Sentences, Books I–II

Chapter 1 (64).

What the first operation of distinction was. The first operation of distinction was the formation of light, as Scripture shows: after mentioning the formlessness of things, it began their arrangement with light, adding 2: God said: Let there be light, and there was light; and he divided the light from the darkness, and he called the light day and the darkness night. And there was evening and morning, one day. Fittingly the adornment of the world began with light, by which the other things that were to be created might be seen.

Chapter 2 (65).

1. What that light was like, bodily or spiritual. If it is asked what kind of light that was, bodily or spiritual, we answer what we have read handed down by the Saints. For Augustine 3 says that that light can be understood as bodily or spiritual.

2. On spiritual light *. If it is taken as spiritual, the angelic nature is understood: it was first formless. It was later formed when, having turned toward the Creator, it clung to him in love. Its unformed creation was indicated above, where it was said ¹: In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Here, however, its formation is shown when he says ²: Let there be light, and light was made. Thus this angelic nature was first darkness and afterward light, because first it had formlessness and imperfection, then the perfection of formation; and so God divided the light from the darkness. For, as Augustine says in On Genesis ³, this creature's formlessness and imperfection existed before it was formed in love of the Creator; it was formed when it turned toward the unchangeable light of the Word.

⁴ 2 [Gen. 1:3–5.] 3 [On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, I, 3–5 and 17 (PL 34, 248ss, 258; CSEL 28-I, 7–10 and 23–26). See also On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, IV, 5, no. 20 (PL 34, 227s; CSEL 28-I, 471s); Against Faustus, XXII, 10 (PL 42, 405; CSEL 25, 598s).]

Apparatus, p. 389: 5–6 reformantur transposed as pereant LMNX. 9 fuerit] fuit BCLNVW. 14 coepit] incepit W, corrected to incepit RT.

⁵

3. Here he discusses bodily light. If that light was bodily—which is indeed probable—it is understood to have been a luminous body, like a bright cloud; this was made formally not from nothing but from pre-existing matter, so that it might be light and possess the power of shining. With it the first day arose, since before the light there was neither day nor night, although there was time.

Chapter 3 (66).

1. That the light was made where the sun appears, and could shine among the waters. — Augustine⁶. «If, however, one asks where that light was made, since the abyss covered the whole height of the earth, one may say that it was made in those regions which the sun's daylight now illuminates. Nor is it surprising that light could shine in the waters, since they are often illuminated even by the activity of sailors: diving into the depths, they illuminate the waters for themselves by releasing oil from their mouths⁷. The waters were much thinner at the beginning than they are now, because they had not yet been gathered into one place».

2. That light, then, took the sun's place and role, moving around and distinguishing night from day. It is therefore plausible that the light first appeared where the sun is seen to travel around in its daily course, so that the light, running along the same path and first descending toward sunset, would make evening; then, returning toward sunrise, it would illuminate dawn, that is, morning. — And so God divided the light from the darkness, and called the light day and the darkness night.

Apparatus, p. 390: 16–5 (p. 391) Quod ... noctem in the bottom of fol. O. 23 uno loco] unum locum BCX.

⁸

Chapter 4 (67).

1. That “day” is understood in different ways. Here it should be noted that “day” is used in Scripture in different ways. “Day” means that light which illuminated the darkness during those three days. “Day” also means the illumination of the air itself. It also means a span of twenty-four hours, as it is understood when he says: And there was evening and morning, one day.

2. How the phrase “And there was evening and morning, one day” is to be distinguished. It should be distinguished in this way: first there was evening, and afterward morning, and thus one day of twenty-four hours was completed—the natural day, that is, which had an evening but no morning. For “morning” is called the end of the preceding day and the beginning of the next, namely dawn, which came after the preceding day; it was not merely dawn, but a full and complete day. The remaining days, however, had both morning and evening; each began with morning and ended with evening.

⁹ 2 [Gen. 1:5.] 3 [In Gen., I, 5 (PL 91, 18 B; CCL 118A, 10).]

Apparatus, p. 391: 12–13 Rubrica om. MVW. 15 habuit] habuerit BCP. 21 Beda om. MNTVW.

¹⁰

Chapter 5 (68).

1. The natural order for reckoning the days, and the order introduced for the sake of a mystery. This is the natural order for distinguishing the days, namely, that days be distinguished and counted from morning to morning. Later, however, it was done mystically that days be counted from evening to evening, and that the night be joined to the preceding day in the reckoning, although according to the natural order the preceding day ought to be joined to the following night. For (Behold the mystery!) man fell from light through sin into the darkness of ignorance and sins, and afterward through Christ returned from darkness to light. Hence the Apostle¹ says: Once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord.

2. Accordingly, the first day began not at dawn but in full light; then, as the light gradually set, evening followed, and it was completed at the morning of the next day. Hence Bede² says: «As the light gradually set and, after the span of daylight, descended into the lower regions, evening came to be, just as it now happens in the sun's usual course. Morning came when the same light returned above the earth and began another day, and one day of twenty-four hours was completed. During those three days the night was wholly dark; after the heavenly bodies were created, it was brightened by some light».

3. Why was the sun made, if that light was sufficient? — Augustine*. It is usually asked, «Why was the sun made, if that light sufficed to make the day?» One may answer that perhaps that light illuminated the upper regions, and that the sun had to be made to illuminate the lower ones; or rather, for this reason: «Once the sun was made, the brightness of the day increased, for afterward the day shone with much greater light than before».

Printed p. 392 references: 1 Eph. 5, 8. 2 In Gen. 1, 5 (PL 91, 17 D–18 A; CCL 118A, 9s). 3 Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, I, ch. 11, no. 23 (PL 34, 254; CSEL 28-I, 16).

Apparatus, p. 392: 2 pro mysterio] proximo BCNOPT X (see the list of chapters). 3 Hic] Sed prefixed in L; Et prefixed in M. 7–8 Ecce mysterium omitted in NRVW. 9–10 Apostolus omitted in MN, added in the margin of R. 12 excipiens] in added in N, added between the lines in P, added in the margin of R. 14 est omitted in LOPX, in the margin of W. 18 claruit] claruerit in OPR, corrected in R.

¹¹

4. If, however, one asks what happened to that light, since it is not now visible, one may say either that the sun's body was formed from it, or that «it is in¹ that part of the heaven where the sun is—not that it is itself the sun, but it is so joined to it that it cannot be distinguished».

Chapter 6 (69).

How “God said” is to be understood: whether God said it with the sound of a voice or in another way. Furthermore, it must be investigated how we are to understand what he says², God said: whether God said it temporally, with the sound of a voice, or in another way. Augustine, in On Genesis³, teaches that God did not speak either temporally or with the sound of a voice. For if temporally, then mutably; and if God's voice is said to have sounded bodily, there was neither a tongue with which he might speak nor anyone who needed to hear and understand. Therefore God's voice is rightly referred to the nature of the Word, through whom all things were made. Thus God said, Let there be, and so on, not temporally and not with the sound of a voice, but in the Word coeternal with himself: that is, he begot the Word timelessly, in whom he existed, and from eternity ordained that it should come to be in time; and in him it came to be.

Chapter 7 (70).

1. How we are to understand the statement that the Father works in the Son or through the Son, or in the Holy Spirit. It is often asked how we are to understand the statement that the Father works in the Son or through the Son, or in the Holy Spirit. Scripture frequently presents this to us, as when it says⁴: You made all things in wisdom, O Lord—that is, in the Son; and⁵ In the beginning—that is, in the Son—God created heaven and earth; and also⁶: Through whom he made the ages. Augustine says that same passage from the Psalm, By the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and so on, means that «the Father works through his Word and the Holy Spirit». How, then, are we to understand this?

Printed p. 393 references: 1 Augustine, ibid., ch. 10, no. 22 (PL 34, 254; CSEL 28-I, 16). 2 Gen. 1, 3. 3 Book 1, ch. 2, nos. 4–6 (PL 34, 248; CSEL 28-I, 5ff.). 4 Ps. 103, 24. 5 Gen. 1, 1. 6 Heb. 1, 2.

Apparatus, p. 393: 1 luce illa transposed in CLM. 8 vel] an COT.

¹²

2. Some heretics thought that the Father used the Son and the Holy Spirit as instruments in creating things, taking the foregoing words as an occasion for error. Sound faith rejects this as blasphemous and contrary to sound doctrine.

3. Here he explains in what sense it is said that the Father works in the Son or through the Son. We are not to understand that Scripture often mentions the Father working in the Son or through the Son as though the Son could not act unless the Father had extended his right hand to him, or as though he were some instrument of the Father at work. Rather, by those words it intended us to understand that the Father works with the Son and the Holy Spirit, and does nothing without them.

4. A heretic rises against this explanation. But the heretic says: On this reasoning, one could have said that the Son works through the Father or in the Father, and that the Holy Spirit works with both or through both, because the Son works with the Father and the Holy Spirit with both. — Reply. A brief reply is that the former was said and not the latter in order to show the Father's authority. For the Father does not work from the Son; rather, the Son works from the Father, and the Holy Spirit from both. Hence the Son is also read to work through the Holy Spirit, because he works with the Holy Spirit, who has from the Son the very power to work: the stars were fixed in place.

5. Another explanation of the foregoing. The statement may also be understood in another way: the Father is said to work in the Son or through the Son because he begot him as maker of all things, just as he is said to judge through him because he begot him as judge. Likewise, both the Father and the Son are said to work through the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit, maker of all things, proceeds from both. Hence John Chrysostom says in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews: «The Son did not exist as an instrument of the Father, as the heretic foolishly supposes. Nor is the Father said to have made things through him as though he could not make them himself. Rather, just as the Father is said to judge through the Son because he begot him as judge, so he is also said to work through the Son because it is clear that he begot him as maker. (Note: Here the Father is called the cause of the Son.) For if the Father is his cause insofar as he is Father, much more is he the cause of those things made through him». — These things have been said about the work of the first day.