Dist. 13, Art. 1, Q. 2
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-q2
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *In what manner that light made day and night.*

Secondly it is asked, in what manner that light made night and day. And the Damascene says that it made [them] by emission and contraction of rays. For he speaks thus: «*In the first three days, with the light flowing out and being drawn back, by the Lord's command day and night came to be*». And Basil in the *Hexaëmeron*: «*Then indeed not by the motion of the solar body, but by the diffusion of the principal light — now withdrawing itself, now again drawing back — according to the divine command, day was made and night returned*». Bede, however, and the other Latin expositors say that it made day and night by its [own] revolution; and this was held in the authority earlier cited, which is brought forward in the [Master's] text: *With the light setting little by little*, etc. — *Twofold exposition.*

*Against the first mode of speaking it is objected as follows.*

*Foundations.*

1. First, Scripture says: *God divided the light from the darkness*: therefore light and darkness existed simultaneously; but if that light made day and night by emission and retraction of rays, since emission and retraction are not simultaneous, the division of darkness and light would not be simultaneous.

2. Likewise, Scripture says that that light, in making day, made *evening* and *morning*; but if day came to be by emission of rays alone, and night by contraction alone, there would never be evening and morning, but always a clear day, or a dark night: therefore that mode of speaking does not square with sacred Scripture.

3. Likewise, *to emit* and *to draw back* rays are opposed operations: therefore, since only rational powers are [ordered] to opposites, it seems that that light would be a rational substance: if then this is absurd to say, etc.

4. Likewise, that light illumines, this is a natural and necessary act: if therefore no substance can deprive itself of its necessary and natural operation, it seems that the light, where it was, could not but illumine: therefore it could not draw back its rays.

*Against the second mode it is objected as follows.*

1. For the motion of any body to be regular and uniform, there is required not only the power of the mover, but also a fitting disposition on the part of the movable and on the part of the space: therefore, if the distinction of the orbs was not yet made, it seems that no revolution of this body could come about. — *Against the opposite.*

2. Likewise, the matter was uniform on every side of it: if therefore motion is on account of some diversity, either in that which is moved, or in that around which it is moved, it seems that that light was not moved: therefore it did not make day and night by its motion.

3. Likewise, that matter was equally illuminable on every side: therefore if that light, wherever it was, illumined, then wherever it moved, it was continuously making day: therefore it never made morning and evening.

4. Likewise, if it made day and night by its motion, since that light was produced before it was moved, it was produced before any day: therefore it was not the work of the first day. If you say to me that it began at once to be and to illumine and to be moved; I ask, where it first began to be moved: either from the *east*, or from the *west*, or from some *other part of the heaven*. If from the *east*, then it seems that it first made morning and afterwards evening, and this is contrary to Scripture, which says: *Evening was made and morning*. If from the *west*, then it seems that the light began in the place of setting, which is incongruous. If in some *other part*, as at midday, then it seems that that day did not have twenty-four hours, which is contrary to the expositors.

And on account of this there is a question, where that light was made, and in what manner it made day and night. — *Annexed question.*

### CONCLUSION.

> *That light more probably made night and day by its motion, just as now the sun does by its [own] action.*

**I respond:** It must be said that, as was touched on at the outset, there is a twofold mode of speaking here: one according to the Greek doctors, namely Basil and Gregory and Damascene; the other according to the Latins.

*Opinion of the Greeks.* For Basil and Damascene said that that light made day and night by emission and contraction of rays; and this they said was in the power of the light itself — not by its own power, but by the divine command. And we read of something like this in Scripture, Exodus 10: *Moses stretched out his hand to heaven, and there were horrible darknesses in all the land of Egypt for three days*. For it is clear that in that three-day period the sun was in the hemisphere of our habitable earth, and was emitting the rays of its light into the land of Goshen and into other habitable regions, and was drawing back the rays of the same light from the land of Egypt. Something similar perhaps occurred at the Lord's passion, where the sun is said to have been darkened: and this whole was done not by nature, but by divine command. And in this manner the Greek doctors understood [the light] to have been in that first three-day period; and on this account the reasons earlier adduced from natural power in no way harm them. The authorities of sacred Scripture also do not seem to be against [them], because that division of light from darkness is not understood as regards local *position*, but as regards *formal* distinction, just as a habit is distinguished from its privation. And because from this habit into privation there was both a progress and a regress; as regards the regress into habit, it is said to have made *morning*, and this indeed came about by emission of rays; but as regards the progress into privation, it is said to have made *evening*, and this indeed came about by contraction of rays.

*Opinion of the Latins.* *Conclusion.* Another mode of speaking is that of the Latin doctors, which seems to be more reasonable, because more possible to natural power — namely that that light made night and day by its [own] motion, just as the sun does by its [own] action. For that light is understood to have been made where the sun now is — for from it the sun is believed to have been formed — and it was produced over that part above which is our hemisphere, and by illuminating that hemisphere it made *day*, and going forward it reached the setting and made *evening*, and finally going back to the rising it made *morning*. Hence with respect to one and the same hemisphere it made night and day in succession; but with respect to our hemisphere and the other [hemisphere] it made day on one side and night on the other at the same time — by the obstruction of that *dense* nature which was in the middle of that matter, which, although it was not yet in [its] complete form, was nevertheless so densified in that part that it could project a shadow, just as in the upper part, on account of its rarity and a certain subtlety, it could receive the influx of light. And so, intimating both of these, Scripture says: *God divided the light from the darkness*, as regards the existence of light in one hemisphere and darkness in the other; *and evening was made and morning*, as regards the withdrawal from our hemisphere and the return.

*Solution of the opposing [arguments].*

1. Maintaining, then, this mode as the more probable, it must be answered to the first [argument] that is objected to the contrary — that there was not there a fitness of space nor of body, through which the motion of any orb could come about — it must be said that just as the sun exceeds that light in clarity, so also in regularity of motion on account of the distinction and completion of the orbs; and just as that light had a clarity sufficient for that state, so also the upper part of the matter, which was rarer and purer, was furnishing itself a way to suitable motion, although it was not in such perfection in which the aether now is.

2. To that which is objected, that matter was uniform on every side, it must be said that, even though on every side it was equally born to receive the influx of light, nevertheless that light could not illumine on every side, just as the sun even now cannot. And on this account, when it was illuminated on one side, on the other side it was dark; and because it was uniformly disposed to the light, since it could not be illuminated all at once, it had to be illuminated in succession, and thus it had to be that night and day came to be. If you ask, why God did not make the light so sufficient that it could illumine on every side; it must be said that, if He had done so, by that light there would be illumination, but not a distinction of hours nor a temporal succession. To the divine disposition, however, it pleased to adorn the world as a most beautiful song by a certain procession of times.

3. To that which is objected, that it was always illuminating, therefore was always making day, it must be said that this does not follow, because not every illumination was called *day*, but the illumination which is in our hemisphere; which was more called *day* than the illumination of the other hemisphere — not on account of what then was alone, but also on account of what was to come.

4. To that which is objected, that it was produced before it was moved, it must be said that in a natural day there are two [things], namely *the clarity of the air* or *of the transparent thing*, and *the succession of time*. — *Two things are required for a day.* The clarity, indeed, the light produced by the multiplication of rays in the part of the transparent matter; and because light at the same time both shines and illumines, in this manner day began at the same time as the light. The succession of time, however, was produced either by the mutability itself which was in the unformed matter before the production of light, or also by the moved light itself, which was *a luminous cloud*; and so in either mode the succession of time began either at the same time as the light, or before; and that succession pertained to the first day. And on this account, in whatever manner *day* is spoken of, the formation of light is the work of the first day — not because the first day preceded the light itself, but because day began at the same time as the light. For although motion follows being according to nature, nevertheless in duration it can begin at the same time as the movable [thing]. — And if you ask, where it began to be moved; I say, where it was made. But about the place where it was made, there are two opinions. — *To the annexed question.*

*Opinion 1, with a twofold reason.* For some say that that light was made at midday. And they assign a twofold reason for this: one, because that light first made evening and afterwards morning, as Scripture says: therefore it seems that it first tended toward setting before it returned to rising. The other reason is that *God's works are perfect*, and therefore He made day and light in its plenitude, and so at midday. And this Bede and the other expositors seem to hold, who say that the first day began from a full light. And if you object that then, from the beginning of day up to morning, there are not twenty-four hours; they respond and say that six hours of this day had already preceded, with the succession of time passing, on account of the mutability of the matter itself, and afterwards in the sixth hour, which is in the perfect number, the light was made — which is a perfect body in its [own] nature — in full and perfect irradiation, as at midday. And since it was then the equinoctial time, until setting there were six hours, and afterwards until the rising of the following day there were twelve, and six had preceded before the formation of light after the creation of heaven and earth, and so the natural day was made perfect and entire.

*Opinion 2.* Another opinion is that there was no delay of time interposed between the creation and the distinction; rather, immediately after the creation of heaven and earth the Lord produced the light, such that it was *posterior in nature* but *simultaneous in duration*. And these say that that light began in the east, and by its completed revolution — tending from the same point to the same — it made the natural day. And Hugh in his book *On the Sacraments* seems to hold this. For he says that «*there was no delay interposed between the creation and the beginning of distinction, which began in the formation of light*»; and this seems sufficiently probable — that that light began on the first day there where the sun was established on the fourth day. For the sun is believed to have been established on the fourth day in the east, not at midday, and the moon in the west. And if you object that he should rather say: *morning and evening was made*; it must be said that, as the Master says in the [Lombard's] text, *morning* means the end of the preceding night, and from this it means a certain darkness — on this account that it does not only mean the beginning of day, but rather means the consummation of night. And because in the first formation of light night had not preceded, but the light began at once to illumine according to its whole power; on this account that day is said to have begun from a full light — for there it shone where it began, just as if it were at midday. Therefore it is not said to have made *morning*, because day had not preceded, but first *evening*, which is the end of day, and afterwards *morning*, which is the end of night, because it first made day, and afterwards made night.

*Judgment on this.* — And both this mode of speaking and the preceding is sufficiently probable, nor is it easily discerned which of them holds more truth; and therefore, in whatever mode of these [two] it is said, no great force is to be brought to bear.

---