Dist. 14, Part 2, Dubia
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/14/q/bon-sent-II-d14-p2-dubia
----------------------------------------
### Doubt I.

*Concerning three [points].* In this part there are doubts concerning the letter, and first there is asked concerning what he says: *Let the waters be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.* For first, it seems unfitting to say *Let the waters be gathered into a place,* since motion toward a place belongs to something complete; but the waters had not yet been produced: therefore he wrongly said *to be gathered into one place.* — Likewise, nothing can appear except color; and no simple element is colored: therefore the earth cannot appear. Therefore he wrongly says *let the dry land appear.* — Likewise, since there are two other elements, namely fire and air, it seems that Scripture is insufficient, which explains nothing about their distinction. — Next to this it is asked, why he names the element of water in the plural, and the element of earth in the singular. *If you say* that this is on account of the dispersion of the waters; then it seems he wrongly says *Let the waters be gathered into one place.* — Likewise, it is asked why he first calls the element of earth *the dry land* and afterward calls it *earth,* since it had earlier been said: *In the beginning God created heaven and earth.* — Likewise, since the element of water is by nature tasteless, and the seas are salty, it does not seem that the gatherings of the waters ought to be called *seas.*

**I respond:** It must be said that Scripture explains the distinction of the elements in these words very elegantly, if one attends [to them]. For since motion toward a position belongs only to a thing that is complete and has form, for the waters to be gathered into one was nothing other than, for the element of water itself, by giving it one species and an inclination toward the place owed to that species, at the same time, according to the requirement of the form and of the inclination toward position, to give it a fitting place. — And since the place of water is immediately to be around the earth, when the water is gathered, it is separated from the higher elements, namely air and fire. Therefore in the gathering of the waters the distinction of the other two elements is touched on as a consequence. Again, since the waters are by nature [meant] to surround the earth, and if they had encircled the earth on every side, it would not be fit for habitation by us and the animals; therefore he so distinguished it that on its upper surface the dry land would appear. Again, if the earth had been wholly separated from water, it would not be apt for germinating; and therefore God so dried the surface of the earth that nonetheless the water filled its root and even irrigated it by the flowing of rivers. — And on account of these three [things] Scripture says three: *Note.* first, on account of the *distinction* of the elements: *Let the waters be gathered into one place;* secondly, on account of the *uncovering* of the surface of the earth: *and let the dry land appear;* thirdly, on account of the *irrigation* which it receives from the waters, that it may be able to germinate, he says: *he called the dry land earth, and the gatherings of the waters he called seas.* — And from these the objections are clear.

For what is first objected concerning the verb *to gather* is not valid, because God did not cause the waters to be gathered as though previously existing, but as giving them a form and a nature by which they would be naturally fit to come together into one place. — Likewise, what is objected concerning the appearance of the earth is clear, because the earth which appears is not pure element, but mixed element. — Likewise what he objects concerning the distinction of the other elements is clear; because in these two, which are most perceptible and tractable, is enclosed the distinction of those which are hidden from our senses. — *To the 3rd question.* Likewise it is clear why he calls water in the plural, and earth in the singular, namely on account of their dispersion. For what is moist, by its proper terminus, is ill terminable; but because what is dry by its nature is terminable, therefore he calls earth in the singular. — And he first calls it *the dry land* and afterward *earth,* because the first name expresses the property of the element, namely dryness, while the second name expresses its use or utility, which it has through the mixture of water, that it may be cultivated and bear fruit; therefore it is called *terra* as it were *trita* (worn). — Likewise what he objects concerning the waters is clear. For they are called *seas,* not because bitterness is the first quality of water, but because it follows water in its gathering on account of the grossness of the parts, which remain when the finer parts are raised upward or penetrate into the depths of the earth, by which subtilization they become sweet.

### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *On the same day the earth brought forth the green herb.* For it seems this was done out of order; for if the firmament was made before the earth, it ought to have been adorned before the earth. — Likewise, since mineral bodies are from the earth just as well as wood, it seems that Scripture insufficiently determines those things which by divine power are produced from the earth. — Likewise, it is asked whether the earth then germinated thorns and thistles. For if it did not then produce them, it seems that after sin the earth was more fruitful, and received a new power to produce such things. But if it then produced them, Scripture seems *insufficient,* because it does not express [it]; it seems also contrary to itself, since in the third [chapter] of Genesis it says that those things germinate as a punishment of man: *cursed is the earth* etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that Scripture expresses [things] in an ordered way, and God did them most ordered, when on the same day on which the earth was produced he caused herbs and trees to come forth from it: both to remove error, as Basil says: « lest it be believed that the sun is the principal cause of what is born of the earth », as the Philosopher says, « that the earth is the mother of plants, and the sun the father »; and also, because plants and herbs are as it were connatural to the earth, since they are fixed in it by their roots, drawing from it their nourishment and origin. It is not so, however, in the adornments of the other three [elements]; and through this the first objection is clear.

What is objected concerning mineral bodies, it must be said that, because they recede little from the nature of earth, and because they lie hidden under the earth, Scripture did not take care to express [them] specially.

To that which is asked concerning thorns and thistles, it must be said that they were then produced, because perfect fertility was given to the earth, and there is no herb, however vile, which is not of some utility and virtue; and therefore those things must be understood to be produced along with the other greening herbs and fruit-bearing trees; and Scripture comprehended them under the generality of those.

And what is objected, that they were generated as a punishment of sin; it must be said that for a thorn and a thistle to be generated where wheat is sown — this is for the punishment of sin and from the curse of the earth, which, when it is cultivated that it may give fruit by which man may be sustained, rather produces that by which man may be tormented. But that in many places a thorn and a thistle is generated — this is not punishment but nature.

### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says: *Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven,* and it is asked what these *lights* are. If you say, that the sun and the moon — because Scripture explains: *God made two great lights* etc.; — there seem to be objections; first, because these *Three objections.* are not in the firmament, but under the firmament: secondly, because the moon is not a great light, since in the judgment of the wise many stars are larger; thirdly, because the moon does not seem to be a *light,* but rather an opaque body, since by its interposition it causes the sun to be eclipsed. *If you say* that the moon is called

a light, not because it shines of itself, but because it receives light from the sun; it is objected against this, that, since the moon is of the nature of the quintessence, just as also the sun, it seems that it ought so to shine, as the sun. — *Question 1.* Likewise it is asked, if it receives light, whether as a *transparent* body, or as *terminated,* or as a *mirror,* which partly has the nature of the terminated and partly of the transparent. If it receives [it] as transparent, then it seems that it does not oppose itself to the sight by itself, and that also it cannot hide the sun. If as terminated; then a twofold inconvenience arises: first, that since a terminated body is only mixed, the moon cannot be a terminated body: secondly, because then it will not be illumined except on the surface: therefore it seems that it receives little of the light and refunds little: therefore it ought not to be called a light. But if it receives [it] as a mirror; then likewise there is a twofold inconvenience: first, that in the moon we ought to see the image or species of the sun, as is seen in a mirror: the other, that then the moon ought not to illuminate in every part, just as neither does a mirror offer an image in every part.

Therefore on account of this there is the question, why the moon *Question 2.* is said to be a light, and why it shines more by night than by day, and also why it shines more when it is far from the sun than when it approaches it; for the contrary ought to be, if it receives light from it.

**I respond:** It must be said that concerning the lights of heaven, certain [men] hold a singular opinion, saying *Opinion 1.* that the heavenly bodies are from the four elements, with the nature of fire — or of a heavenly body, which they say is of a fiery nature — predominating in them; predominating, I say, not only according to quality, but also according to quantity; and according as that nature predominates more in them, accordingly they have higher and higher places. And since in the moon, which is nearest to us, the fiery nature dominates least among the other lights, and more is found in it of a nature receptive of light; hence it is that the moon shines little of itself and from the presence of the sun receives much light, so much that it deserves to be called a *light*, and *a great light* on account of the great effect of light which it has on earth. In testimony of their position they adduce this, that the moon seems to be a terminated and colored body; and therefore, placed between us and the sun, it hides the sun's rays from us, and, placed opposite the sun, while from that part

by which it is opposed to us it receives light, it illuminates the lower things.

But this position is against the common way *It is rejected.* of the philosophers and against the common way of the Saints. *Reason 1.* For it is against the philosophers, because the philosophers say that things mixed of four elements are corruptible; and for the mixture to be fitting, it is necessary that there be more in it of the nature of heavy things according to quantity; and thus the lights of heaven, according to this position, would both be corruptible and would be heavy. But if you reply that those have been sublimated from the nature of corruptibility and heaviness, just as the glorious bodies of men [are sublimated]; this does not solve [the problem], because it is not asked here what God may do through grace and glory, but what kind of lights have been founded by nature. — It is against the common way of the Saints *Reason 2.* because, if those bodies are mixed, they are mixed by a very noble mixture; and if so, then they are by nature [destined] to be perfected by a soul, and so are animals; and this is against Damascene, who says that the heavens are inanimate and insensible. This is also against Jerome, to the point of saying that it is heretical to say that the stars are animated. Whence he enumerates this among the heresies of Origen. *Augustine.* And [as for] Augustine, the *Retractations* retracts [it], because he had said [it] in his book *On the Immortality of the Soul*; nevertheless he does not entirely condemn it as false. For he says thus in the book of *Retractations*: « That the world is an animal, as Plato held, and many others, I have not been able to investigate by certain reason, nor have I come to know that it can be proved by the authority of the divine Scriptures. Whence such a thing as was said by me, how it can be received, that the world is an animal, I reprove as rashly said — not because I confirm it to be false, but because I do not comprehend it to be true ». But if you say that those are *complected* but not animated; how can this be true, since for us a complexion is the proximate disposition for receiving a soul? On account of these things and the like, this mode of speaking does not seem to be approved.

In a second mode it can be said according to the philosophers, *Opinion 2.* that the lights were produced by an aggregation of the light of their orbs. For just as, if heat dispersed were gathered into one, it would become more intense and stronger; so, when the nature of light found in the orbs is gathered into one by the power of its maker, a light is constituted, and accordingly a light is greater or smaller according as the aggregation of light in it is greater. And since the moon is nearer to us than the other heavenly bodies, and so is its orb: hence it is that it and its orb participate less in the perfection of light. But because it is much conformed to the nature of light, exposed to the sun it is much illumined; and because it has a density in its parts, it is not pervious to the rays of the sun, and therefore it refunds the rays which it receives from that part with which it opposes itself to the sun; and since it is near to us, it illumines us much. And therefore sacred Scripture calls the sun and moon *two great lights.* *Not wholly sufficient.* — And this position is sufficiently probable, yet does not seem wholly sufficient. For if the moon is luminous from the aggregation and condensation of the parts of its orb, though it does not reach the luminosity of the sun, it seems that of itself it ought to shine, not only from the reception of solar light — which is clear to the eye to be false.

And therefore there is yet a third mode of speaking, according to the Saints, namely Damascene and Basil, by saying *Opinion 3.* that *light* (*luminare*) signifies not only light, but *Light signifies two.* the vehicle of light and the vessel of light, on account of which Ecclesiasticus, in the forty-third [chapter], says of the sun: *A wonderful vessel, the work of the Most High.* Whence just as a lamp, which signifies a vehicle of light, has in itself a twofold nature, namely of the light which is carried and of the body which carries [it]; so they wished to say of the lights of heaven. For Basil says thus: « This solar body has been made a vehicle for that first-born light; for just as fire is one thing and a lamp another, so for that light vehicles, the lights, have been prepared ». Likewise, Damascene: « On those lights the Creator placed the first clear light, not as unable to give them another light, but lest that [light] should remain idle. For a *light* (*luminare*) is not the light itself, but the receptacle of light ». Therefore according to Basil and Damascene the lights have been constituted from that first light, which made day and night, and from the nature of their orb, joined together by a certain aggregation by the divine hand in the manner of a vessel and receptacle of light. — Therefore, sustaining this mode on account of reverence to the Saints — and it is safer *It is approved.* to lean on their words in this matter, in which one proceeds more from conjecture than from certain reason — it must be said that the lights, insofar as they are constituted from their orbs, by aggregation have rather an aptitude for receiving than for diffusing; but that they shine, this they have from the perfection of the light first created. And therefore that light to which God gave much of that light shines the most, as the sun; that to which he gave less, less; and that to which he gave least, shines least of itself, but if it shines, this is from the recep-

tion of the solar influence. — And therefore some wished *Opinion 4.* to say that not only the moon, but also all the stars receive their light from the sun. But whatever may be the case with the other stars, of the moon at any rate it appears clearly enough that of itself it does not shine.

And the reason for this is that, for its completion, *The moon does not shine of itself.* it received [only] a little of that light first created; but because it is an aggregate from a nature which is much apt to receive light, since it is a great and dense body and near to us, hence it is that it receives much of the light and refunds much, when it is illuminated from that part with which it opposes itself to us. But this is, when it is at perfect distance from the sun, so that the sun is in one hemisphere and the moon in another. — And this is the reason why Scripture *On the 2nd [point].* calls [it] a *great* light, and why the sun has been set over the day, and the moon set over the night.

And through this the response to the objections is clear. For what *To the objections.* is said, that the moon is a great light — this is not said because it shines of itself, or because it is greater than the stars, but because it illumines us more. — Why it illumines more by night than by day, the reason has already been said.

To that which is asked, in what way it receives *To that.* the light, whether as transparent, or as terminated, or as a mirror; it must be said that the moon has neither the nature of the perfectly opaque, nor of the perfectly transparent, nor does it perfectly have the nature of a mirror; it participates, however, in something of each of these. For it participates in the nature of the transparent in some way, since it is constituted of the nature of the fifth body. The nature of the opaque, in that those parts are so condensed that they do not afford passage either to the solar rays or to the visual rays. The nature of the mirror it has in this, that it so receives that it also returns; yet it does not return entirely as a mirror, because it is not a polished and burnished body, as is clear to one looking at the lunar body itself when it is illuminated; but a mirror returns an image because it is a polished body, which is not pervious to the rays. — But these things have been said more by *Conjectures.* conjecturing than by asserting, that some sound understanding may be had of what Scripture says: *God made two great lights* etc.

What is objected, that they are not placed in the firmament; it must be said that *firmament* is sometimes *To the 3 objections.* taken in Scripture *broadly,* sometimes *strictly:* sometimes namely the eighth sphere is so called, in which the stars are placed; and so it is properly taken, as there: *And he placed the stars in the firmament of heaven.* Sometimes it is taken broadly for the nature of the fifth body, which divided the waters from the waters; and so it is taken there: *Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,* and after this: *Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven.*

### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning what follows, and what the Master asks in the letter, namely concerning this: *And let them be for signs and seasons and days and years.* For if they are for *signs,* those who prognosticate future things by them do not seem to sin; if for *seasons,* then it seems that before the sun and moon there were no seasons; or if for seasons, it is asked why he says *seasons* in the plural, since there is but one season? — Likewise, it is asked concerning the sufficiency of these four things which he enumerates: *for signs and seasons and days and years,* because likewise they are for months and weeks. If you say, that these are included in these two, namely *days and years*; then likewise days and years can be included in what he says, *signs and seasons.*

**I respond:** It must be said that that word can be expounded in two ways, *A twofold exposition.* according as there is a twofold use of a sign. For a sign both is for signifying, and is for distinguishing.

If a sign be taken in the first mode, then the sense is, *Exposition 1.* that those lights were made *for signs,* that is, for the signification of future things and the variation of seasons and days and years, so that the variation of seasons may be attended in the changing of the air with respect to heat and cold, the variation of days with respect to light and darkness, the variation of years with respect to the renewal of these two. And thus the heavenly bodies are said to be for signs not of just any future things, but of those of which they themselves are in some way the cause, such as showers and winds — and so Damascene expounds — or also of those things which by them divine providence presignifies, such as those things which will come at the judgment, according to that of Luke chapter twenty-one: *There will be signs in the sun and moon and stars.* But of others, which are from free will, they are not signs by divine institution, but rather human imagination and diabolical deception have drawn them to signify those things.

But if it be taken in the second mode, namely *Exposition 2.* from the act of *distinguishing;* then the sense is *let them be for signs and seasons* etc.: *let them be for signs,* that is, for the distinctions of seasons and days and years. — But this *It is more approved.* exposition seems to be more consonant with the divine Scripture, as is clear from the preceding letter, where it is said: *Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven,* and let them divide day and night. For there is a twofold motion *Twofold motion.* of the lights: one, which is according to the motion of the last sphere upon the principal poles, from east into east through west, by which motion they are revolved once each natural day; and according to this mode they divide day and night, as is said in the Psalm: *He made the sun for power over the day, the moon and stars for power over the night.* The other is the proper motion, which they naturally have in the oblique circle, namely in the zodiac, in which the twelve signs are described; and according to the motion of the planets in those signs, and especially of the sun, there is made the signing and distinction of seasons and days and years. — The *distinction of seasons* arises, because there are four *Threefold signing of the sun.* seasons of the year: spring, summer, autumn and winter, which are distinguished by the motion of the sun in the zodiac, as it approaches us and goes far from us. — The *distinction of days* arises likewise by the same motion, because now days grow, now they decrease; sometimes days are longer than nights, sometimes shorter, according as by that motion is taken a twofold solstice, namely summer and winter, and a twofold equinox, namely vernal and autumnal. — They are also for the distinction of years, according to the consummation of that motion of the sun in the oblique circle. — Likewise the moon in its own way *Likewise the moon.* is for the signing of seasons and days and years, especially among the Jews with respect to solemnities, just as among Christians [it is] the sun, as is said in Ecclesiasticus chapter forty-three: *The moon is a sign of the feast day.*

But if it be asked why the Church takes its feasts *An incidental question.* more according to the sun than according to the moon, except for two; the determination of this question is lengthy, and can plainly be found in the book of Augustine *to Ianuarius*. Let this suffice for the present: that because the synagogue walked in the darkness of night and was to be diminished, therefore it took the distinction of its solemnities from the *light* which presides over the night and which is diminished in its consummation. But because the Church already walks in light, as is said of her in Apocalypse chapter twelve: *A woman clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet;* therefore she computes months and solemn days more according to the motion of the sun than of the moon, with the exception only of Easter, and as a consequence of Pentecost. For the Paschal solemnity is celebrated not only *Note.* in commemoration of the past resurrection, but also in presignification of the future resurrection. And in this the Church is in some manner conformed to the synagogue, whence she observes that festivity from the moon — not Judaizing, but rather presignifying that future solemnity, which she awaits, according as suits her.

— But these things have been said on account of what Scripture says: *And let them be for signs* etc. And through this the response to the objections is clear.

For what is said to be *for signs;* this is either *To the objections.* for the signification of showers and winds, or for the distinction of seasons; and therefore he says *seasons* in the plural on account of the variation in the four seasons of the year, according to the four qualities of the elements. And he subjoins: *days and years,* so that, as by *seasons* variation was noted, so also by *days and years* the *termination* of that motion may be noted — so that *day* expresses the termination of the motion by which the sun is moved by the motion of the firmament, and *year* the termination of the motion by which it is moved in the oblique circle. And in this it is clear that *month* and *week* are not to be added, because no new variation nor new termination is touched on there. And through this all the things asked are clear.

---