not by the motion of that light in a circle about the earth, as it now happens by the motion of the sun, but by the emission and contraction of its rays — not indeed by any natural power and faculty of that light, but by the omnipotence of God: just as some think happened in Egypt when, the ninth plague being sent, for three whole days the light of the sun was not seen by the Egyptians, wherever in Egypt they were, while it nonetheless shone most brightly for the Hebrews, who were in the land of Goshen, and for other men dwelling outside Egypt. The words of Basil in his second homily on Genesis run thus: “Then (that is, in that first three days) night succeeded in turn to the departing day, not indeed according to the motion of the sun, but as that first-born light diffused its splendor and again contracted itself, and that by a measure defined by God.” And Damascene, in the second book On the Orthodox Faith, chapter seven, writes thus: “In the first three days, by the pouring forth and contraction of the light, by divine command day and night came to be.”48
Hanc opinionem refert Augustinus, nec probat tamen, in primo libro super Genesim ad litteram, in cuius capite undecimo sic ait: “Non est credendum primam illam lucem fuisse extinctam, ut nocturnae tenebrae succederent, et rursus accensam, ut mane fieret, antequam hoc solis officio gereretur, quod a quarto die coepisse fieri eadem Scriptura testatur.” Sic ibi. Infra vero in eiusdem libri capite decimo sexto haec scribit: “Nullum occurrit exemplum, quo istam emissionem contractionemque lucis, ut diei noctisque vicissitudines fierent, probare possumus.” Tantum Augustinus. Beda autem supradictam Basilii sententiam in suo Hexameron refellit tanquam Scripturae contrariam, quippe quae hoc loco doceat lucem illam non modo fecisse diem et noctem, sed etiam mane et vesperam: atqui si per emissionem radiorum factus esset dies, et per eorundem contractionem nox, profecto non fuisset vespera et mane, quae accretionem et diminutionem lucis propter motum corporis illuminantis necessario habent, sed fuisset statim et dies clarissimus et nox omnino tenebrosa. Beatus Thomas loco proxime citato eandem opinionem confutat eo argumento, quod prima illa lux non potuisset id facere quod asserit Basilius sine maximo miraculo: in prima autem institutione naturae et rerum omnium dispositione non est confugiendum ad miracula, praesertim cum alius modus et facilior et naturae congruentior, ob idque probabilior, reperiri queat, quo lux illa diem et noctem, mane et vespere facere potuerit; modus enim ille Basilii prorsus extraordi[narius]...
This opinion Augustine reports, yet does not approve, in the first book of the Literal Commentary on Genesis, in whose eleventh chapter he says thus: “It is not to be believed that that first light was extinguished, so that nocturnal darkness might succeed, and again rekindled, so that morning might come, before this was performed by the office of the sun, which the same Scripture testifies began to be done from the fourth day.” So there. But further on, in the sixteenth chapter of the same book, he writes this: “No example occurs to us by which we can prove that emission and contraction of light, whereby the alternations of day and night came to be.” Thus far Augustine. Bede, moreover, refutes the aforesaid opinion of Basil in his Hexaëmeron as contrary to Scripture — inasmuch as Scripture in this place teaches that that light made not only day and night, but also morning and evening: but if day were made by the emission of rays, and night by the contraction of the same, then surely there would not have been evening and morning, which necessarily involve the increase and diminution of light owing to the motion of the illuminating body, but there would at once have been both a most clear day and a wholly dark night. Blessed Thomas, in the place just cited, refutes the same opinion by this argument: that that first light could not have done what Basil asserts without a very great miracle; and in the first institution of nature and the ordering of all things one must not have recourse to miracles, especially when another way — both easier and more agreeable to nature, and on that account more probable — can be found, by which that light could have made day and night, morning and evening. For that way of Basil's is altogether extraordi[nary]...49
...narius, et nunquam postea usitatus fuit. Beda vero, et quicunque lucem illam putarunt fuisse nubem quandam longe lateque lucentem, ad similitudinem eius columnae quae Hebraeis in deserto per quadraginta annos — interdiu nubis, noctu autem ignis speciem gerens — index et dux itineris fuit, censent eam nubem primo illo triduo circumactam fuisse ab Angelo circum rudem illam et indigestam massam terrae et aquae, vel, ut aliis placet, circa materiam corpoream informem, quae sua crassitudine et densitate medium mundi locum obsidens idonea erat ad opacandum et obumbrandum, ex quo facta est illius tridui noctium et dierum distinctio. Nobis autem, omnibusque arbitrantibus lucem illam non fuisse aliam quam Solis — qui, proprium motum nondum habens, solo primi caeli raptu ab ortu volvebatur ad occasum, viginti quatuor horis universum orbem circumlustrans, dies noctesque omnino aequales et uniformes faciebat — in promptu est docere quemadmodum lux illa diem et noctem, mane et vesperam efficeret: videlicet, non secus quam nunc eam facere videmus.
...ordinary, and was never afterward in use. But Bede, and whoever supposed that light to have been a certain cloud shining far and wide, after the likeness of that pillar which for forty years was a guide and leader of the journey to the Hebrews in the desert — by day bearing the appearance of cloud, by night of fire — hold that that cloud was, in that first three days, carried round by an Angel about that rude and undigested mass of earth and water, or, as others prefer, about the unformed corporeal matter, which by its thickness and density, occupying the middle place of the world, was fit to shade and overshadow, whence arose the distinction of nights and days in that three-day span. But for us, and for all who judge that light to have been none other than the Sun's — which, not yet having its own proper motion, was rolled from east to west by the sweep of the first heaven alone, traversing the whole orb in twenty-four hours and making days and nights wholly equal and uniform — it is easy to show how that light produced day and night, morning and evening: namely, not otherwise than we now see it do.50
Posterior quaestio est, in quo caeli loco lux illa fuerit cum primum apparuit: num in oriente, an potius in meridie, vel in occasu? Sanctus Bonaventura in secundo Sententiarum, distinctione decima tertia, articulo primo, quaestione secunda, duas ea de re commemorat sententias. Priorem assignat Bedae: lucem illam fuisse creatam in meridie. Tum quod illa lux primo fecit vesperam, deinde mane, ut ait Scriptura (prius igitur a meridie tendebat ad occasum quam vel iret ad ortum, vel ab ortu iret ad meridiem); tum etiam quod, cum Dei opera sint perfecta, existimandum est talem fuisse a Deo lucem creatam ut statim perfecte mundum illuminare posset, id autem fit potius in meridie quam in ortu. Licet autem quodlibet caeli punctum in quo Sol est, respectu diversarum terrae partium, sit oriens et occidens et meridies, faciatque vesperam et mane: attamen respectu eius terrae ubi homo formatus habitaturus erat, et ubi futurus erat paradisus, et prima hominum etiam post peccatum habitatio, dicitur fuisse lux illa in meridie cum primum condita terris apparuit.
The later question is: in what place of the heaven was that light when it first appeared — in the east, or rather at the meridian [noon], or in the west? Saint Bonaventure, on the second book of the Sentences, distinction thirteen, article one, question two, records two opinions on the matter. The first he assigns to Bede: that that light was created at the meridian. Both because that light first made evening, then morning, as Scripture says (it tended, therefore, from the meridian toward the west before it either went to the east, or from the east went to the meridian); and also because, since God's works are perfect, it must be thought that the light was so created by God that it could at once illuminate the world perfectly — and this happens rather at the meridian than at the rising. But although any point of the heaven in which the Sun is, with respect to the different parts of the earth, is east and west and meridian, and makes evening and morning: nevertheless, with respect to that land where the formed man was to dwell, and where Paradise was to be, and the first dwelling of men even after sin, that light is said to have been at the meridian when it first appeared, created upon the earth.51
Si opponas a meridie usque ad mane proxime sequens non esse spatium viginti quatuor horarum, ob idque non fuisse primum diem integrum, qualem fuisse eum aperte ostendit Scriptura dicens, “Factum est vespere et mane dies unus”: respondent huius opinionis defensores sex illas horas praecedentes creationem lucis, mensuratas per aquae et spiritus motionem atque agitationem (quo tempore fuit tenebrosa illa mundi constitutio), adiiciendas esse primo diei. Illae enim sex horae tantum temporis occuparunt quantum sol consumpsisset ab ortu usque ad meridiem; erant enim primi illi dies aequinoctiales, quorum dies artificiales sunt duodecim horarum, totidemque constant noctes. Cum igitur a meridie usque ad mane sequens fuerint decem et octo horae — sex nimirum [a meridie ad occasum]...
If you object that from the meridian to the next following morning there is not a span of twenty-four hours, and therefore that the first day was not whole — which Scripture plainly shows it to have been, saying, “And there was evening and morning, one day” — the defenders of this opinion answer that those six hours preceding the creation of light, measured by the motion and agitation of the water and the spirit (during which time that dark constitution of the world lasted), are to be added to the first day. For those six hours occupied just as much time as the sun would have consumed from rising to the meridian; for those first days were equinoctial, whose artificial days are of twelve hours, and the nights consist of just as many. Since, then, from the meridian to the following morning there were eighteen hours — six, namely, [from the meridian to sunset]...52
...nimirum a meridie ad occasum, et ab occasu usque ad mane duodecim, quas nox continebat, adiicias sex alias horas tenebrarum, reperies plenum numerum viginti quatuor horarum. Sed videtur huic opinioni adversari quod ait Moses illam lucem fecisse vesperam et mane, et hac ratione unum diem integrum confecisse; in illis autem sex primis horis tenebrarum ante creationem lucis nec vespera fuit nec mane (utrumque enim denotat lucem, licet imperfectam, hoc est aut augescentem aut decrescentem). Deinde primus dies proculdubio similis fuit ceterorum dierum consequentium, et simili ratione mane et vesperam habens — par enim est ratio omnium sex dierum, et in eorum omnium commemoratione iisdem verbis Moses utitur: atqui praedictae opinionis auctores necesse est dicere primum diem ceterorum dierum fuisse dissimillimum. Nec sane videtur in hac sententia fuisse Beda, siquidem in Hexameron aperte significat creatam fuisse lucem in oriente, et fecisse integrum diem artificialem duodecim horarum et naturalem viginti quatuor. Bedam, Hugo libro primo de Sacramentis partis primae capite vicesimonono, et magister sententiarum distinctione decima tertia libro secundo, secuti sunt. Aegidius tamen in prima parte sui Hexameron capite 16 affirmat primam lucem creatam esse in meridie, ideoque prius fecisse vesperam quam mane.
...namely, from the meridian to sunset, and from sunset to morning twelve, which the night contained — if you add six other hours of darkness, you will find the full number of twenty-four hours. But it seems to tell against this opinion that Moses says that light made evening and morning, and in this way completed one whole day; whereas in those first six hours of darkness before the creation of light there was neither evening nor morning (for each of these denotes light, though imperfect — that is, either increasing or decreasing). Again, the first day was without doubt like the other following days, and in like manner had morning and evening — for the reckoning of all six days is alike, and in recording them all Moses uses the same words; but the authors of the aforesaid opinion must say that the first day was most unlike the others. Nor does Bede really seem to have held this opinion, since in his Hexaëmeron he plainly indicates that the light was created in the east, and made a whole artificial day of twelve hours and a natural one of twenty-four. Bede was followed by Hugh, in the first book On the Sacraments, part one, chapter twenty-nine, and by the Master of the Sentences, distinction thirteen, in the second book. Giles [of Rome], however, in the first part of his Hexaëmeron, chapter 16, affirms that the first light was created at the meridian, and therefore made evening before morning.53
Alteram sententiam Hugoni de S. Victore, in libro de Sacramentis, attribuit Bonaventura, magisque probat, a qua non discrepat hoc loco Caietanus: censent isti primum apparuisse lucem illam in Oriente, et, facta conversione totius caeli, ad idem punctum regressam unde moveri coeperat, naturalem diem integram fecisse. Namque inter creationem caeli et terrae ac primum diem seu formationem lucis nullum temporis spatium intercessit, sed sola originis et ordinis naturae distinctio. Fuit enim ea opinio B. Augustini, cui materia informis, vocabulis terrae et aquae adumbrata, non nisi origine prior fuit ipsius formatione. Atque huic sententiae duplici Scripturae testimonio fides astruitur: nam in 2 capite libri Genes. sic est, “Istae sunt generationes caeli et terrae, quando creatae sunt, in die quo fecit Dominus Deus caelum et terram.” Ergo caelum et terra ante primum diem non sunt facta. Idem clarius cernitur in capite 20 et 31 Exod., quibus locis apertis verbis traditur Deum sex diebus fecisse caelum et terram, omniaque vel ex his vel in his facta. Ex quo apparet caelum et terram non ante primum diem, sed intra unum aliquem illorum sex dierum esse condita. Atque hunc esse sensum et intellectum etiam Ecclesiae videtur posse colligi ex duobus hymnis, quorum alter in matutinis precationibus diei Dominici, alter ad vesperas eiusdem diei publice in templis canitur. In illo sic habes:
The other opinion Bonaventure attributes to Hugh of St. Victor, in the book On the Sacraments, and prefers it; from it Cajetan does not here dissent. These men hold that that light first appeared in the East and, a complete revolution of the whole heaven being made, returned to the same point from which it had begun to move, and so made one whole natural day. For between the creation of heaven and earth and the first day — that is, the formation of light — no interval of time elapsed, but only a distinction of origin and of the order of nature. For this was the opinion of blessed Augustine, for whom the unformed matter, shadowed forth by the words “earth and water,” was prior to its own formation only in origin. And this opinion is confirmed by a twofold testimony of Scripture: for in the second chapter of Genesis it stands thus, “These are the generations of heaven and earth, when they were created, in the day when the Lord God made heaven and earth.” Therefore heaven and earth were not made before the first day. The same is seen more clearly in chapters 20 and 31 of Exodus, in which places it is delivered in plain words that God made heaven and earth in six days, and all things either from them or in them. From which it appears that heaven and earth were founded not before the first day, but within some one of those six days. And that this is the sense and understanding of the Church too seems able to be gathered from two hymns, of which one is sung in the morning prayers of the Lord's Day, the other at the Vespers of the same day, publicly in the churches. In the former you have thus:54
On the first of all the days, on which the world stands founded, etc.55
Primo dierum omnium, / Quo mundus extat conditus, etc.
With the first beginnings of new light, preparing the world's origin.56
Primordiis lucis novae / Mundi parans originem.
Verumtamen Beda in libro de sex aetatibus mundi affirmat ante exordium sex dierum creata esse caelum supremum, terram, et aquam; idemque satis manifeste indicat Basilius homilia secunda in Genesim; et hoc ipsum ostendit Paulus, cum secundo ad Corinthios cap. 4 inquit, “Deus qui dixit de tenebris lucem splendescere”; et ad Hebraeos 11, “Fide intelligimus aptata esse saecula verbo Dei, ut ex invisibilibus visibilia fierent”; et in lib. Sapientiae cap. 11 traditur Deum ex materia invisa, seu, ut est Graece, ex materia informi orbem fecisse. Beatus Hieronymus in epistola 83 ad Oceanum apertis verbis hoc ipsum tradit: “Rudis mundus,” inquit, “necdum sole rutilante, nec pallente luna, nec astris micantibus, incompositam et invisibilem materiam, abyssorum magnitudine et deformibus tenebris opprimebat. Solus Spiritus Dei in aurigae modum super aquas ferebatur, et nascentem mundum in figura baptismi parturiebat. Inter caelum et terram medium extruitur firmamentum; et iuxta Hebraici sermonis etymologiam, Caelum, id est שמים Samaim, ex aquis sortitur vocabulum; et aquae quae super caelos sunt in laudes Dei separantur.” Sic Hieronymus.
Nevertheless Bede, in his book On the Six Ages of the World, affirms that before the beginning of the six days the highest heaven, the earth, and the water were created; and Basil indicates the same plainly enough in his second homily on Genesis; and Paul shows this very thing when, in the second [letter] to the Corinthians, chapter 4, he says, “God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness”; and in Hebrews 11, “By faith we understand that the ages were framed by the word of God, that from invisible things visible things might be made”; and in the book of Wisdom, chapter 11, it is delivered that God made the world out of unseen matter, or, as it is in Greek, out of unformed matter. Blessed Jerome, in his eighty-third epistle to Oceanus, hands down this very thing in plain words: “The raw world,” he says, “with the sun not yet glowing red, nor the moon pale, nor the stars twinkling, was oppressing the unordered and invisible matter with the vastness of the deeps and with shapeless darkness. The Spirit of God alone, after the manner of a charioteer, was borne over the waters, and was bringing the nascent world to birth in the figure of baptism. Between heaven and earth a firmament is built up in the middle; and, according to the etymology of the Hebrew tongue, ‘Heaven’ — that is, שמים (Samaim) — takes its name from the waters; and the waters that are above the heavens are set apart for the praises of God.” So Jerome.57
Quod quidem etiam aperte declarat narratio Mosis, qui proxime ante dixit, “Et tenebrae erant super faciem abyssi, et spiritus domini ferebatur super aquas”: etenim si mundus simul cum ipsa luce conditus est, nunquam fuerunt tenebrae super faciem abyssi, nec vere dici posset mundus ex tenebroso et informi lucidus esse factus. Nam frivolum est dicere aërem et aquam dici tenebrosa fuisse ante creationem lucis quia ex se non haberent lucem: ea namque ratione aër etiam, cum meridiana luce est maxime lucidus, posset simpliciter dici tenebrosus, quia ne tunc quidem lucem habet ex se. Nec sermo historicus, cum sit popularis et vulgo tritus, cum aliquid dicit fuisse prius, significat prioritatem originis vel naturae, sed temporis.
And this too the narrative of Moses plainly declares, who said just before, “And darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Lord was borne over the waters”: for if the world was founded together with the light itself, there never was darkness upon the face of the deep, nor could the world truly be said to have been made luminous out of a dark and unformed [state]. For it is frivolous to say that air and water were called dark before the creation of light because they had no light of themselves: for by that reasoning air too, when it is most luminous with noon light, could simply be called dark, because not even then does it have light of itself. Nor does historical speech — since it is popular and worn smooth by common use — when it says that something was prior, signify a priority of origin or of nature, but of time.58
Praeterea, si ante creationem lucis Spiritus domini ferebatur super aquas, illa motio aëris seu venti super aquas non nisi in tempore fieri potuit. B. Thomas in prima parte quaestione sexagesima sexta articulo primo hanc sententiam tribuit Basilio, Chrysostomo, et Ambrosio; et in secundo Sententiarum distinctione decima tertia dicit esse magis consonam textui Scripturae. Et est sane omnium Graecorum. Hugo libro primo de Sacramentis parte prima capite 6 et 9 ait creationem caeli et terrae priorem fuisse ordine temporis creatione lucis: “et cum non fuerit prior tantum uno instanti, quia duo instantia non possunt esse immediata, et utraque creatio, tam caeli et terrae quam lucis, facta sit in instanti, necesse est fuisse tempore priorem”; quin ipsemet capite nono ait ante creationem lucis fuisse tempus, non tamen diem aut noctem. Et Hugoni similem non modo sententiam, sed etiam orationem habet Magister in secundo Sententiarum, distinctione decima tertia. Quocirca non recte B. Bonaventura animadversionem eorum qui inter creationem Caeli et lucis non ponunt ullum temporis ordinem, sed [tantum naturae, Hugoni attribuit]...
Moreover, if before the creation of light the Spirit of the Lord was borne over the waters, that motion of air or wind over the waters could only have taken place in time. Blessed Thomas, in the First Part, question sixty-six, article one, attributes this opinion to Basil, Chrysostom, and Ambrose; and in the second book of the Sentences, distinction thirteen, he says it is more consonant with the text of Scripture. And it is indeed the opinion of all the Greeks. Hugh, in the first book On the Sacraments, part one, chapters 6 and 9, says that the creation of heaven and earth was prior in the order of time to the creation of light: “and since it was not prior by only one instant — because two instants cannot be immediate [to each other] — and each creation, both of heaven and earth and of light, was made in an instant, it must have been prior in time”; indeed he himself, in chapter nine, says that before the creation of light there was time, yet not day or night. And the Master, in the second book of the Sentences, distinction thirteen, has not only an opinion similar to Hugh's, but even a similar wording. Wherefore blessed Bonaventure does not rightly attribute to Hugh the censure of those who place no order of time between the creation of the Heaven and of the light, but [only of nature]...59
...sed tantum naturae, Hugoni attribuit: nam licet Hugo supradicto loco dicat non intercessisse moram vel dilationem, his tamen ille vocabulis non est usus secundum physicorum subtilitatem (quibus nullum tempus sine mora esse potest), sed vulgarem secutus est loquendi consuetudinem, qua quod celerrime factum est sine mora factum dicitur. Itaque moram negat Hugo fuisse, significans tempus illud ante creationem lucis fuisse quam brevissimum. Nec officit huic sententiae quod paulo superius ex capite 2 Geneseos prolatum est, “In die quo fecit Dominus Deus caelum et terram”: ibi enim “dies” pro tempore, sicut crebro fit in Scriptura, positus est; nam subditur, “Et omne virgultum agri,” quod tamen non primo die cum caelo et terra, sed tertio die procreatum est. Quod autem in 20 et 31 cap. Exod. dictum est, Deum sex diebus fecisse caelum et terram et omnia quae in eis sunt, non est huic opinioni contrarium: illud enim spacium temporis ante primum diem annumeratur sex diebus, quia fuit quam brevissimum, et fuit continuata Dei operatio; nec sane plures dies naturales consumpti sunt quam sex. Ac licet ante primum diem Caelum et elementa facta sint secundum substantiam, tamen non fuerunt perfecta et omnino consummata nisi spatio illorum sex dierum: tunc enim datus est illis ornatus, complementum, et perfectio. Quanto autem tempore status ille mundi tenebrosus duraverit — hoc est, utrum plus an minus quam unus dies continere solet — nec mihi compertum est, nec opinor cuiquam mortalium, nisi cui divinitus id esset patefactum.
...but only of nature, he [Bonaventure] attributes to Hugh: for although Hugh, in the aforesaid place, says that no delay or postponement intervened, yet he did not use these words according to the subtlety of the natural philosophers (for whom no time can be without delay), but followed the common usage of speech, by which what is done most swiftly is said to be done without delay. And so Hugh denies that there was a delay, meaning that the time before the creation of light was as brief as possible. Nor does it tell against this opinion that a little above was adduced from the second chapter of Genesis, “In the day when the Lord God made heaven and earth”: for there “day” is put for “time,” as often happens in Scripture; for it is added, “And every plant of the field,” which nevertheless was produced not on the first day with heaven and earth, but on the third day. And what is said in chapters 20 and 31 of Exodus — that God made heaven and earth and all that is in them in six days — is not contrary to this opinion: for that span of time before the first day is reckoned among the six days, because it was as brief as possible, and was a continuous operation of God; nor indeed were more natural days consumed than six. And although before the first day the Heaven and the elements were made according to their substance, yet they were not perfect and wholly completed except in the space of those six days: for then was given to them their adornment, complement, and perfection. But how long that dark state of the world lasted — that is, whether more or less than a single day usually contains — neither is it ascertained by me, nor, I suppose, by any mortal, save one to whom it was divinely revealed.60
And there was evening and morning, one day. — Verse 5.61
Factum est vespere, et mane dies unus. — Vers. 5.
Hebraice sic est: “Factum est vespere, et factum est mane, dies unus.” Chaldaice est in genitivo, “Diei primi.” At enim, vero quaestionem parit quod Moses, definiendo primum diem, prius nominet vespere quam mane, cum revera mane antecedat vespere. Catharinus opinatur solem ita esse creatum a Deo ut lucere coeperit in altero hemisphaerio, quod huic nostro est oppositum: nam in hoc nostro et factus est primus homo, et post eius peccatum primo habitavit genus humanum, et Hebraei ad quos hunc librum scripsit Moses; quare comparatione huius nostri hemisphaerii prius sol fecit noctem quam diem. Sed hoc simile est figmento: nulla enim ratio afferri potest cur in illo hemisphaerio potius quam in hoc nostro sol lucere coeperit; quin multo probabilius est ita esse factum ut primum collustraret terram in qua homo erat habitaturus. Quid quod nec sic quidem Catharinus tollit difficultatem propositam, cur vespere prius nominetur quam mane? Catharinus enim tantum ostendit priorem fuisse in nostro hemisphaerio noctem quam diem, non autem fuisse prius vespere quam mane, nisi noctem velit appellare vesperam. Tostatus hoc loco, et Eugubi[nus]...
In Hebrew it stands thus: “And there was evening, and there was morning, one day.” In Chaldee [Aramaic] it is in the genitive, “of the first day.” But indeed it begets a question that Moses, in defining the first day, names evening before morning, although in reality morning precedes evening. Catharinus holds that the sun was so created by God that it began to shine in the other hemisphere, which is opposite to this one of ours: for in this one of ours both the first man was made, and after his sin the human race first dwelt, and the Hebrews, to whom Moses wrote this book; wherefore, by comparison with this our hemisphere, the sun made night before day. But this is like a fiction: for no reason can be given why the sun should have begun to shine in that hemisphere rather than in this of ours; rather, it is much more probable that it was so done that it might first light up the land in which man was to dwell. And what of the fact that not even thus does Catharinus remove the difficulty proposed — why evening is named before morning? For Catharinus only shows that in our hemisphere night was prior to day, not that evening was prior to morning, unless he should wish to call the night “evening.” Tostatus in this place, and Eugubi[nus]...62
...Eugubinus in Cosmopoeia censent ideo fuisse praepositum vespere, quod hoc nomine Moses significare voluerit tempus illud tenebrarum in quibus mundus fuit ante creationem lucis; quod tempus, iudicio Tostati, tantum fuit quantum est spatium duodecim horarum aequinoctialium, in quo, quia nulla fuit lux, propterea vocatur vespere. Tempus autem quod praeteriit ab exordio lucis creatae ad eius occasum fuit etiam duodecim horarum: quocirca, ex quo tempore creavit Deus caelum et terram usque ad occasum primae lucis super eum horizontem super quem primo lucere coepit, transactum est tempus viginti quattuor horarum, hoc est integer dies naturalis. Sed Tostatus valde abutitur vocabulo vespere pro nocte, cum in Scriptura vespere non significet simpliciter tenebras et obscuritatem noctis, sed imminutum lumen solis ad occasum vergentis, hoc est tres extremas horas diei artificialis, vel crepusculum inter solis occasum et tenebras noctis: atque hanc habet vox Hebraea, quae Latine redditur “vespere,” germanam propriamque notionem et significationem. Dicitur enim ערב Hereb, a verbo Harab, quod proprie significat ligare, quasi vespera sit ligamen diei et noctis; sicut mane Hebraei vocant בקר Boquer, a verbo Bachar, id est discernere vel quaerere, eo quod mane incipiant res discerni.
...Eugubinus [Agostino Steuco of Gubbio] in his Cosmopoeia hold that evening was put first because by this name Moses meant to signify that time of darkness in which the world was before the creation of light; which time, in Tostatus's judgment, was just as long as the span of twelve equinoctial hours, in which, because there was no light, it is therefore called “evening.” And the time that passed from the beginning of the created light to its setting was likewise twelve hours: so that, from the time when God created heaven and earth up to the setting of the first light over that horizon over which it first began to shine, twenty-four hours elapsed — that is, one whole natural day. But Tostatus greatly abuses the word “evening” for “night,” since in Scripture “evening” does not simply signify the darkness and obscurity of night, but the diminished light of the sun as it sinks toward setting — that is, the last three hours of the artificial day, or the twilight between sunset and the darkness of night. And this is the genuine and proper notion and signification of the Hebrew word which in Latin is rendered “evening”: for it is called ערב (Hereb), from the verb Harab, which properly means “to bind,” as if evening were the binding of day and night; just as the Hebrews call morning בקר (Boquer), from the verb Bachar, that is “to discern or seek out,” because in the morning things begin to be discerned.63
B. Hieronymus super 2 caput Ionae videtur ex hoc loco colligere principium diei apud Hebraeos fuisse olim vesperam; noctem vero non ad praecedentem, sed ad subsequentem diem pertinuisse; et diem naturalem integrum a vespera ad proxime consequentem vesperam censeri solitum. Quod ut in celebrandis festivitatibus servatum esse a Iudaeis non est dubium, quippe in Levitico cap. 23 hoc a Deo praeceptum erat datum: “A vespera,” inquit, “usque ad vesperam celebrabitis sabbata vestra.” Ita prope certum est (et, si nunc id ageretur, multis exemplis Scripturae multisque argumentis probari posset) apud Iudaeos fuisse olim in usu triplex genus dierum: diem scilicet legalem, a vespera ad vesperam; diem naturalem, ab ortu solis ad ortum; diem usualem, a media nocte ad mediam noctem. Hugo lib. 1 de Sacramentis partis primae cap. 9, et Magister lib. 2 sententiarum distinctione 13, aiunt primum diem non habuisse auroram et mane (quod est terminus praecedentis noctis), sed fuisse statim claram lucem, ideoque illius diei prius fuisse vespere, posterius fuisse mane. Sed contra hoc facit quod Moses, enumerando reliquos dies, similiter loquitur ut in hoc primo, dicens, “Factum est vespere et mane dies secundus, tertius,” et itidem deinceps: non igitur illud singulare ac proprium fuit primi diei. Alii censent lucem illam esse creatam in meridie, ob idque non habuisse mane, sed statim fecisse vesperam; hanc tamen opinionem paulo supra, in explicando proxime antecedentem quaestionem, confutavimus, et sic profecto vespere et mane illius primi diei non fecissent unum diem integrum naturalem, nam a meridie usque ad mane subsequens non sunt nisi decem et octo horae, erant enim [illi dies aequinoctiales]...
Blessed Jerome, on the second chapter of Jonah, seems to gather from this place that among the Hebrews the beginning of the day was of old the evening; that the night belonged not to the preceding but to the following day; and that the whole natural day was wont to be reckoned from evening to the next following evening. And that this was observed by the Jews in celebrating their festivals is not in doubt, since in Leviticus chapter 23 this command was given by God: “From evening,” he says, “to evening you shall celebrate your sabbaths.” So it is almost certain (and, if it were now in question, could be proved by many examples of Scripture and many arguments) that among the Jews there were of old three kinds of days in use: namely the legal day, from evening to evening; the natural day, from sunrise to sunrise; and the common day, from midnight to midnight. Hugh, in the first book On the Sacraments, part one, chapter 9, and the Master, in the second book of the Sentences, distinction 13, say that the first day did not have a dawn and morning (which is the boundary of the preceding night), but was at once clear light, and therefore that of that day the evening was earlier and the morning later. But against this tells the fact that Moses, in enumerating the other days, speaks in the same way as in this first, saying, “And there was evening and morning, the second day, the third,” and so on likewise: that, therefore, was not something singular and proper to the first day. Others hold that that light was created at the meridian, and therefore had no morning but at once made evening; but this opinion we refuted a little above, in explaining the immediately preceding question, and in that case the evening and morning of that first day would surely not have made one whole natural day, for from the meridian to the following morning there are only eighteen hours, since [those days were equinoctial]...64
...enim illi dies aequinoctiales. Mihi probabilior ceteris omnibus videtur Basilii interpretatio, quam et Ambrosius hoc loco, et Chrysostomus homilia tertia et quinta in Genesim, et Augustinus libro primo de Genesi contra Manichaeos capite decimo et in libro imperfecto super Genesim capite septimo, Hugo in annotationibus in Genesim capite sexto, aliique deinceps quam plurimi secuti sunt. Verba Basilii, ex quibus sententia eius plane intelligitur, in homilia secunda super Genesin sic habent: “Ut in ordine creationis praerogativam deferret diei, ipsius diei finem primo commemorat, qui est vespera; deinde subnectit finem noctis, quod est mane, ut ita constet priorem fuisse diem artificialem quam noctem. Prior enim ille mundi status, nimirum ante primigeniam lucem exortam, non nox dicebatur, sed tenebrae. Nox enim ea temporis portio dicta est quae distincte se habet et apposite ad diem: quae quidem, diei succedanea, novam hanc appellationem adepta est. Facta est igitur vespera, et factum est mane” — his plane verbis diem noctemque comprehensim significans. Non tamen utrumque complexus est nuncupatione diei ac noctis, sed praestabiliori totam tribuit appellationem.
...for those days were equinoctial. To me, more probable than all the rest seems Basil's interpretation, which Ambrose too in this place, and Chrysostom in his third and fifth homilies on Genesis, and Augustine in the first book On Genesis against the Manichees, chapter ten, and in the unfinished book on Genesis, chapter seven, and Hugh in his annotations on Genesis, chapter six, and very many others thereafter, have followed. The words of Basil, from which his opinion is plainly understood, in the second homily on Genesis run thus: “That he might give precedence, in the order of creation, to the day, he first records the end of the day itself, which is evening; then he appends the end of the night, which is morning, so that it may thus be established that the artificial day was prior to the night. For that earlier state of the world — namely, before the first-born light arose — was not called night, but darkness. For ‘night’ is that portion of time which stands distinctly and in relation to day; which, being the successor of the day, acquired this new name. And so there was evening, and there was morning” — by these words plainly signifying day and night together. Yet he did not embrace both under the appellation of day and night, but assigned the whole appellation to the more excellent [the day].65
Addit Basilius recenseri hoc loco dies, non autem noctes, quod Scripturae consuetudo sit in dimetiendis temporibus dierum modo, praetermissis noctibus, rationem habere, sicut in recensendis hominibus viros sine foeminis numerare; idque aliquot Scripturae testimoniis probare conatur. Cum tamen eam opinionem non paucis locis Scriptura redarguat: Ionas enim, ut in libro eius capite secundo traditur et a Christo Domino commemoratur in Evangelio, dicitur fuisse in ventre ceti tribus diebus et tribus noctibus; et Deuteronomii capite nono legimus Mosem bis ieiunasse quadraginta diebus et quadraginta noctibus, quod etiam de Christo Domino nostro proditum est in Evangelio.
Basil adds that here the days are counted, but not the nights, because it is the custom of Scripture, in measuring out times, to take account of the days only, the nights being passed over — just as, in counting people, it numbers the men without the women; and he tries to prove this by several testimonies of Scripture. Yet Scripture refutes that opinion in not a few places: for Jonah, as is delivered in his book, chapter two, and is recorded by Christ the Lord in the Gospel, is said to have been in the belly of the whale three days and three nights; and in Deuteronomy, chapter nine, we read that Moses twice fasted forty days and forty nights, which is also reported of Christ our Lord in the Gospel.66
Non fit autem hic noctis mentio, quia describuntur sex dies naturales transacti in molitione et consummatione mundi; dies autem naturales constant ex die artificiali et nocte — quanquam etiam diem et noctem artificialem satis indicavit Moses, cum paulo ante dixit Deum divisisse lucem a tenebris, et lucem appellasse diem, tenebras vero noctem. Verum ut haec ita sint, verissimam certe putemus rationem a Basilio allatam, cur Moses diem a vespera definierit ad mane: per vesperam enim apte significavit diem artificialem completum (eius enim terminus est vespera); per mane autem, noctem plene transactam (noctis enim exactae finis et argumentum est ipsum mane).
But no mention of night is made here because the six natural days passed in the building and completion of the world are being described; and natural days consist of an artificial day and a night — although Moses sufficiently indicated the artificial day and night too when, a little before, he said that God divided the light from the darkness, and called the light Day, but the darkness Night. But however these things stand, let us certainly think most true the reason brought by Basil why Moses defined the day from evening to morning: for by “evening” he aptly signified the artificial day completed (for its boundary is evening), and by “morning” the night fully passed (for the end and proof of a finished night is the morning itself).67
Porro, quidam ex hoc loco satis probabiliter argumentantur antiquitus apud Iudaeos aliasque vetustissimas gentes (quibuscum fuit consuetudo et commercium Iudaeis) diem ab ortu solis ad eiusdem exortum proxime consequentem definiri solitum, licet apud varias gentes varia fuerit dierum ratio et usus. Plinius [certe]...
Furthermore, some argue with fair probability from this place that of old, among the Jews and the other most ancient nations (with whom the Jews had intercourse and dealings), the day was customarily reckoned from sunrise to the next following sunrise — although among various nations the reckoning and use of days was various. Pliny [certainly]...68
...Plinius certe libro secundo cap. 77 (ut taceam Gellium libro tertio cap. 2, Censorinum in libro de Natali die Romanorum, et ex his mutuatum Isidorum libro quinto Etymologiarum capite 3) tradit: “Babylonios et Chaldaeos diem observasse inter duos solis exortus; Athenienses inter duos occasus; Umbros a meridie in meridiem; Vulgus omne a luce ad tenebras; Sacerdotes Romanos, et qui diem definivere civilem, itemque Aegyptios et Hipparchum, atque adeo cunctos Astronomos, a media nocte ad mediam noctem.” Sic ille. Ecclesia in officiis Ecclesiasticis et diebus festis celebrandis diem censet more Iudaeorum a vespera ad vesperam; in agendis autem ieiuniis, a media nocte ad mediam noctem, et in agendo Missae sacrificio.
...Pliny certainly, in the second book, chapter 77 (to say nothing of Gellius in the third book, chapter 2; Censorinus in the book On the Birthday of the Romans; and Isidore, who borrowed from these, in the fifth book of the Etymologies, chapter 3), relates: “The Babylonians and Chaldeans observed the day between two sunrises; the Athenians between two sunsets; the Umbrians from noon to noon; the common crowd from light to darkness; the Roman priests, and those who defined the civil day, and likewise the Egyptians and Hipparchus, and indeed all the Astronomers, from midnight to midnight.” So he. The Church, in her ecclesiastical offices and in celebrating feast days, reckons the day, after the manner of the Jews, from evening to evening; but in keeping fasts, from midnight to midnight, and in performing the sacrifice of the Mass.69
Sed cur Moses hunc diem quo lux facta est appellavit diem unum, et non primum? Sic enim ait, “Factum est vespere et mane dies unus,” cum tamen primum diem dici et ratio posceret et consequentia narrationis? Deinceps enim, commemorando reliquos sex dies, appellavit diem secundum, tertium, quartum, et sic deinceps usque ad septimum. Basilius inquit Mosem ita esse locutum ut ostenderet quantum esset spatium unius diei naturalis, nempe quantum comprehendit simul diem artificialem et noctem. Vel fortasse dictus est unus et non primus, eodem Basilio auctore, quod is dies postea nominandus esset Dominicus, et in eo efficienda esset quae a fidelibus expectatur resurrectio mortuorum, futuraque consummatae felicitatis nostrae adeptio, in qua unus erit perpetuus dies sine noctis vicissitudine, ut tradit Ioannes in Apocalypsi. Sed illud mihi fit credibilius, Mosem dixisse unum pro primo, phrasi Hebraica qua usus est Daniel initio 9 cap.: “Uno,” inquit, “anno Darii Regis,” hoc est primo, ut ipse mox declarat. Et in Evangelio dicitur Dominus Iesus resurrexisse una Sabbati, hoc est primo die post sabbatum.
But why did Moses call this day on which light was made “one day,” and not “the first”? For he says thus, “And there was evening and morning, one day,” although both reason and the consistency of the narrative demanded that it be called the first day? For thereafter, in recording the other six days, he called them the second day, the third, the fourth, and so on up to the seventh. Basil says that Moses spoke thus to show how great the span of one natural day is — namely, how much it embraces, the artificial day and the night together. Or perhaps it was called “one” and not “first,” on Basil's authority again, because that day was afterward to be named the Lord's Day, and on it was to be accomplished the resurrection of the dead which the faithful await, and the future attainment of our consummated happiness, in which there will be one perpetual day without the alternation of night, as John relates in the Apocalypse. But this seems to me more credible: that Moses said “one” for “first,” by the Hebrew idiom which Daniel used at the beginning of his ninth chapter: “In the one,” he says, “year of King Darius,” that is, the first, as he himself soon declares. And in the Gospel the Lord Jesus is said to have risen “on the one [day] of the Sabbath,” that is, on the first day after the Sabbath.70
Hunc autem diem quo lux creata est fuisse diem solis, postea propter Domini resurrectionem appellatum diem Dominicum, liquido constat eo argumento, quod septimus ab eo proximus dies, quo Deus requievisse dicitur eumque diem sanctificasse, haud dubie fuit dies sabbati: hoc enim evidenter concluditur ex 20 et 31 capitibus libri Exodi, ubi iubentur Hebraei diem sabbati religiosissime observare, quod eo die Deus requievisset ab opere creationis mundi quod sex diebus patraverat, ob idque eum diem sanctificasset. Hunc porro diem multa quae in eo diversis temporibus evenerunt, maxime insignia et memorabilia, valde nobilitarunt et illustrarunt, cunctisque fidelibus singulari honore praecipuaque religione colendum et venerandum reddiderunt. Horum quaedam tradit B. Leo Epist. 81 ad Dioscorum cap. 1, nec pauca in serm. 154 de tempore commemorat Augustinus, superque alii alia prodiderunt: quae si colligantur et numero aliquo comprehendantur, tot fere sunt.
And that this day on which light was created was the day of the sun, afterward called the Lord's Day on account of the Lord's resurrection, is plainly established by this argument: that the seventh day next from it, on which God is said to have rested and to have sanctified that day, was without doubt the day of the Sabbath. For this is evidently concluded from chapters 20 and 31 of the book of Exodus, where the Hebrews are commanded to observe the Sabbath day most religiously, because on that day God had rested from the work of creating the world which he had accomplished in six days, and on that account had sanctified that day. Furthermore, many things which befell on this day at various times — most notable and memorable — greatly ennobled and illustrated it, and rendered it to be cultivated and venerated by all the faithful with singular honor and special religious devotion. Of these, Blessed Leo relates some in Epistle 81 to Dioscorus, chapter 1, and Augustine records not a few in Sermon 154 on the Season, and others have reported other things besides; which, if they be gathered and comprised under some number, are about as many [as follow].71
Primo, hic fuit primus mundi dies, in quo lux facta est. Secundo, in hoc die siccis vestigiis Hebraei mare rubrum transgressi sunt. Tertio, eodem die primum de caelo pluit manna in deserto. Quarto, [Christus...]
First, this was the first day of the world, on which light was made. Second, on this day the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea with dry feet. Third, on the same day manna first rained from heaven in the desert. Fourth, [Christ...]72
Quarto, Christus, ut quidam existimant, initio huius diei natus est. Quinto, baptizatus est in Iordane. Sexto, primum miraculum fecit in nuptiis, aquam convertendo in vinum. Septimo, multiplicatis quinque panibus et duobus piscibus, quinque hominum millia satiata sunt. Octavo, Dominus noster resurrexit a mortuis. Nono, octavo post resurrectionem die, Dominus Iesus ianuis clausis ingressus est ad discipulos deditque eis Spiritum sanctum et potestatem remittendi peccata. Decimo, mandavit Apostolis ut Evangelium toto orbe praedicarent et baptizarent homines in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti. Undecimo, in hunc diem incidit dies Pentecostes, quo Spiritus sanctus super Christi discipulos descendit. Duodecimo, in hoc die Dominico Ioannes habuit admirandas illas visiones et revelationes quas in Apocalypsi reliquit scriptas, ut ipsemet capite primo eius libri testatur. Decimotertio, in hoc die creditur futura nostrorum corporum resurrectio, nostraeque felicitatis consummatio, et totius mundi renovatio. Haec sunt primi illius diei insignia et ornamenta, quibus ea dies mirabiliter nobilitatur atque decoratur. In Epistola Bedae de celebratione Paschatis seu de Aequinoctio verno memorantur decreta quaedam Synodi Caesariensis Palaestinae, quam congregavit Theophilus Episcopus ex mandato Victoris Papae, inter alia traduntur quinque vel sex sanctificationes diei Dominicae, sed fere in supradictis contentae et memoratae.
Fourth, Christ, as some think, was born at the beginning of this day. Fifth, he was baptized in the Jordan. Sixth, he worked his first miracle at the wedding, turning water into wine. Seventh, when five loaves and two fishes had been multiplied, five thousand people were fed. Eighth, our Lord rose from the dead. Ninth, on the eighth day after the resurrection, the Lord Jesus entered to the disciples through closed doors and gave them the Holy Spirit and the power of remitting sins. Tenth, he commanded the Apostles to preach the Gospel throughout the whole world and to baptize men in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Eleventh, on this day fell the day of Pentecost, on which the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ's disciples. Twelfth, on this Lord's Day John had those wonderful visions and revelations which he left written in the Apocalypse, as he himself testifies in the first chapter of his book. Thirteenth, on this day is believed the future resurrection of our bodies, the consummation of our happiness, and the renewal of the whole world. These are the marks and adornments of that first day, by which that day is wonderfully ennobled and adorned. In the Epistle of Bede On the Celebration of Easter, or On the Vernal Equinox, certain decrees of the Synod of Caesarea in Palestine are mentioned — which Bishop Theophilus convened by the mandate of Pope Victor — among which are handed down five or six sanctifications of the Lord's Day, but mostly contained and mentioned in the above.73
Translator’s notes
- Major section heading: the commentary turns from the pre-creation state (vv. 1–2) to the first day. ↩
- New scripture lemma (Gen. 1:3). ↩
- Why light was made first: it is the active quality of the heavens and the instrument of celestial causes; the structure of the six days (separating, then filling); the heaven adorned first with light (and motion). Sentence continues onto printed p. 69. ↩
- Light alone named (motion is implied by the day/night cycle); light makes all things visible and beautiful (Basil, Bede, John Damascene). ↩
- Marginal gloss: "Why Moses recorded that God made light at the beginning." John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa 2.7; 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) 6:40. ↩
- An encomium of light — why it deserved first place; its use as an image of the divine (ps.-Dionysius, Divine Names 4; Celestial Hierarchy 15). ↩
- Light first so that the day/night reckoning could stand; Ambrose's "house" simile (the world as a palace); a reference to Hugh of St. Victor's moral reason. Sentence continues onto printed p. 70. ↩
- Completes the sentence begun on printed p. 69 (regarding the moral reason that Hugh of St. Victor adds for why light was made first, which Pererius says he deliberately omits). ↩
- Marginal gloss: “What that ‘God said’ etc. signifies.” Romans 4:17. ↩
- Marginal refs: Hebrews 1:3; Psalm 134 (135):6; Wisdom 11:23 (Vg.); Apocalypse (Revelation) 4:11. ↩
- Marginal gloss: “God is not a natural agent.” ↩
- Marginal gloss: “The eternal Word is here intimated.” Psalm 32 (33):6; John 1:3; Wisdom 9:1. ↩
- Theodoret, Quaestiones in Genesim, q. 9. Marginal refs: Psalm 134 (135):6 (David); Romans 4:17. ↩
- 2 Corinthians 4:6; Hebrews 11:3. ↩
- Marginal gloss: “Question: What the first light was.” 1 Timothy 6:16 (“light inaccessible”). Sentence continues onto printed p. 71. ↩
- Completes the sentence from printed p. 70. Marginal gloss: “spiritual or corporeal.” Marginal refs: 1 Timothy 6:16; Matthew 5:14 (“You are the light of the world”); Ephesians (margin cites “Eph. 2,” but the quotation “now light in the Lord” is Eph. 5:8). ↩
- Marginal gloss: “Augustine’s opinion.” Augustine, City of God, bk. 11, ch. 7. ↩
- Augustine, City of God, bk. 11, ch. 9. Marginal refs: Daniel 3 (the Hymn of the Three Children); Psalm 148:2, 5; Job 38:7 (Septuagint). ↩
- Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram 1.3; Confessions 12.9 and 12.16; Eucherius of Lyon; Rupert of Deutz, De sancta Trinitate et operibus eius, bk. 1, ch. 10. Sentence continues onto printed p. 72. ↩
- Rupert of Deutz, De Trinitate, bk. 1, ch. 10. ↩
- Marginal gloss: “The common opinion.” Bede; Peter Lombard (Master of the Sentences). The hymn is “Lucis Creator optime” (Sunday Vespers). ↩
- The hymn “Lucis Creator optime” (attributed to Gregory the Great), sung at Sunday Vespers. (The 220/300-dpi image confirms “Primordiis lucis novae,” correcting the OCR’s “incis.”) ↩
- Marginal glosses: “Bonaventure refutes Augustine’s opinion”; “The solution of Augustine’s arguments.” Bonaventure, Commentary on the Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 13. ↩
- Begins Pererius’s reply to the arguments for an angelic/spiritual light. Sentence continues onto printed p. 73. ↩
- Continues the reply to the arguments for an angelic light. Genesis 2:2 (God’s rest on the seventh day). ↩
- Marginal gloss: “What Hugh thought concerning the interval that came between the creation of the Angels and their glorification or damnation.” Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis, bk. 1, pt. 1, ch. 10; Giles of Rome (Aegidius Romanus), Hexaëmeron, pt. 1, ch. 16. ↩
- Marginal glosses: “[The first light =] fire”; “Plato and Aristotle make three species of fire.” John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa 2.7; Plato, Timaeus; Aristotle, Topics; Hugh of St. Victor; Gregory of Nyssa, In Hexaëmeron. Sentence continues onto printed p. 74 (“the whole orb...”). ↩
- Completes the sentence from printed p. 73 (against Damascene's view that the first light was the element of fire: elemental fire, lying above, would light the whole world always, leaving no night). Marginal gloss: “Bonaventure's opinion that light is the substantial form of the heavenly bodies, which St. Thomas and Scotus refute.” Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae I, qq. 67 & 63; Bonaventure, Sent. II, d. 13; Duns Scotus, Sent. II, d. 13. ↩
- Marginal gloss: “How Theodoret's saying that light is a substance and a subsisting thing is to be interpreted.” Theodoret, Quaestiones in Genesim, q. 7. ↩
- Marginal gloss: “Whether the light created on the first day was the perfect light of the sun, as Catharinus holds.” Ambrosius Catharinus (Lancellotto Politi); Genesis 1:4; Plato, Timaeus. Sentence continues onto printed p. 75. ↩
- Completes Catharinus's reconstruction (all the heavens and elements, save the firmament, made on day one; day four is a recapitulation). ↩
- Marginal gloss: “Catharinus is refuted.” Genesis 1:1–2. The “nature abhors a vacuum” principle and the requirement that mover and moved be contiguous (Aristotelian physics). ↩
- The “luminous cloud” view. Bede, In Hexaëmeron; Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis 1; Peter Lombard, Sent. II, with Bonaventure; Nicholas of Lyra; Alfonso Tostado (Tostatus). Sentence continues onto printed p. 76. ↩
- Marginal gloss: “St. Thomas's argument against the aforesaid authors.” Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae I, q. 67, a. 4. The objectors reply that the cloud was celestial matter (hence the sun's incorruptibility is preserved). ↩
- Marginal gloss: “The remarkable opinion of Basil.” Basil of Caesarea, Hexaëmeron, homily 6. Marginal ref: Philippians 2:15 (“lights in the world”). The Basil quotation continues onto printed p. 77. ↩
- Conclusion of the Basil quotation (Hexaëmeron, hom. 6). Marginal refs: Exodus 3 (the burning bush); Psalm 28 (29):7 (“the voice of the Lord that divideth the flame of fire”); 2 Corinthians 5. Marginal gloss: “Basil's opinion is weighed.” ↩
- Pererius's verdict on Basil: an accident subsisting without a subject would be a miracle paralleled only in the Eucharist, and such recourse to miracle is gratuitous. Augustine; Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 44 (on New Sunday). ↩
- Marginal gloss: “Theodoret's opinion.” Theodoret, Quaestiones in Genesim, qq. 14 & 16 (one splendid light on day one, dispersed into the heavenly bodies on day four). Sentence continues onto printed p. 78 (the objection about transferring one accident among many subjects). ↩
- Completes the objection to Theodoret (how could one numerical accident be transferred among many heavens?), and the principle that miracles are not to be invoked in the natural order of creation (cf. the second interpretive rule, from Augustine). Then Augustine's own hesitant view, De Genesi ad litteram 1.11. Marginal gloss: “Miracles are not to be admitted in the creation of the world.” ↩
- Pererius's own preferred view: the first light was the sun's, created unformed (informis) on day one and perfected on day four. Marginal gloss: “The opinion most approved by the author of all: that the first light was the sun's, but imperfect.” Ps.-Dionysius, Divine Names 4; Thomas Aquinas, ST I, q. 67, a. 4 & q. 70, a. 1; Denys the Carthusian. ↩
- The two theses to prove, and the first argument that the light was celestial (hence the sun's). Marginal gloss: “It is proved that the first light was the same as the light of the sun.” Sentence continues onto printed p. 79. ↩
- Further arguments that “light” absolutely = the sun's light. Isaiah 60:19; Jeremiah 4:23. Hebrew: לאור (la-ʾor, “for light”), אור (ʾor, “light”). ↩
- The day/night office given to both the first light and (on day four) the sun; the first light persisted. The “dies Solis” (Sunday) etymology: the seventh day from it is Saturn's day / the Sabbath. Marginal gloss: “Why Sunday (dies Solis) was of old called the Lord's day.” ↩
- Difficulties of the rival views; and why Moses names not the “sun” (Hebrew שמש Semesh) but “luminary” (מאור Maor, from אור Or, “light”) — to show that all the sun's power and dignity derive from light. ↩
- Marginal gloss: “What sort of accession was made to the sun's light on the fourth day.” Thomas Aquinas, ST I, q. 67, a. 4 & q. 70, a. 1; Ps.-Dionysius, Divine Names 4. ↩
- Pererius's additions to Aquinas: what else accrued on day 4 — the sun's full magnitude/figure/light, its proper mover, its retinue of stars, weather-signs, the four seasons, the inequality of days, and the Moon's dependence on the Sun. (Closes the question of the first light.) ↩
- Genesis 1:4–5 (the lemma for this section). ↩
- First question: how the first light made day/night over the three days. Basil & Damascene: by God-willed emission/contraction of rays (compared to the plague of darkness, Exodus 10). Marginal glosses: “How the distinction and alternation of day and night was made in the first three days”; “The opinion of Basil and Damascene, which is refuted by Augustine.” Basil, Hexaëmeron, hom. 2; John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa 2.7; Exodus 10:21–23. ↩
- Augustine reports but rejects the Basil/Damascene view (De Genesi ad litteram 1.11 & 1.16); Bede refutes it as contrary to Scripture (which speaks of morning and evening, implying real increase/decrease of light by a moving body); Aquinas refutes it as requiring a needless miracle. Marginal gloss: “In the first institution of nature one must not have recourse to miracles.” Sentence continues onto printed p. 82 (“...extraordinary...”). ↩
- Completes the refutation of Basil's emission/contraction view (the mode was extra-ordinary, never repeated). The second view (Bede and others): a far-shining cloud, like the pillar of cloud/fire in the desert (Exodus 13), wheeled by an angel about the dark central mass. Pererius's own answer: the first light was the sun's, carried by the prime mobile's rapture, making equal 24-hour days. Marginal glosses: “The second opinion, of Bede and others”; “Exod. 13.” ↩
- The second question: where in the heaven the first light first appeared. Marginal glosses: “In what place of the heaven the first light was when it first appeared”; “The first opinion, which Bonaventure assigns to Bede.” Bonaventure, Sent. II, d. 13, a. 1, q. 2. ↩
- Objection (a noon start gives less than 24 hours) and the reply: add the six dark “hours” before the light to the first day; the days were equinoctial (12-hour artificial day, 12-hour night). Genesis 1:5. Sentence continues onto printed p. 83. ↩
- Completes the hour-count and the objections to the meridian (noon) view; notes that Bede actually placed the light in the east (followed by Hugh and Lombard), while Giles of Rome placed it at the meridian. ↩
- The other opinion (Hugh, preferred by Bonaventure; Cajetan concurs): the light appeared in the East and made one whole natural day by a complete revolution — heaven/earth being prior to the light only in nature, not in time (Augustine's view). Scriptural proofs: Genesis 2:4; Exodus 20:11 & 31:17. Marginal gloss: “The opinion of Hugh, Bonaventure, and Cajetan.” ↩
- The Sunday Matins hymn “Primo dierum omnium” (attributed to Gregory the Great). The text then adds “In hoc autem [hymno] sic est:” (“and in the other [the Vespers hymn] it stands thus:”), introducing the Vespers hymn quoted at the top of printed p. 84. ↩
- Lines from the Sunday Vespers hymn “Lucis Creator optime” (cf. printed p. 72), cited as Church testimony that the world's origin involved a “beginning of new light” — i.e., that heaven and earth preceded the light. ↩
- Authorities that heaven/earth/water preceded the six days: Bede (De sex aetatibus mundi); Basil (hom. 2); 2 Corinthians 4:6; Hebrews 11:3; Wisdom 11:18 (creation “ex materia informi”); and Jerome, Epistle 83 (al. 69) to Oceanus. Hebrew שמים (shamayim, “heaven”), here etymologized from “waters” (mayim). Marginal glosses: “That God made heaven and earth before the beginning of the six days”; “Ps. 148.” ↩
- Moses's own narrative (darkness over the deep) implies a real dark interval before light. Pererius's argument that historical/popular speech, in calling one thing “prior,” means temporal priority — supporting a genuine time-interval (against reading it as priority of nature only). Marginal gloss: “That the world was dark for some while before light was created.” Genesis 1:2. ↩
- Further argument for a real temporal interval: the Spirit's motion over the waters requires time. Aquinas (ST I, q. 66, a. 1; Sent. II, d. 13) ascribes this to Basil, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and all the Greeks, as more consonant with Scripture; Hugh (De sacramentis 1.1.6 & 9) and Peter Lombard agree. Marginal gloss begins: “A criticism of Bonaventure [for misreading Hugh].” Sentence continues onto printed p. 85. ↩
- Defends Hugh: his “no delay” is popular speech for “very brief,” not the physicists' strict sense. Reconciles Gen 2:4 (“day” = time) and Exodus 20:11 & 31:17 (the brief pre-first-day interval is counted among the six). The length of the dark interval is unknown to any mortal. Marginal glosses: “The Exodus passage is weighed”; “Gen. 2.” ↩
- Genesis 1:5b, the lemma for the following section. ↩
- Begins the question of why Moses names evening before morning. Hebrew text and the Aramaic (Chaldee) genitive “of the first day.” Catharinus's hemisphere theory (the sun first shone in the opposite hemisphere) is rejected as a fiction that anyway fails to explain evening-before-morning. Marginal gloss: “Why, in the making of the days, evening is mentioned before morning.” Ambrosius Catharinus; Tostatus. Sentence continues onto printed p. 86 (Eugubinus = Agostino Steuco of Gubbio). ↩
- Completes the Steuco/Tostatus view (evening first = the dark pre-light time, making a 24-hour day), then Pererius's critique: Tostatus misuses “evening” for “night.” Hebrew etymologies: ערב (ʿerev, “evening,” linked to the root meaning “to bind/mix”); בקר (boqer, “morning,” linked to the root meaning “to discern/search”). Tostatus = Alfonso Tostado; Steuco of Gubbio, Cosmopoeia. ↩
- Jerome (on Jonah 2) on the Hebrew day beginning at evening; Leviticus 23:32. The three Jewish day-types (legal/natural/common). Hugh and Lombard's view (no dawn on day one) is countered by the uniform wording of all six days; the meridian view is recalled as already refuted. Marginal glosses: “The Hebrews' day began at evening”; “Among the Jews the day was threefold.” Sentence continues onto printed p. 87. ↩
- Pererius's own preferred view: Basil's interpretation (also Ambrose, Chrysostom homm. 3 & 5, Augustine De Genesi contra Manichaeos 1.10 and the unfinished Genesis commentary ch. 7, Hugh). Marginal glosses: “The author's opinion, which is that of Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, and Hugh”; “At the world's beginning, day preceded night.” Basil, Hexaëmeron, hom. 2. ↩
- Basil's claim that Scripture counts days, not nights (like counting men without women); Pererius's qualification, citing Jonah 2 (cf. Matt. 12:40) and Moses' / Christ's forty-day-and-night fasts (Deut. 9; Matt. 4). Marginal refs: Matt. 12; Matt. 4. ↩
- Why night is not separately mentioned (the six are natural days, day-plus-night); Basil's reason endorsed: evening marks the completed artificial day, morning the completed night. Marginal gloss: “Why Moses mentioned evening before morning.” ↩
- Marginal gloss: “The various reckonings among various nations for beginning the day.” Sentence continues onto printed p. 88 (Pliny's catalogue). ↩
- Pliny's catalogue of how different peoples reckon the day (Natural History 2.77; cf. Aulus Gellius 3.2; Censorinus, De die natali; Isidore, Etymologies 5.30/3). The Church's twofold usage (evening-to-evening for feasts; midnight-to-midnight for fasts). ↩
- Why “one day” (dies unus) and not “first day.” Basil's reasons (to show the measure of a natural day; or because it would become the Lord's Day, prefiguring the eternal day, Apoc. 21); Pererius prefers the Hebrew idiom “one” for “first” (Daniel 9:1; “una Sabbati,” John 20:1). Marginal glosses: “Why that first day was called ‘one day’”; refs Apoc. 21, John 20. ↩
- The first day was the “day of the sun,” later the Lord's Day (Dominica) because of the Resurrection — proven by the Sabbath being the seventh from it (Exodus 20:11; 31:17). Marginal glosses: “That the first day of the world was the one later called the Lord's Day”; “The praise of the Lord's Day.” Leo, Ep. 81 to Dioscorus; Augustine, Sermon 154. ↩
- The catalogue of marvels of the Lord's Day begins (items 1–3). Marginal gloss: “How many and how great the miracles wrought on the Lord's Day.” Sentence continues onto printed p. 89. ↩
- The catalogue of marvels of the Lord's Day completed (items 4–13: Christ's birth, baptism, Cana, the feeding of the 5,000, the Resurrection, the appearance to the disciples and gift of the Spirit, the missionary mandate, Pentecost, John's Apocalypse, and the future general resurrection). Bede, Epistle on Easter / the vernal equinox; the Synod of Caesarea under Bishop Theophilus and Pope Victor. ↩