Bonaventure

English

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[^9] 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[^10], 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[^11]: «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[^12] 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.

Wilson Pruitt · wroot-bonaventure · published at bonaventure.wrootpress.com (bonaventure.wrootpress.com, In II Sent. d.13 a.1 q.1). This page quotes it; that is its home.

Latin

In II Sent., d. XIII, a. 1, q. 1 (Quaracchi 1885, II.312–313) · pd

Notes

The crux put as a disputed question and closed, eight hundred years after Augustine opened it — and closed the same way K10's d.12 a.1 q.2 closes the question of the days. Bonaventure sets out Augustine's position at length and fairly: by 'heaven' unformed spiritual nature, by 'light' the angelic nature formed, by 'day' the angelic consideration, by the seven days a sevenfold consideration; and he grants that Augustine conforms Scripture to it well enough, noting the argument that the text does not say fiat and fecit and factum est of the light as it does of bodily things. Then: however probable and reasonable that position was, the Catholic treatise-writers who followed Augustine approved another way — a material distinction of days and a corporeal light making three days before the sun — and because the text more readily intimates this and the expositors more generally follow it, this position is the safer and more useful to hold. The question is decided by weight of exposition, not by exegesis.

Threads

• → contests · Augustine
  Augustine's position set out at length and fairly — heaven the unformed spiritual nature, light the angelic nature formed, day the angelic consideration — granted to be probable and reasonable, and then declined: the Catholic treatise-writers approved another way, the text more readily intimates it, and the expositors more generally follow it, so it is the safer and more useful to hold.
• → parallel · Peter Comestor
  The schools' settled answer in its two registers, as at K10: Comestor prints the luminous cloud in a handbook without noticing that anyone ever thought otherwise, and Bonaventure raises the question in a disputation in order to rule the same way. The corporeal light wins by handbook and by quaestio at once.