Dist. 13, Art. 1, Q. 1
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/2/d/13/q/bon-sent-II-d13-a1-q1
----------------------------------------
## ARTICLE I.

### *On the very production of light.*

### Question I. *Whether the light made on the first day was corporeal or spiritual.*

Concerning the first [matter] one proceeds thus, and it is shown that that light, which is said to have been created on the first day, was not corporeal light.

*Foundations to the opposite.*

1. For corporeal light is for the beauty and completion of the starry heaven or firmament: if therefore that which adorns and decorates some body neither can nor ought to be made before that body itself — since the production of the firmament belongs to the work of the second day — it appears that on the first day corporeal light neither could nor ought to have been made. And [the light] made was either corporeal light or spiritual light: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, in the enumeration of the works of the six days Scripture intends to set forth the production of those things which constitute the universe, as is manifest: therefore either spiritual creation (namely the Angel) is not among the constituents of the universe; or Scripture sets forth and hands down the production of things insufficiently; or it must be expressed by something there posited. But the first two modes are unfitting: there remains therefore that Scripture sets forth the production of angelic creation. But angelic creation was created in the beginning, as has been shown above, because *wisdom was created prior to all things*: therefore its production is expressed by the work of the first day, or at least its formation. But the work of the first day was nothing other than the production of light: therefore by *light* Scripture understands spiritual nature.

3. Likewise, *light* is said properly of both spiritual and corporeal [things], yet more properly of spiritual than of corporeal, as Augustine says on Genesis according to the letter. For most properly *God is light*, and the things that approach more nearly to Him have more of the nature of light. Therefore in the production of light that creature must principally be understood to which [light] more principally belongs; but this is spiritual creation: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, that corporeal light is for the fostering of plants and animals, and also for the comfort of humans: if therefore on the first and second day there were not plants which might be fostered, nor animals nor humans to whom that light might offer any service, it appears that God would have made it in vain on the first of the days. But if God makes nothing in vain, there remains that by that light corporeal light is not understood; but it is understood [as either] corporeal or spiritual: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, if that light which was created on the first day was corporeal light, then it was corporeally making day and night: therefore from this it appears that the production of the sun would have been superfluous.

6. Likewise, if that light was corporeal, since it was good, it ought to have been preserved in its being by the divine goodness. For thus Augustine expounds: *God saw that it was good*, «*that is, [that] which He was pleased should be made, He was also pleased that it should remain in its kind*». Therefore it appears that if that light had been made in the beginning, it would still remain. Therefore if it was of great brightness, it would be impossible that it should escape our sense. If therefore we do not perceive its light by sense, and do not grasp its use by the intellect, it does not exist: therefore it never was.

*But against this it is objected and shown, that that light was corporeal:*

*Foundations.*

1. By the text first: because before the formation of light it is laid down that *the darknesses were upon the face of the deep*: therefore if by *the deep* corporeal matter is understood, the light which was made for the expulsion of those darknesses was corporeal.

2. Likewise, this same is shown by many expositors, and first by Bede: «*With the light going down gradually and after the space of daily light passing under the lower parts, evening was made, just as it is now wont to be done by the customary course of the sun*». Therefore if this cannot be understood except of corporeal light, it is clear etc.

3. Likewise, that it is understood of corporeal light appears [thus]: Scripture numbers six days, and it is established that all those days are of the same nature, otherwise they would not be jointly numerable: but after the formation of the sun, from the fourth day onward, they were corporeal days: therefore in the three preceding days also there were corporeal days. But such days cannot exist except from corporeal light: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, that it cannot be understood of spiritual light appears, because *the division of spiritual light from darknesses* is *the separation of the good from the evil*: therefore if the division of light from darknesses and the formation of light are simultaneous, and this was wholly at the beginning of the first day, it appears that the fall of the evil angels would have been without any interval of time interposed; but if this is impossible, as has been proved above, it is clear etc.

### Conclusion.

> *It is more probable that the light created on the first day was corporeal, although Augustine thought otherwise.*

**I respond:** It must be said that in this question Augustine and the other doctors thought differently, just as also in the question concerning the production of unformed matter.

*Augustine's exposition.* For Augustine wished that by *heaven* be understood unformed spiritual nature; and because light corresponded to heaven, consequently by *light* itself he said the angelic nature *formed* was to be understood according to the letter; but by *day* he said is understood the angelic consideration itself; by the *seven days*, sevenfold consideration; and by the *evening of the day*, consideration of the creature in itself, because the creature is as it were a darkness; but by *morning*, the reduction of that knowledge of the creature in its proper genus to the knowledge which is in the supreme light, and to the praise of God Himself. And because, after perfect conversion, it does not cease from the praise of God, therefore he said that the *seventh day*, in which is the rest of contemplation, does not have evening.

*Reasons of the same [Augustine].* For the manifesting of this position, he sufficiently conforms Scripture [to it] in *On Genesis according to the Letter*, where he shows that many things are said in that enumeration of the six days which more befit spiritual days and spiritual light than material light. On account of which, in the production of all corporeal things it is said *let it be*, *He made*, and *it was done*; but in the production of light it is not said except *let it be*, and *it was done*. — And the reason of this is, that all other things, [as distinguished] from spiritual creation, have a threefold mode of being, namely in *the cause producing them*, and in *the rational mind*, and in *the corporeal matter sustaining them*. But rational creation has only a twofold mode of being, namely in *the Word*, and in *itself*. — He also adduces many [things] to this [point] which show that the position itself is consonant both with faith and with Scripture and also with reason; and through this he shows that the truth of faith and Scripture in no way deviates from the straight path of reason. Hence the same [Augustine] *On Genesis according to the Letter*, book one: «*We have what is to be answered, according to faith, to all who attempt to slander the books of our salvation — that whatever they themselves shall have been able to demonstrate concerning the nature of things by true documents, we should show is not contrary to our letters; but whatever they shall bring forward from any of their volumes contrary to these our letters, that is, to the Catholic faith, either we should show [it false] by some faculty, or with no doubt should believe it to be most false*».

*Opinion of others.* But however probable and reasonable this position was, nevertheless the Catholic treatise-writers who have followed Augustine have approved another way more —

namely that the distinction of days was *material* or *sensible*, and the operation of the first day was the formation of corporeal light, which made three days before the production of the sun. — And because this position the text of Scripture more intimates, and the expositors more follow, even those who have willingly followed Augustine, on this account this position is more safely and usefully to be maintained.

*Conclusion.* According to this position, then, it must be said that Scripture by that *light* which it says was first made intimates corporeal light; and the reasons which prove it are to be conceded.

*Solution of the opposing arguments.*

1. *The opposing reason.* To that which is objected first, that light is for the beauty and adornment of the heaven: it must be said that [it is so] not in any way whatsoever, but as it is in distinction completed according to the number and propriety of celestial bodies, namely of the stars and planets; and this was not before the fourth day.

2. To that which is objected, that the condition of angelic nature ought to be set forth in the six days: it must be said that this need not be expressly said, just as neither concerning the fall of angelic nature is it read historically in Scripture, but rather allegorically. And the reason of this is that Scripture principally intends to treat of the works of reparation, as Hugh says; and on this account, that those [works] may be better set forth, it treats of fall and condition, and by reason of this it determines about those things which contribute to the condition and conservation of man. And because in Scripture it is not treated about the reparation of the fallen angel, on this account it is not treated about [his] fall expressly either, nor about the condition of the established [angel].

*Another solution.* It could also be said otherwise: because Scripture was handed down to a rough people, which was occupied about sensible things, on this account first in the works of the six days it intimates the condition of sensibles, yet nonetheless providing a way through these sensibles to the understanding of the spirituals; for it did this for the intimating of those [spirituals]. Hence not un-learnedly by *the formation of light* can be understood *the formation of spiritual nature*, yet more principally is intimated the corporeal formation. And thus it is clear how the procedure of Scripture, although it appears to be common, is nevertheless sufficient and rational.

3. *Note.* To that which is objected, that light belongs more principally to spiritual nature: it must be said that this is true as regards the *propriety of the term*, but is not true as regards the *common use*. For when light is named, unless it is determined by what precedes and follows, by *light* we understand the corporeal; through which, however, we are led to the understanding also of the spiritual, because «*our knowledge begins from sense*». And thus Dionysius teaches in his book *On the Divine Names*.

4. To that which is objected, that corporeal light is for the fostering of the living and the comfort of animals: it must be said that light has not only this usefulness, but indeed also many others, which perhaps lie hidden from us, of which it could also have had use then — just as many creatures have powers and uses which we are ignorant of, and yet we do not doubt that they have them. — *Otherwise.* It could be said, however, that its use was to make day and night, not for the illumination of animals, but for the distinction of the divine works; hence, even if then it did not act for the illumination of the human sense, yet *now* by that very distinction it acts for the illumination of the intellect, when from that the intellect grasps the distinction of the divine works.

5. To that which is objected, that it was superfluous to make the sun: it must be said that this is false; because, although that light perfectly illumined and made day, in accordance with what sufficed for that time for the distinction of days; yet it pleased God, with things brought to greater perfection — namely to *adornment* — to make light fuller, which would make the day brighter also. And on this account from that very light, or luminous cloud, He made the sun with greater brightness, as will be said afterwards.

6. And by this is clear that which was last objected, namely that that light ought to have remained. For it must be said that it is true that it remains as regards *form* and *nature*, but it is not necessary that it remain in that *state* in which it was first formed; but it remains in the sun, which has been formed from it, as the expositors intimate, and as will more clearly be evident upon the text [of Lombard].