Bonaventure

DISTINCTIO XIII.

Cap. I.

De primo distinctionis opere.

Prima autem distinctionis operatio fuit formatio lucis, sicut ostendit Scriptura¹, quae, commemorata rerum informitate, earum dispositionem a luce inchoavit subdens: Dixit Deus: Fiat lux, et facta est lux; et divisit lucem a tenebris, appellavitque lucem diem, et tenebras noctem. Et factum est vespere et mane, dies unus. « Congrue mundi ornatus a luce incepit, unde cetera, quae creanda erant, viderentur ».

Cap. II.

De luce facta primo die, si spiritualis, an corporalis fuerit.

Si quaeritur, qualis illa lux fuerit, corporalis scilicet, an spiritualis; id respondemus quod a Sanctis legimus traditum. — Opinio 1. Dicit enim Augustinus², quia lux

illa corporalis, vel spiritualis intelligi potest. Si spiritualis accipitur, angelica natura intelligitur, quae prius informis fuit, sed postea formata est, cum ad Creatorem suum conversa, ei caritate adhaesit, cuius informitatis creatio superius³ significata est, ubi dictum est: In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram. Hic vero eiusdem formatio ostenditur, cum ait: Fiat lux, et facta est lux. Haec ergo angelica natura prius tenebrae et postea lux fuit, quia prius habuit informitatem et imperfectionem, deinde formationis perfectionem; et ita divisit Deus lucem a tenebris. Nam, ut ait Augustinus super Genesim⁴: « Huius creaturae informitas et imperfectio fuit, antequam formaretur in amore Conditoris. Formata vero est, quando conversa est ad incommutabile lumen Verbi ». — Opinio 2. Si vero corporalis fuit lux illa, quod utique probabile est, corpus lucidum fuisse intelligitur, velut lucida nubes, quod non de nihilo, sed de praeiacenti materia formaliter factum est, ut lux esset et vim lucendi haberet; cum qua dies prima exorta est, quia ante lucem nec dies fuit nec nox, licet tempus fuerit.

Cap. III.

Ubi facta fuerit.

Si autem quaeritur: ubi facta est lux illa, cum abyssus omnem terrae altitudinem tegeret? dici potest in illis partibus facta, quas nunc illustrat solis diurna lux. Nec mirum, lucem in aquis posse lucere, cum etiam nautarum operatione saepius illustrentur, qui in profundum mersi, misso ex ore oleo⁵ aquas sibi illustrant; quae multo rariores fuerunt in principio, quam modo sunt, quia nondum congregatae fuerant in uno loco. Facta ergo lux illa vicem⁶ et locum solis tenebat, quae motu suo circumagitata, noctem diemque discernebat. Ibi ergo primum lucem apparuisse verisimile est, ubi sol quotidiano cursu circumvectus apparet, ut eodem tramite lux circumcurrens ac primo ad occasum descendens, vesperam faceret, deinde revocata ad ortum, auroram, id est mane illustraret; et ita divisit Deus lucem et tenebras et appellavit lucem diem, et tenebras noctem.

Cap. IV.

Quibus modis accipitur dies.

Hic notandum est, quod dies diversis modis accipitur in Scriptura. Dicitur⁷ enim dies lux illa, quae illo triduo tenebras illuminabat, et dicitur dies illuminatio ipsa aëris. Dicitur etiam dies spatium viginti quatuor horarum, qualiter accipitur, cum ait: Factum est vespere et mane, dies unus. Quod ita distinguendum est: factum est vespere prius, et postea mane, et ita fuit dies unus expletus viginti quatuor horarum, dies scilicet naturalis, qui habuit vesperam, sed non mane. Mane enim dicitur finis praecedentis et initium sequentis diei, quod est aurora, quae nec plenam lucem nec omnino tenebras habet. Mane ergo primus dies non habuit, quia nec dies praecesserat, qui sequentis diei initio terminaretur, et eo praecipue, quia luce apparente, mox super terram plenus atque praeclarus dies exstitit, qui non ab aurora, sed a plena luce inchoavit et mane sequentis diei consummatus est. Unde Beda super Genesim⁸: « Decebat, ut dies a luce inciperet et in mane sequentis diei tenderet, ut opera Dei a luce inchoasse et in lucem completa esse significarentur ». Reliqui autem dies mane habuerunt et vesperam, quorum quisque, a suo mane incipiens, usque ad alterius diei mane tendebatur.

Cap. V.

De naturali ordine computationis dierum, et de illo qui pro mysterio introductus est.

Hic est naturalis ordo distinctionis dierum, ut distinguantur atque computentur dies a mane usque ad mane. Postea vero in mysterio factum est⁹, ut dies computentur a vespera in vesperam, et adiungatur dies praecedenti nocti in computatione, cum iuxta naturalem ordinem praecedens dies sequenti nocti adiungi debeat, quia homo a luce per peccatum corruit in tenebras ignorantiae et peccatorum, deinde per Christum a tenebris ad lucem rediit. Unde Apostolus: Eramus aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in Domino. Primus itaque dies non ab aurora, sed a plena luce incipiens, et post paulatim vesperam, occidente luce, excipiens, mane sequentis diei expletus est. Unde Beda¹⁰: « Occidente luce paulatim et post spatium divinae longitudinis inferiores partes subeunte, factum est vespere, sicut nunc usitato cursu solis fieri solet. Factum est autem mane, eadem super terram redeunte et alium diem inchoante; et dies expletus est unus viginti quatuor horarum. Fuitque nox illo triduo omnino tenebrosa, quae post creata sidera aliqua luce claruit ».

Quaestio incidens. Solet autem quaeri, quare factus est sol, si lux illa diei sufficiebat. Ad quod dici potest, quod illa lux forte superiores partes illustrabat, et ad illuminationem inferiorum solem fieri oportebat; vel potius ideo, quia, facto sole, diei fulgor auctus est. Amplior enim multo luce radiavit dies postea quam ante. — Dubium 2. Si vero quaeritur, quid de illa luce factum sit, cum modo non appareat; potest dici, aut de ea corpus solis formatum, aut in ea parte caeli esse, in qua sol est, non quod ipsa sit sol, sed sic ei unita, ut discerni non valeat¹¹.

Cap. VI.

De intelligentia horum verborum: Dixit Deus.

Praeterea investigandum est, quomodo accipiendum sit quod ait: Dixit Deus, utrum temporaliter vel sono vocis illud dixerit, an alio modo. Dubium 3. Augustinus super Genesim¹² tradit, nec temporaliter nec sono vocis Deum fuisse locutum; quia si temporaliter, et mutabiliter; et si corporaliter dicatur sonuisse vox Dei, nec lingua erat, qua loqueretur, nec erat quem oporteret audire et intelligere. Bene ergo vox Dei ad naturam Verbi, per quod omnia facta sunt, refertur. Dixit ergo Deus: Fiat etc. non temporaliter, non sono vocis, sed in Verbo sibi coaeterno, id est, Verbum genuit intemporaliter, in quo erat et disposuit ab aeterno, ut fieret in tempore, et in eo factum est.

Cap. VII.

Ex quo sensu Pater dicitur operari in Filio, vel per Filium, vel in Spiritu sancto.

Hic quaeri solet, quomodo accipiendum sit quod dicitur Pater operari in Filio, vel per Filium, vel in Spiritu sancto. Haec enim Scriptura frequenter nobis proponit, ut illud: « Omnia in sapientia fecisti, Domine »¹³, id est « in Filio¹⁴ ». Et: « In principio, id est in Filio, creavit Deus caelum et terram ». Et illud: Per quem fecit et saecula. Super illum quoque Psalmi locum: Verbo Domini caeli firmati sunt etc. dicit Augustinus, quod « Pater operatur per Verbum suum et Spiritum sanctum ». Quomodo ergo hoc accipiendum est? — Opinio haeretica. Putaverunt quidam haeretici, quod Pater velut auctor et artifex Filio et Spiritu sancto in rerum operatione quasi instrumento uteretur, ex praedictis verbis errandi occasionem sumentes; quod velut blasphemum atque sanae doctrinae adversum abiicit pia fides. — Expositio 1 catholica. Non est itaque intelligendum, ideo Scripturam frequenter commemorare Patrem operari in Filio, vel per Filium, tanquam Filius non posset facere, si ei non porrexisset Pater dexteram, vel tanquam aliquod instrumentum fuerit Patris operantis; sed potius illis verbis Patrem intelligi voluit cum Filio et Spiritu sancto operari et sine eis nihil facere.

Obiicitur. Sed dicit haereticus, hac ratione posset dixisse Filium operari per Patrem vel in Patre, et Spiritum sanctum cum utroque vel per utrumque, quia Filius cum Patre, et Spiritus sanctus cum utroque operatur. — Solutio. Cui breviter respondetur, ideo illud dictum esse et non istud, ut in Patre monstraretur auctoritas¹⁵. Non enim Pater a Filio, sed Filius a Patre operatur, et Spiritus sanctus ab utroque. Ideoque Filius etiam per Spiritum sanctum legitur operari, quia cum Spiritu sancto operatur, hoc ipsum a Filio habente, ut operetur. — Expositio 2. Potest et aliter illud accipi, ut dicatur Pater in Filio vel per Filium operari, quia eum genuit omnium opificem, sicut dicitur per eum iudicare, quia genuit iudicem; ita et per Spiritum sanctum dicitur operari, sive Pater, sive Filius, quia ab utroque procedit Spiritus sanctus, factor omnium. Unde Ioannes Chrysostomus in expositione Epistolae ad Hebraeos¹⁶ sic ait: « Non ut haereticus inaniter suspicatur, tanquam aliquod instrumentum Patris exstiterit Filius; neque per eum Pater dicitur fecisse, tanquam ipse facere non posset; sed sicut dicitur Pater iudicare per Filium, quia iudicem genuit, sic etiam dicitur operari per Filium, quia eum constat opificem genuisse. Si enim causa eius Pater est, secundum quod Pater est, multo amplius eorum causa est, quae per Filium facta sunt ». — Haec de opere primae diei dicta sunt.

---

## Distinction XIII. Lombard's text.

DISTINCTION XIII.

Cap. I.

On the first work of distinction.

Now the first operation of distinction was the formation of light, as Scripture shows¹, which, after recalling the unformedness of things, began their arrangement from light, subjoining: God said: Let there be light, and there was light; and He divided the light from the darknesses, and called the light Day, and the darknesses Night. And evening and morning were made, one day. «Fittingly the adornment of the world began from light, whence the other things which were to be created might be seen».

Cap. II.

On the light made on the first day — whether it was spiritual or corporeal.

If it is asked of what kind that light was, namely corporeal or spiritual: we answer what we read handed down by the Saints. — Opinion 1. For Augustine says² that that light can be understood [either as] corporeal or [as] spiritual. If it is taken as spiritual, the angelic nature is understood, which was previously unformed but afterwards formed, when, turned to its Creator, it clung to Him by charity — the creation of which unformedness was signified above³, where it was said: In the beginning God created heaven and earth. And here the formation of the same is shown, when He says: Let there be light, and there was light. So therefore the angelic nature was first darkness and afterwards light, because it first had unformedness and imperfection, then the perfection of formation; and so God divided the light from the darknesses. For, as Augustine says on Genesis⁴: «This creature's unformedness and imperfection was before it was formed in the love of its Maker. But it has been formed, when it has been turned to the immutable light of the Word». — Opinion 2. But if that light was corporeal — which is indeed probable — it is understood to have been a luminous body, like a bright cloud, which was made formally not from nothing but from preexistent matter, so that it might be light and have the power of giving light; with which the first day arose, since before light there was neither day nor night, although there was time.

Cap. III.

Where it was made.

But if it is asked where that light was made, since the deep covered the whole height of the earth: it can be said to have been made in those parts which the daily light of the sun now illumines. Nor is it any wonder that light can shine in waters, since [waters] are often even illumined by the work of sailors, who, plunged in the deep, illumine the waters about themselves with oil⁵ sent out from the mouth; which [waters] were much rarer in the beginning than they now are, because they had not yet been gathered into one place. Therefore that light was made and held the office⁶ and place of the sun, which, agitated by its motion, distinguished night and day. There, therefore, it is likely that light first appeared, where the sun, carried round by its daily course, appears — so that the light, running round by the same track, and first descending to the setting, made evening; then, recalled to its rising, illumined the dawn, that is the morning; and thus God divided light and darknesses and called the light Day and the darknesses Night.

Cap. IV.

In what modes "day" is taken.

Here it must be noted that day is taken in diverse modes in Scripture. For day is said⁷ of that light which during that three-day span illumined the darknesses, and day is said of the very illumination of the air. Day is also said of the space of twenty-four hours, in which sense it is taken when it says: Evening and morning were made, one day. Which must be distinguished thus: evening was made first, and afterwards morning, and so one day, completed in twenty-four hours, was made — namely a natural day, which had evening but not morning. For morning is said of the end of the preceding day and the beginning of the following one, which is dawn, which has neither full light nor entire darkness. Therefore the first day did not have morning, because no day had preceded which would have been terminated at the beginning of the following day; and especially because, with light appearing, then full and most bright day stood over the earth — [a day] which began not from dawn but from full light and was consummated at the morning of the following day. Hence Bede on Genesis⁸: «It was fitting that the day should begin from light and tend to the morning of the next day, so that the works of God might be signified as having begun from light and as being completed in light». But the remaining days had morning and evening, each of which, beginning from its own morning, was extended up to the morning of another day.

Cap. V.

On the natural order of the computation of days, and on the [order] which was introduced for the mystery.

This is the natural order of the distinction of days, that days be distinguished and computed from morning to morning. But afterwards it was done in mystery⁹, that days be computed from evening to evening, and that the day be joined to the preceding night in the computation — although, according to the natural order, the preceding day ought to be joined to the following night — because man fell from light by sin into the darknesses of ignorance and of sins, and then through Christ returned from the darknesses to the light. Hence the Apostle: We were once darkness, but now [we are] light in the Lord. Thus the first day, beginning not from dawn but from full light, and then gradually receiving evening as the light went down, was completed at the morning of the next day. Hence Bede¹⁰: «With the light going down gradually and after a space of divine length passing under the lower parts, evening was made, just as it is now wont to be done by the customary course of the sun. But morning was made when the same [light] was returning over the earth and inaugurating another day; and the day was completed as one of twenty-four hours. And the night for that three-day span was wholly tenebrous, which afterwards, with the stars created, shone with some light».

An incidental question. But it is wont to be asked why the sun was made, if that light of the day sufficed. To which it can be said that perhaps that light illumined the upper parts, and the sun had to be made for the illumination of the lower; or rather for this reason: because, with the sun made, the brightness of the day was increased. For with a much greater light did the day shine afterwards than before. — A second doubt. But if it is asked what became of that light, since it does not now appear: it can be said either that the body of the sun was formed from it, or that it is in that part of the heaven in which the sun is — not as if it were itself the sun, but so united to it that it cannot be discerned¹¹.

Cap. VI.

On the understanding of these words: God said.

Furthermore it must be investigated how it is to be taken when He says: God said — whether He spoke that temporally or with the sound of a voice, or in some other mode. A third doubt. Augustine on Genesis¹² hands down that God spoke neither temporally nor with the sound of a voice; because if [He had spoken] temporally, [He would have spoken] also mutably; and if the voice of God is said to have sounded corporeally, neither was there a tongue with which to speak, nor was there anyone whom it behooved to hear and understand. Well therefore is the voice of God referred to the nature of the Word, through which all things are made. Therefore God said: Let there be etc., not temporally, not with the sound of a voice, but in the Word coeternal to Himself — that is, He begot the Word intemporally, in whom He was and from eternity disposed that it should come to be in time, and in Him [the Word] it was done.

Cap. VII.

In what sense the Father is said to operate in the Son, or through the Son, or in the Holy Spirit.

It is wont here to be asked how it is to be taken when it is said that the Father operates in the Son, or through the Son, or in the Holy Spirit. For Scripture frequently proposes this to us, as that: «Thou hast made all things in wisdom, O Lord»¹³, that is «in the Son¹⁴». And: «In the beginning, that is in the Son, God created heaven and earth». And that: Through whom He also made the ages. Likewise on that locus of the Psalm: By the word of the Lord the heavens were established etc., Augustine says that «the Father operates through His Word and Holy Spirit». How then is this to be taken? — A heretical opinion. Certain heretics have supposed that the Father, as it were as author and craftsman, used the Son and the Holy Spirit in the operation of things as it were as an instrument, taking from the aforesaid words an occasion of error — which pious faith rejects as blasphemous and contrary to sound doctrine. — Catholic exposition 1. Therefore it is not to be understood that Scripture so frequently mentions the Father operating in the Son or through the Son as if the Son could not act unless the Father stretched out His right hand to Him, or as if [the Son] were a sort of instrument of the operating Father; but rather that by those words it willed that the Father be understood as operating with the Son and Holy Spirit and as doing nothing without them.

An objection. But the heretic says: on this account it could have been said that the Son operates through the Father or in the Father, and the Holy Spirit with each or through each, because the Son operates with the Father, and the Holy Spirit with each. — Solution. To which it is briefly replied: that [the former] was said and not the latter, so that the principle [of action] might be shown in the Father¹⁵. For the Father does not [operate] from the Son, but the Son operates from the Father, and the Holy Spirit from both. And thus the Son is also read to operate through the Holy Spirit, because He operates with the Holy Spirit, [the Holy Spirit] having this very thing from the Son, that he should operate. — Exposition 2. That [phrase] can also be taken otherwise, so that the Father is said to operate in the Son or through the Son, because He begot Him as the maker of all — as one is said to judge through Him, because [the Father] begot the judge; so also [the Father] is said, or the Son, to operate through the Holy Spirit, because from both proceeds the Holy Spirit, the maker of all. Hence John Chrysostom in his exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews¹⁶ thus says: «Not as the heretic vainly suspects, as though the Son had stood forth as some instrument of the Father; nor is the Father said to have made [things] through Him as though He Himself could not have made [them]; but, as the Father is said to judge through the Son, because He begot the judge, so also He is said to operate through the Son, because He is known to have begotten Him as maker. For if the Father is the cause of Him, according as He is Father, much more is He the cause of those things which have been made through the Son». — These things have been said concerning the work of the first day.

---