We have, as it were, leapt over the works of the third day—that is, the gathering of the waters which had remained under the heaven into the cavities of the earth, and the shoots born and brought forth from the earth by God’s command on the same day—because they do not much pertain to the system of the World, in which are chiefly regarded the heavens and the celestial bodies; and therefore we make [our] transition to the work of the fourth day, which is contained in those words of Genesis: “And God said: Let there be Luminaries in the firmament of heaven, and let them divide the day and the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years; that they may shine in the firmament of heaven, and enlighten the earth. And it was so done. And God made two great Luminaries: the greater luminary to rule the day, and the lesser luminary to rule the night; and the stars. And he set them in the firmament of heaven, that they might shine upon the earth, and rule the day and the night, and divide the light and the darkness.” These [things] being laid down, the following questions are to be dispatched.

Question 1

Why was the Production of the Stars deferred to the fourth day?

[I.] If God, on the third day, had not clothed the earth with herbs and plants, a physical reason for this delay could be given from the dignity of the heaven. For since, in six days, the whole business of this workmanship was to be completed by divine decree, the first three [days] were deputed to the creation of the great parts, and to universal place—namely, the first day to creating the heavens and the elements; the second day to the separation of the heavens among themselves and from the elements; and the third to the separation of the lower elements. The remaining three days were destined for the adorning of the heavens and the elements. Therefore the first of these days—namely the fourth from the very beginning of creation—ought to be granted to the adorning of the heaven, as [being] the noblest of bodies and the higher of the simple [bodies], [to be] adorned with the most excellent creatures…

[Margin: The 1st cause of the production of the stars on the 4th day.]

[The argument continues at the top of p. 226: …rather than with [terrestrial things]; with the (apparent) difficulty that herbs and plants—earthly things—were nonetheless brought forth on the third day, before the stars.]

(printed p. 226): The page gives the causes why the Sun and stars were created on the fourth day: the first three days were deputed to creating the great parts of the world, the latter three to adorning them, so the fourth day belonged to the noblest body, the heaven—the first cause from Augustine, with Bede, Junilius, the Glosses, and the Master; the second, that the worthier heaven should be adorned before the elements, from St. Thomas and others. Whether the plants of the third day pertain to the “adornment” of Genesis 2 is disputed, Origen, Chrysostom, and Anastasius Sinaita including them.

[Margins: 1st cause of the production of the stars on the 4th day; 2nd cause; 3rd cause.]

The Third cause seems to have been that, on this [day]—the middle [day] in this week—the work might be adorned with the more worthy [and] most excellent things. St. Augustine refers this same [cause] (bk. 2 On Genesis to the Letter, ch. 13)—but, chiefly to disprove [it], ch. 15—[arguing] against Philo, who would show the excellence of the quaternary [the number four]: that [the stars were made] on the fourth day; … [and the number] ten; for if to four you add the preceding [numbers] 1, 2, 3, ten results. The Fourth cause St. Athanasius (on Genesis, q. 85) and Theodoret (the same, q. 16) bring: namely, that the light of the first three days—being [too intense] and not bearable by animals—might be tempered and diminished, [and] distributed into many stars (as if the whole shone, as the Sun now [does]); for by this distribution [there came], in a manner, a diminution; and [they hold] that that light was then more intense than afterward. The Fifth cause (according to Procopius on Genesis, ch. 1, and others in Martinengus, p. 845) is said to have been: that—for the banquet to be prepared for man—the stars were kindled, [so] that the luminaries might shine before man, just as [the lamps and] heralds [shine and run] before an emperor.

[Margins: 4th cause; 5th cause; 6th cause.]

But to me the Sixth cause seems the most probable of all: namely, that [the first light] might both stand in part [as a permanent light], and [be] the universal vehicle of the influxes and colours [for] living things, and [for] the herbs and plants which seem chiefly to depend on the heaven—[yet] that they do not depend essentially on the Sun and the rest of the stars; and so that men might be averted from idolatry, [God] showing [the stars to be merely] some beautiful creatures; and, on the other part, that [the stars] might from the beginning exercise some power in producing living things, together with God the principal Maker, and not seem inferior to the [first] three [days]; nor indeed ought man to be deferred to the last day, lest God should seem [to lavish] on what was first produced the most excellent [things]. The first who can be [cited as] having handed down this cause is Philo (book On the Making of the World), whose words are most worthy to be transcribed here; for he speaks thus of God the Maker: “[The Creator]… not yet having created men… [foresaw that men] would follow conjectures, plausible to those that come after, which have much analogy to reason in appearance, but not the sincere truth; and because, with the eyes [and senses, they would] rather believe [the heavenly bodies to be gods] than [the work of] wisdom—and [believe] that, by the courses of the Sun and Moon, with the other stars (and by [their] winter, spring, and autumn markings), the produce of the years for the earth, and the causes of all things born, [arise]—and [lest], sated by the circuits of the celestial stars, they should dare to ascribe the first causes to any creature, whether through inexperience: [God] anticipated [this],” he says, “at the first generation of this universe; and lest they should reckon the Sun and Moon [to be the causes of these things] and of every kind of fruit furnished by the earth. And so they themselves were to be led [to understand] that even hereafter [the earth] would bring forth those [fruits] by the celestial Father’s decree, as often as it should please [him], not awaiting [the action of] any [created] cause—[the stars having] a power, [yet] not a free one,” etc. And this is the cause why the earth first germinated and brought forth the herb.

[Margins: St. Basil; St. Ambrose; St. Chrysostom; Severianus; Procopius.]

This same [point] St. Basil pursued at length and eloquently (homily 5 of the Hexaemeron), and restricts (homily 6) into these few words: “Heaven and earth were created; light, after heaven and earth, was created; night and day were divided; then the firmament was begotten; then the dry land emerged, and the waters flowed together into one determined place. The earth, at last, by [God’s] command, was filled with shoots, then adorned with innumerable kinds of herbs, then with the forms of shrubs and trees; and there were not yet Sun nor Moon—lest those who know not God should reckon the Sun [to be] the prince and creator of the earth. Therefore the fourth day came on; and then God said: ‘Let there be Luminaries.’” But sweeter than all honey, and even than ambrosia, in this matter are the words of St. Ambrose (bk. 4 Hexaemeron, ch. 1): ”…And therefore first the firmament was solidified, and the air, and the [light] was made: look at the earth, which, before the Sun came forth, began to be more vigorous and composed; for behold the shoots [coming] before the Sun’s light. [The earth was] prior in [its] things to the Sun, the herb older than the Moon. Do not, then, believe [that] to be God, to which you see the Sun render services and works. Three days have passed; it is the fourth—and were you not yet seeking the Sun? Behold the brightness of the light…”; and in a few [words]: “What, then—is the height of God’s wisdom and knowledge absurd, [in] that the trees should begin to be before those two luminaries of the world, and [before] certain celestial eyes of the firmament—lest all should know, by the divine testimony of the reading [of Scripture], that the earth can be fruitful even without the Sun?” Let there be added to that ambrosial mouth—not only for [its] sweet eloquence—the [word] of St. Chrysostom (homily 6 on Genesis), where he teaches why the day [light] preceded the Sun: “lest you ascribe the produce of fruits to the Sun, but [to] God the Maker of all, who said in the beginning, ‘Let [the earth] germinate’”; and below: “What we have said about the seeds, [we may say] of the day[light]: one may say that there are three days before the formation of the Sun,” etc. Things similar to these Severianus offers (in Lippomanus, in the Catena): “Why did God first adorn the earth before the heaven? On account of the future error concerning many gods—as the Sun, Moon, and Stars.” And in his Commentary on Genesis, Procopius (ch. 1): “To plants, herbs, and shoots, the Sun succeeded in the series of creation, lest anyone believe it to be the author of the aforesaid [plants]. So the creation of light far preceded [the Sun], lest anyone perhaps tacitly judge the Sun to be the giver of light; and that thus we might [turn] away [from], and reject, [its] worship. For what reason allows that the Sun be the origin of light, when the creation of light preceded it?”

Question 2

Whether the Sun, with the rest of the stars, was produced on the fourth day as to substance; or whether, [the stars] being produced on the first day, the light was put into [them] as a form, and a power of influencing added, and a proper motion distributed [to each]?

[III.] You see, in the title of the question, the whole variety of opinions on this matter indicated. For the first opinion was that the Sun and stars were created on the first day, with the heaven, as to substance; but [that], on the fourth day, the light was collected and infused into the Sun and stars, and to them a determined power of influencing, and a downward motion proper to each star (toward the East), was attributed—by which they might be signs of the seasons, etc. So teach St. Thomas ([Sentences] bk. 2, dist. 13; and Prima Pars, q. 67, art. 4, and q. 70, art. 1, ad 1), Dionysius the Carthusian (on Genesis, arts. 9 and 12), Aegidius (part 2 Hexaemeron, chs. 5, 6, and 31), Catharinus (on Genesis ch. 1), Vielmus (the same, lect. 20), Augustinus Eugubinus (in the Cosmopoeia), Valentia (disp. 5, q. 3, points 1 and 4), Pererius (bk. 1 on Genesis, p. 49), Suárez (bk. 2 On the Work of the Six Days, ch. 8, from num. 16, and ch. 9), and Tanner (vol. 1 of the Theology, disp. 6, q. 4, dub. 2)—among whom Catharinus and Vielmus think the Sun was produced on the first day, and on the fourth day perfected accidentally, with light, power, and motion; but [that] the Moon and the rest of the stars were produced on the fourth day as to substance (for otherwise they cannot understand the primigenial light to be anything other than the Sun). But Eugubinus, by a voluntary figment indeed, affirms that on the first day the Sun, on the second the Moon, on the third the rest of the Planets, and on the fourth the Fixed stars, were founded.

[Margins: St. Chrysostom; Severianus; Procopius; The 2nd Opinion (i.e. the first listed view) and its Authors.]

[The list continues at the top of p. 227: moreover Pererius says that the light given to the Sun [on the fourth day] was, as it were, its form…]

(printed p. 227): The page reviews opinions on what the luminaries received on the fourth day. Pererius holds the light given to the Sun was as it were an essential form, noting the Hebrew Meoroth and Greek phōstēres, with determined power for influences and proper motion; Suárez teaches the Sun and stars were produced in substance, light, and influence on the first day, receiving only their proper motion on the fourth; Tanner adds a more intense and stable light, since the heavens admit no new generation or condensation.

[IV.] But the aforesaid opinion is, without doubt, to be disapproved by anyone who wishes—as he ought—to understand Sacred Scripture according to the letter, and to state [its] proper consequences (nay, the chief [ones]), such as [the] congruence and admirable order of the divine works. Moreover, the aforesaid opinion has no patrons among the ancient Fathers, but most [of them] opposing [it]. Now the authority of Sacred Scripture, by itself—and much more mixed with the interpretation of the Fathers—ought to move the mind of every prudent man, [so] that he should not understand those [words] as [if the] luminaries and stars [were merely] made anew as to form and figure, and [so that he should] resolve the very slight difficulties offered in the first production of light, and in [its being] outside [its] proper subject, and in the production of the Sun on the fourth day—[difficulties] of measuring the production of these by merely Physical rules, whereas [Scripture made] it manifest to us, by the divine power, in perspicuous words. For with what clearer and simpler words, I ask, could Moses have indicated to us the new production of the Luminaries and stars, their placement in heaven, and then the distribution of [their] office and function, than by those which he used?

And let this be the First Argument: namely, the authority of Sacred Scripture, to be understood according to the letter. The Second will be adduced presently from the Fathers, that the [day-4] opinion may be confirmed. The Third argument is that Sacred Scripture not only said the Luminaries [were] made on that day, but [that they were] placed in the heaven, and [made] to divide night and day, and to be for signs and seasons, etc. Now if they were made on the first day, and only placed [in heaven] on the fourth—[yet were] placed in heaven [already] on the first day—how is it passed over in silence on that [first] day, and ascribed to the fourth? Is this not to give a manifest [occasion] of error to the rude people, for whom they wish Moses to have written? Further, if the first day had the motion of the prime mobile, and by it day was divided from night, why is that office repeated or inculcated on the fourth day? For by the words “and let them divide day and night” is contained, not a proper motion toward the East, but rather the common [diurnal] motion. Fourthly: the proper motion of the planets and of the Fixed [stars] toward the East is very remote from the common notion of the crowd—nay, the proper motion of the Fixed [stars] was not detected except by Hipparchus; nor is it [such] an accident, from them, as is worthy [of] God’s assigning a whole day to ordaining [it], if one considers the works of the other days, in which either great bodies of the world were founded or separated, or substances of diverse kinds produced with their accidents—and not a mere motion, or one or another accident. [Consider] that on the fifth and sixth days living things were produced, and not merely their manifold motions. Fifthly: that end pertains [here] which, according to the most weighty Fathers and Doctors, the production of the Luminaries and stars [deferred] to the [fourth] day [had]: namely, that it might appear that the heaven’s light, and the plants of the earth, can be and be generated before the Sun and stars [of the fourth day]; and that in this way men might be averted from the divine worship of the Sun, Moon, and Stars—by [God’s] exhibiting the host of heaven; about which end we have already spoken in the preceding question.

[Margins: 1st and 2nd Argument; 3rd Argument; 4th Argument; 5th Argument.]

And so, among the interpreters, I cannot, in the first place, dismiss [the case of] Steuchus, or Eugubinus, who wishes to attribute to [the text] what Scripture does not [say]; for under his own name, in the Cosmopoeia: “The Sun, conglobed and kindled, did the rest of the works: he himself made the Sun”; or, “he himself made the air; made the bare [places], and drained the earth, and created the shrubs and animals.” Is this to deter men from worshipping the Sun? But how gratuitously, and from his own free wit (not from the light of the divine letters), does he feign that on the first day the Sun [was made], [on the second] the Moon, [and] the lesser Planets, [and] on the fourth the Stars founded? For in [this] matter he errs more than Catharinus and Vielmus, who concede that the Moon and all the Stars (the Sun excepted) were founded on the fourth day. Moreover, that all the Luminaries were produced by God on the same day, as things of the same order, teach St. Athanasius (sermon 3 Against the Arians)—and St. Athanasius, in [a certain] passage, declares that the Sun and all [the stars] had their rise and origin [together], although among themselves they differ, one from another, in glory; for it did not appear, from the stars or from the nature of the great luminary, that this [was] prior and that posterior in the nature of things, but [God] made [them at once]. In like manner Theodoret, expounding that verse of Psalm 71[:17], “Before the Sun his name continueth,” disputes thus: “The particle ‘Before’ declares [the name] to be before the Sun and all [created things]; for [it does] not [mean] that [its] nature is older than [the Sun] itself, but [that] the generation [is before the Sun]… [Moses] placed the Sun and Moon [together]; for the Sun and Moon are of the same time, [since] they were made at the same time. For God said, ‘Let there be Luminaries in the firmament of heaven,’ and God made two great Luminaries.”

[Margins: St. Athanasius; Theodoret.]

[V.] Therefore let [this] be the second—and, with me, altogether certain—conclusion: that God, on the fourth day, made the Luminaries and Stars anew, whether by producing them from some matter (for whatever could be made from nothing and by creation, we have already taught was created on the first day, ch. 1, num. 7), or by a condensation of the parts of the heaven, as some wish. For even if the second mode does not include a new production of substance, nor by it occurs a generation taken physically, yet—regarding God here as the supreme Artificer—a certain new artifact is posited [as] made, which is, as it were, [an instance] of substantial production (so that the formation of a statue is adduced by Aristotle as an example of substantial generation, by which something is said to be made from a simple [thing], not such [as] when something accidental is added). And therefore, for this opinion, we adduce also those Authors who [hold] that the stars were made from the heaven by a mere condensation and configuration of [its] parts. And this is the opinion of Ascanius Martinengus (in the Glossa Magna, p. 67), who calls it “a quasi-ecumenical definition”; likewise [the author] On the Work of the Six Days (disp. 15), [and] Salianus (in the Annals of the Old Testament, at the fourth day of the World).

[Margin: The 5th [Opinion / Conclusion].]

And it is proved. First, from Sacred Scripture taken in the plain and literal sense, which, on this fourth day, signifies—in the same way, by the word “Let there be” and “He made”—the production of the Luminaries and stars, just as on the first day it had signified the production of Light; and then expresses the place in which they were produced and placed; and finally the common offices of the stars. And it can be understood, without any repugnance or inconvenience, [to have been done] by a new production as to substance; nay, [Scripture] clearly and perspicuously separates the works of this day from those of the other days; but it also displays a most fitting disposition of divine providence. For what is more congruous than that God should found no mixed or organized body before he had fabricated the universal and greater bodies, and perpetually distinguished and separated them by fixed limits and regions (which was done in the first three days, as is established from what has been said); then, beginning from the vegetative grade, should produce plants and herbs; thence make [his] step to those [things] which require a power of local motion—whether intrinsic or extrinsic—such as the stars [are]; afterward, proceeding to the grade of sense, on the fifth day should produce the water- and air-living animals (which are the adornments of the two elements nearer the heaven, and move by oar [fin] or wing); and, finally, on the sixth day, should render the earth inhabited—first by brute animals, then by rational [ones]?

[Margin: 1st Proof, from Scripture.]

Secondly, it is proved by Authority: for rightly Martinengus says: “This opinion has the more powerful assertors, and [those] more excellent in number and authority. This [opinion] is the better fortified by antiquity, since—nearly twelve hundred years before the others—it grew up in the Church, received by the common suffrages of the Fathers.”

[Margin: 2nd Proof, from the Fathers.]

[The proof continues at the top of p. 228: the Church assents in the hymn (Caeli Deus sanctissime)—“who, on the fourth day, constituting the flaming wheel of the Sun, [appointing] the Moon to minister to the order, and the wandering courses of the stars”—and Tertullian’s verse: “The fourth day generates the Sun, with the lamp of the Moon…”]

(printed p. 228): The page begins the confirmation of the foregoing doctrine from authority, noting in the first place that the Church assents in the hymn Caeli Deus sanctissime.

“[O thou] who, on the fourth day, constituting the flaming wheel of the Sun, [didst appoint] the Moon to minister to the order, and the wandering courses of the stars.”

We have also that verse of Tertullian:

“The fourth day generates the Sun, with the lamp of the Moon, and [makes] the stars to revolve, that the human [race] might wonder.”

St. Basil (homily 6 Hexaemeron): “For then”—that is, on the first day—“the very nature of light was produced; but now the body of the Sun is founded, that it might be a vehicle for that first-begotten light.” Always supporting [this], the same St. Ambrose (bk. 4 Hexaemeron, ch. 1), where, beginning the explanation of the works of the fourth day, says: “For us, in the [scriptural] reading, the Sun must [now] rise, which before was not. Yet we passed the first day without the Sun; and we completed the second day, and the third, without the Sun”; nor [until now did Scripture place] among the Luminaries the Sun, Moon, and Stars. So, in homily 6 on Genesis, St. Chrysostom—after the earth was adorned with herbs on the third day—teaches that on the fourth day the heaven was adorned, especially by the formation of the two great luminaries (the Sun and Moon, as he says); and he adds: “For this [reason] he made the Sun on the fourth day, lest [men make] it the author of the first days,” etc. Most briefly Severianus: “After the earth germinated, then God made the Sun and Moon.” Nor in any other sense Procopius (ch. 1 on Genesis): “First, light was brought into the midst; then at last the receptacle of light was founded”; and he compares the light of the Sun with fire, etc. Now I have put these five Fathers first, because, with Philo, they teach the earth [was] adorned on the third day [and] the production of the Sun [deferred] to the fourth—lest [the Sun] be thought the first author of [the day] and of the Plants, as I have already related (ch. 1 of this [book]).

[Margins: 2nd Proof, from the Fathers; Tertullian; St. Basil; St. Ambrose; St. Chrysostom; Severianus; Procopius; St. Nazianzen.]

St. Gregory Nazianzen (in [his] oration on the Lord’s Sunday) says that the first light was founded by God “not through any instrument or star, and without the Sun”; and a little after, in verse: “Beautiful [it is] that [it was made] incorporeally and without the Sun, from the first”; because a little after, on the fourth day, [it was] a great and admirable [work]… in the [first] bringing-forth of things, [God] introduced the Sun with [its] sphere, and the Moon, and [their] matter too; namely the heaven, on the fourth day, bringing in and founding the Sun. Wherefore, for the Sun’s sake, he made the stars on this day, and introduced the matter too; and the Sun’s form is light—and Nazianzen thinks [it was made] by God [on day 4]. Pererius [holds it] made on the first day, at least as to species. St. Augustine (bk. 1 On Genesis against the Manichees, ch. 14), to those asking how the stars (that is, the Sun, Moon, and stars) were made on the fourth day, and how the three prior days could have been without the Sun, satisfies [them] thus: “To whom we answer that it could have come about that the three earlier days were each reckoned by as great a space of time as the space in which the Sun goes round—[the space] in which, proceeding from the East, it returns again to the East. For men could perceive this space and length of time, even if they dwelt in caves, where now they could not see the setting Sun; and so [they] could perceive that space of a day even without the Sun, before the Sun was made.” (How much more aptly would he have answered the Manichees, if he had thought the Sun made, as to substance, on the first day, and to have had the motion of the prime mobile! But [as it is], Eucherius subscribes [to Augustine], bk. 1, ch. 5.)

[Margin: St. Augustine.]

Because the matter is [so well established], and undoubted among the ancient Fathers, there is no need for me to recount [them] one by one; if anyone wishes their words, you will have [them], as in Martinengus (Glossa Magna, pp. 819–873), or in Salianus (from the fourth day of the world)—let it suffice to have indicated the places. Yet there may be seen: St. Damascene (bk. 2 On the Faith, ch. 7), who calls the Luminaries “receptacles of light”; St. Athanasius (q. 74); St. Nyssen (book On the History of the Six Days); Theodoret (Questions on Genesis, and on Psalm 148); Anastasius Sinaita (book on Genesis); Apollinaris (in Steuchus); Didymus (in the Catena of Lippomanus); St. Bonaventure (Sent. 2, dist. 14)—who [calls] the opinion about the Sun a “marvelous work of the Most High”; Burgensis (in [his] Additions); Hugh of St.-Victor (in [his] Annotations on Genesis, ch. 6, and bk. 1 On the Sacraments, ch. 6); the Master (Sent. 2, dist. 13); Comestor (ch. 6 of the Scholastic History); Lyranus (in postils); Tostatus (on Genesis); and almost all the rest, up to the thirteenth century.

Question 3

In what way were the Luminaries and stars produced on the fourth day? Whether by Creation from nothing, or by Condensation and Rarefaction; or by generation, through the production of a substantial form?

[VI.] The first opinion was that of Burgensis (in his Additions on Genesis), who reckoned that the primigenial luminaries [were] produced in a miraculous and supernatural way; then, natural provision being made, [that] on the fourth day the Luminaries and stars were created from nothing—because God said “Let there be luminaries,” as he had said “Let there be light”; nor did he say “let the heaven condense luminaries,” or “let a luminous cloud produce the Sun,” as he said “let the waters produce” and “let the earth germinate,” etc.—to indicate to us that no subject concurred in their production; and [that] on that day the primigenial light was utterly extinguished, just as Joshua 5[:12] says, “the manna failed, after they ate of the fruits of the land”—so that extraordinary light failed when the stars and the ordinary sources of light were created. To this opinion Suárez was about to subscribe (bk. 2 On the Work of the Six Days, ch. 8, nums. 1 and 2), thinking the Sun produced on the fourth day as to substance; because, he says, since the luminaries and stars are incorruptible bodies, they cannot fittingly be produced [otherwise] than by creation from nothing. Yet he says this opinion [is held] among grave assertors (he names none), and that it is to be disapproved. [I answer:] the [things] which God produced by [a] proper creation, he created all at once from the beginning, as is the received opinion of the Theologians, and we have already taught (ch. 1, num. 7). It does not follow, however, that if the stars are incorruptible from within, they require to be created from nothing; for they can consist of matter and form such that there is in them no matter that demands [another] form, and [such that there is] no natural agent which could either introduce contrary dispositions and harass [them] with corruptive alteration—and so [they may] be incorruptible, and yet be produced from pre-existing matter. But I add also that Moses did not say “created,” but [that] God said “let there be”—which is always [said] imperatively to some [thing]; or at least [some subject] concurred, in the genus of material cause, to sustain [the work] for that production; and so [God] drew out the first light, too, from the potency of a diaphanous body, and did not create [it] from nothing, as Burgensis supposes. But to the earth and the waters he said “germinate,” “let them produce,” etc.—because he willed that, to the production of those mixed [bodies], they should concur not only as material or sustaining causes, but also as an efficient, instrumental cause, through the remote dispositions of the primary qualities which they already had, and so [as] proximate [causes] of the secondary qualities, or of the proper temperament of each mixed [body], which he [God] put into them.

[Margins: Question 3; 1st Opinion: that the light was created from nothing.]

[VII.] The second opinion is that the Sun and the rest of the stars were made from the same matter from which the sidereal heaven [was] founded, but by mere condensation or rarefaction; which opinion Molina mentions (On the Work of the Six Days, disp. 15) and Suárez (bk. 2, ch. 8, num. 5), no author being named; and they suppose [it] follows from this opinion that the Luminaries and stars do not differ among themselves as to substance, but only by the multitude of matter (which makes density) or the paucity (which makes rarity). But to this opinion seem to be reduced those who said the Sun and stars were made from that primigenial light, collected into these bodies (or globes of the stars) and distributed into them; for I do not grant that they received the light alone in a single globe or subject. Among whom were Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus, Apollinaris, Athanasius, Aegidius, Albertus Magnus, and some others (named at the end of num. 5); among whom singular is Procopius (in the History), where it is thus said: he says that the stars were made by the collection and heaping-together of light or fire—yet so that some [parts] were already, before, thicker and of a different nature [than others]; and that all those particles which were of a nature more than solar coalesced to constitute the Sun, and [those] of a lunar [nature] to [constitute] the Moon, and so of the rest. Moreover Albertus Magnus (part 1, q. 4, art. 21) and St. Bonaventure (Sent. 2, dist. 14)…

[Margin: 2nd Opinion: on condensation and rarefaction.]

[The sentence is completed at the top of p. 229: …[Albertus and Bonaventure], according to the mind of Aristotle, teach that the stars were made by a condensation of the heaven; and Aegidius (Hexaemeron, part 2, ch. 31) feigns a threefold condensation of light. P. 229 then raises the difficulty that, had the light been condensed into the stars with its whole subject, the entire celestial matter would have passed into the stars, requiring the sidereal heaven to be produced anew.]

(printed p. 229): The page reports that Albertus Magnus and Bonaventure, following Aristotle, teach the stars were made by condensation of the heaven, and that Aegidius feigns a threefold condensation of light culminating in the body of the Sun. Riccioli objects that such condensation would draw all celestial matter into the stars, leaving a vacuum and requiring the sidereal heaven to be produced anew, and that Scripture instead says the stars were placed in the firmament already made on the first and second days.

From another [side], however, Suárez refutes this opinion, because he thinks the celestial bodies are incorruptible—nay, that in this first production they ought to have been optimally disposed, and connaturally to demand the whole perfection of their substance; and so that [so] great a condensation or rarefaction would not be found except in corruptible [bodies], since such changes, and corruption and generation, are ordained by [their] nature. But [Suárez] proves this by no valid arguments, and seems not to acknowledge any other natural condensation and rarefaction than that which is made by the force of heat and cold; and then [seems to think] that what the Author of nature made in the beginning [is to be] judged by the same law as those things which now are made by other natural agents. To me, however, this opinion does not please, on a twofold other ground. First, because the perfection of the Sun, Moon, and Stars—bodies so noble, and so [endowed] by their nature with power for influencing into so various sublunary mixed [bodies]—seems to require [a nature] such that at least the Planets have a substantial form, mixed [and] diverse from the heaven, containing virtually the lower mixed [bodies]; and although one might gather the whole [light] of the Sun into that whole globe, never from that would one Sun be constituted. Secondly, because if anyone had been present at the production of the stars on the fourth day, he would have had all those indications of a new substance produced which we now have when we see some substantial compound produced—namely, figure, colour, light, and active powers, and indeed with such great constancy, persevering together up to this day. And therefore Scripture is to be understood in [its] plain and simple sense, of the stars [as] simply made as to substance.

[VIII.] The third, and true, opinion, therefore, is that the Sun and the rest of the Stars were produced on the fourth day as to substance—not from nothing, but from some matter (of which presently)—so that they received a proper, distinct, and specific substantial form. [So hold] those who maintain that the Luminaries and stars [were] produced from air, or from a luminous cloud, or from water, or from fire (of which it must be said in the following question); and this mode of production Molina maintains (On the Work of the Six Days, disp. 15), Salianus (at the fourth day of the world), and, before these, Hugh of St.-Victor (ch. 6 on Genesis): on the light made… [asking] whether the form of the Sun was first made from a luminous cloud of light, in the way that water was made into wine at the wedding of Cana; Lyranus (in postils, in the second exposition), saying: “Here is described the work of the fourth day; and it is understood that here the Luminaries are made as to [their] specific substantial forms”; and Tostatus (the Abulensis) on Genesis: “But it is believed the Sun was made from that matter,” etc. It remains that we now approach—from the Fathers and Doctors of the Church—from what matter the Luminaries and stars were produced on the fourth day.

[Margin: 3rd Opinion: on a special substantial generation.]

Question 4

From what Matter were the Luminaries and stars made (or produced) on the fourth day of the World? From a quintessence, or from Elemental matter?

[IX.] The first opinion is that all the Stars and Luminaries were made from the celestial body itself, or from the matter of the heavens condensed and intensified—but so that the celestial body is simple, and not consisting of base elements: so thinks Albertus Magnus (part 1 of the Summa, On the Four Coeval Things, q. 4, art. 21)—which was Aristotle’s opinion, and (as they judge) the Peripatetics’. And therefore St. Bonaventure (on Albertus M., dist. 14, in [his] Commentaries) said, from that opinion: “It can [be held], according to the Philosophers, that the luminaries were produced from [the matter] of the heavens, or [from] the aggregation of [their] light, or of their orbs”—for just as scattered members would be gathered into one… [and] the greater luminary [is] greater according as it is a greater aggregation of light. The Peripatetics may be seen (bk. 2 On the Heaven, ch. 9, or from text 41).

[Margins: Question 4; 1st Opinion: on the simple matter of the heaven.]

[X.] The second opinion was that the Sun and stars are clods or stones, as it were snatched up and kindled: so thinks Anaxagoras (as Theodoret reports, and Plutarch, bk. 2 On the Opinions of the Philosophers, ch. 13). Thales too said the stars [are bodies], but ignited. Anaxagoras [said] the aether is carried round, [being] fire of its own essence, but by its force of whirling snatching up rocks from the earth and kindling them, by its fire, into stars. Diogenes [said] the stars [are] pumice-like—the breathing-holes, as it were, of the world—and that immovable stones often slip down from heaven and are extinguished, just as [a meteorite,] a stone most like fire, fell down. But add [that] Theodoret [reports] Anaxagoras [was] accused by Cleon for having said that the Sun is a glowing metal plate—[and was condemned] by the Athenians. Moreover, from the same Theodoret, [and] Plutarch (bk. 2 On the Opinions, ch. 20): Anaxagoras, Democritus, and Metrodorus said the Sun [is] iron, or glowing fire, or a fiery rock; and Xenocrates [said it is] a burning little clod, welded [like iron], [moving] within burnt-out channels. So in Euripides, Anaxagoras called the Sun “a golden clod”; so too Euripides, in the tragedy Phaethon, called the Sun “a golden clod.” To [these] doctors, I believe, Seneca speaks (bk. 7 Natural Questions, ch. 1), when he says: “Nothing [is] more magnificent… [than the doctrine of the stars]… [the Sun is] a contracted flame”—which sight almost affirms—“and [that] the light flows from them, and heat is sent into the subject… and great men there were who believed [the stars to be] air in [its] concretion, feeding on alien fire.” But [Seneca] sharply rebukes these here, and condemns such authors to eternal fires (in the book On Dreams); for he says: “What [of] those [stars] themselves? Are they not fiery, and fiery vapours?”… [as] the Doctors of the Church [hold the contrary].

[Margins: 2nd Opinion: the stars [are] clods or stones; Thales, Anaxagoras; Diogenes; Euripides.]

[XI.] The third opinion is that the Sun and stars are from the matter of the elements and of vapours—and so, partly watery, partly aerial. The Stoics judged the stars to be fiery, and to be fed by vapours. So Pliny (bk. 2, ch. 9), especially of the Moon: “The stars [are], without doubt, [nourished] by an earthy moisture,” etc.; … [and] that the spots of the Moon are nothing other than [bits] of earth snatched up with moisture, since they consist of these and are nourished by them. But in Plutarch (bk. 2 On the Opinions, ch. 13): Xenophanes [held] the stars [to be] concreted from ignited clouds, extinguished at intervals; at night glowing again like coals; at [their] rising and setting, kindled and extinguished. The same [view] Clitius[?], in Laertius (bk. 2), [reports] of the Sun too, [made] from clouds—considering [the clouds] the nourishment of the stars. Peter Comestor (ch. 6 of the Scholastic History) says: “Of that luminous cloud it is handed down that either it returned into the matter from which it had been made; or [became] the star which appeared to the Magi, and was burned up, in which the Holy Spirit was seen; or that from it the solar body was made.” Similarly Tostatus on Genesis: “Whence it is believed the Sun was made from a luminous cloud,” etc. Moreover Hugh of St.-Victor (in his Annotations on Genesis, ch. 6): “But the stars, like the Moon, were made from aerial matter; and so they shine back [reflect], they do not [themselves] shine—that is, not by a proper light, but by [a light] received from the Sun, as a luminous cloud is [lit].” But more safely Steuchus (in the Cosmopoeia): “This is most true, and is asserted by the weightiest Theologians too: that by the same reasoning [the luminaries] were brought forth from the waters, as also the earth [was]—the substance, and the heaven itself, and the celestial exhalations. For we see water changed into air, into clouds, into vaporous and fiery torches. And so it must be thought that this was done at that same time, when the wisdom and mind of God was borne over the waters, and drew out of these the purer substances—the Sun first, whose laborious magnitude and beauty surpasses all things celestial and terrestrial. Agitating, therefore, and shaking the waters created by himself, he separated [them], and kindled fire, and [made] the purest lights, as it were [the lights] of mirrors and of clouds,” etc.; and he adds: “Flame is nothing other than kindled air.”

[Margins: 3rd Opinion: the stars from water, or vapours, and its Authors: Pliny; Anaxagoras, Zeno; Comestor; Tostatus, Hugh of St.-Victor; Steuchus, Eugubinus.]

[¶XII begins at the top of p. 230: “The fourth opinion—and the most famous—was that the Sun and [stars]…”]

(printed p. 230)

[XII.] The fourth opinion—and the most famous—was that the Sun and all the rest of the stars are fiery, and produced from fire, [and] consist of a fiery form; which, among the more recent [authors], Apollinaris thinks (as [reported by] Martinengus, Glossa Magna, p. 87); [it is] taken up in the Cosmopoeia; Salianus (in the Ecclesiastical Annals, at the fourth day of the world); Christopher Scheiner (in his Rosa Ursina, bk. 4, part 2, ch. 17); Bullialdus (book On Astronomy, ch. 2); Franciscus Resta (tract 3, n. 4, On Astrology, ch. 10); Tellez (disp. 44 Physics, sect. 3, num. 14). So the Sun, indeed, [is fiery]—[though] the stars can consist of other elements. Of old, Empedocles [said the stars are] fiery, and consist of fire, and [are] called “fire,” as Plutarch relates (bk. 2 On the Opinions, ch. 13). And Zeno, with the Stoics—to whom Cicero joined himself in this (bk. 2 On the Nature of the Gods, and the book On the Dream of Scipio). [So] testifies Trismegistus (in the Pimander, ch. 1); and Hermes [said the stars are] fire; and Sceuosthenes (in Hermes), Xenarchus (in Steuchus, and in Cyril, bk. 2 Against Julian), and Seneca (bk. 1 On the Heaven, and bk. 7 Natural Questions, q. 5); and the German interpreter of Aratus, saying: “The Sun is made from fire, both within and without; and by the excessive motion of its revolution it grows hotter—whose chief sign [is that] the Philosophers [hold that it] feeds on water”; and Manilius (bk. 1): “By fire he designates the kinds, and fires answer to fire,” etc. Plato too seems, for the most part, to partake of fire (though also from the requirement of the other elements, as [in] ch. 7)—be it that Aristotle disputes against him (bk. 2 On the Heaven, ch. 7). Certainly the sacred letters favour this opinion; for Ecclesiasticus 43 likens [the Sun] to a furnace of heat: “The Sun, in [its] aspect announcing at its going-forth, a wonderful vessel, the work of the Most High: at noon it burns the earth, and who can endure in the sight of its heat? Keeping [watch] in the furnace, in the works of [its] heat, the Sun burns the mountains, breathing out fiery rays, and, shining with its rays, it blinds the eyes.” As to what pertains to the letter, [this means] that the Sun is a certain hot furnace, and so [is] hot formally.

[Margins: 4th Opinion: the stars are fiery; Empedocles, Zeno, Cicero, Trismegistus, Hermes, Xenarchus, Seneca, etc.]

So too the Church, in the evening hymn of the fourth feria [Wednesday]: “[O thou] who, on the fourth day, [constituting] the flaming [wheel of the Sun]… while thou kindlest the wheel of the Sun”—unless you think this said poetically. So Junilius, in the prologue of the first book of [his] history, sang: “Nothing immortal is held in the frame of the World—not the sea, not the earth, not the fiery stars of heaven”; and (bk. 3) he calls the Sun “fiery-haired” (Igneicoma); and Proba Falconia, in [her] Centos: “For neither were there [yet] the fires of the stars, nor the bright aether”; and Dracontius (bk. 1 Hexaemeron): “Soon he bids the globe of the Sun shine with saving fire; from whose fire he bids the Moon [shine] second.” But certainly not poetically, but properly, the holy Fathers seem to have spoken. Of whom the most ancient [is] Philo (two [books] On Dreams): … but [some], who say the Moon is not a globe by itself, [like] the other aetherial stars, but mixed of aether and air—[hold] that the spot appearing in it (which some call the “face”) is nothing other than an aerial admixture, which by its own nature [tends] black [and] rises toward the heaven. St. Justin (in the book On the Refutation of Aristotle) teaches that the Sun cannot [heat] unless it be itself hot. Tertullian (book On the Soul): that the Sun is borne [/looked upon] by the eyes of the eagle, [whereas] by the owls [it is not]—not because [the Sun] is incorporeal, but because [the eagle’s] visual power [is strong]; and he adds: “For the Sun [is] a body, since [it is] fire; what the eagle would affirm, the owl would deny.” St. Basil notes (homily 3 Hexaemeron): “Although,” he says, “[some] concede the Sun to be a globe… so great is their superfluity of leisure for ravings and old wives’ trifles,” etc. To whom subscribes St. Ambrose (bk. 4 Hexaemeron, ch. 3): “Frequently we see the Sun [diminished]“—in which he gives an evident indication that it lacks [something], and takes to itself the nourishment of waters for its tempering; “but there is in them [the philosophers] a zeal for impugning the truth, in that they deny that the very light is of a hot nature,” etc.

[Margins: Philo; St. Justin; Tertullian; St. Basil; St. Ambrose.]

[And so the Sun is made in one place and another, etc.] To [this] is added St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechesis 9): “[There are] waters and heaven and fires in the Sun—the Sun and stars… how do the fiery [things] run in water?” [i.e., how can the fiery stars run through the watery heaven?]. St. Cyril of Alexandria (Against Julian, from the opinion of Hermes): Hermes, in the Diexodica, first said: “The Lord of all, by [his] mind [and] word, made the Sun… and the power of creating: ‘Let there be the Sun’; and at once the fire appeared, which by nature is borne upward,” etc. St. Gregory of Nyssa [in the Hexaemeron]. To these add Caesarius (qq. 68 & 69), who says: the Firmament is crystal; [but] the Sun, Moon, and the rest [have] a certain… and fiery nature. St. Chrysostom (homily 3…), and (the book On Nature): “For [the Sun] not only heats, but also dries; and not only dries, but also [draws up] the waters.” St. Augustine (in the appendix to sermon 59): “The Sun is hot and glowing.” [So too] Arnobius (bk. 3), [and] Lactantius (bk. 1, ch. 6); and, inveighing against the heathen who worship the stars, Lactantius (bk. 3, ch. 6): “Now how repugnant and absurd it is, that, when they affirm the celestial fires and the other elements of the world to be gods, they likewise call the World itself God!”

[Margins: St. Cyril of Jerusalem; St. Cyril of Alexandria, Hermes; St. Nyssen; Caesarius; St. Chrysostom; St. Augustine; Arnobius; Lactantius.]

Of the same opinion Anastasius Sinaita sufficiently shows himself to have been (bk. 6 Commentary on the Hexaemeron), in those words: [God], “who had created the heaven from the waters, [so] that he set the firmament above the waters… [the waters] to guard the firmament, even [against] the fiery [Sun].” And Theodoret—most learned in the Greek opinions—when (in the book On Matter and the World) he had narrated the Philosophers’ opinion of the fiery nature of the stars, afterward (bk. 11 On Providence) says: “For this cause, then—since so great a fire is rolled about this [region], namely the Firmament: the Sun first, and the Moon, and [the fires] of the other stars—yet, by the [tempering of the waters], it [the firmament] is not melted, nor dried up, nor do they burn it up. For by fire,” as he goes on, “many metals are melted, and stones are calcined, as wood and stone are burnt; but none of these [happens] to it by nature, nor does what appears glacial in it melt or run, although so great a quantity of fire is present to it”—as [in] Psalm 148: “Among the waters of the Firmament, in the cloud[y heaven], he bade the immense fire of the luminaries run; but water is adverse to fire; [the waters] came, therefore, lest by [their] immense heat they should mutually destroy [one another].” Entirely subscribing [to this] is Procopius (ch. 1 on Genesis), having said: “The Sun, Moon, [and] Stars, whose substance is ignited—lest the congealed heaven be dissolved, [God placed them] as a fiery drop in the upper region of the heaven; and that they are luminaries is proved by the ardour of [their] fire.” By reason, Alcuin (in the Questions on Genesis) and Bede (book On the Nature of Things, chs. 8 and 9), to the question of what nature the heaven and stars are, answer: “a fiery and thin nature”; and St. Anselm of Canterbury (bk. 1 On the Image of the World, ch. 23) says: “The Sun [is] spherical in form, fiery in nature, [with] immovable [light], surpassing the earth eighty times [octuagies]; the Moon is a globular body, of a watery nature”; and St. Isidore (bk. 3 Etymologies, ch. 48): “The Sun, when it grows fiery…”

[Margins: Anastasius; Theodoret; Procopius; Alcuin, Bede, St. Anselm; St. Isidore.]

[The sentence is completed at the top of p. 231: “…by the excessive motion of its revolution grows hotter”; and Blessed Peter Damian (sermon 1 On the Epiphany): “For the star is of a fiery nature.” P. 231 then notes the Master’s claim that even St. Augustine consents to the “fiery” view, and (per Aquinas, Bonaventure, Tanner) that Augustine and many Saints held the celestial bodies made from the elements, or fire, according to Plato.]

(printed p. 231 — The page continues marshalling patristic and scholastic authority — Isidore, Peter Damian, Augustine as cited by the Master of the Sentences, Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Tanner — for the opinion that the stars and luminaries were made from fire. Riccioli declares he cannot dismiss so many ancient masters in favour of recent Peripatetics, arguing that the telescopic discovery of the Sun’s faculae, which Scheiner shows must be parts of the Sun and are manifestly flames, would have changed their minds.)

[Margin: The Master.]

This is favoured, in the first place, by the Hebrew name Or (or [the like]), which signifies the Sun and light, as Pagnino teaches (in the Thesaurus of the Holy Tongue, from p. 46); whence, from the word Or, is derived Maor, which signifies “luminary,” as is had in Genesis 1, verse 16, and Psalm 74, verse 16. Whence, more probably, the Greeks plucked, as from a root, the name phôs (φῶς)… Or signifies the flame of fire, and not [merely] light, as appears from Isaiah (chs. 1 and 47), and from Genesis 15 [where] it is said, “I led [thee] out of Ur of the Chaldees,” that is, “out of the fire of the Chaldees,” as Cornelius à Lapide interprets (with others) on Genesis ch. 11. Greatly favouring [this] too is the Hebrew name of the Sun, Chamah, which [signifies] “heat,” and Schemes, which signifies “hot [with the] sun” and “bright.” That [the Sun] is hot formally, and not only virtually, teach Tellez, Resta, Scheiner, [and] Salianus (above).

Question 5

Why did Moses call the Sun and Moon “the great Luminaries”—the [Sun] “the greater luminary,” [and] the [Moon] “the lesser luminary”?

[XIII.] This question is not useless to the Astronomer, since the Copernicans abuse the words of Moses to prove that sacred Scripture, in physical matters, speaks not from the rigour of truth, but to the grasp of the crowd, or as to appearance; and so [they argue] that, when it says the Sun “rises,” “moves,” etc., it is to be understood [only] as to appearance. “For behold,” they say, “the Moon is called ‘the greater luminary,’ although it does not subtend in the sky more minutes than [the other planets].” [We answer:] We concede that the Moon is in fact of a smaller mass than the other stars, but seems great because of [its] nearness to the earth; yet it deserves the name of a “great Luminary”: First, in the character of a Luminary—because it illumines our whole hemisphere conspicuously, and lights [it] more than all the other Fixed [stars] together; for which cause, [these Luminaries] are to be called great, not so much comparatively as absolutely, [as] St. Basil affirmed (Hexaemeron, homily 6), St. Ambrose (bk. 4 Hexaemeron, ch. 6), Junilius (Hexaem.), Procopius (on Genesis), Comestor (ch. 6 of the Scholastic History), and Steuchus (Cosmopoeia)—but especially St. Augustine (bk. 2 On Genesis to the Letter, ch. 6), where he concludes thus: “Certainly let them concede at least this to our eyes—that [the Sun and Moon] manifestly shine upon the earth more than the rest; namely, that [the world] does not grow bright except by the light of the Sun, and [that], though so many Stars appear and shine, when the Moon is absent [the night is dark], just as the presence of it [the Moon] illumines [the night].” And therefore they are called—not [merely] “great bodies,” nor “great stars,” but, signally, “great Luminaries.” Secondly, [the Moon] is great because of [its] greater and more sensible efficacy and power upon the sublunary [things] by [its] nature, as St. Chrysostom [teaches], [and] St. Thomas (Prima Pars, q. 70, art. 1, ad 5) and Vielmus (lect. 21 on Genesis). Thirdly, from [its] consortium and likeness with the Sun—which is absolutely great—the Moon alone seems equal to it [in apparent size]; therefore, if that [Sun is] great, this [Moon] is to be called great relatively to the Sun. Lastly, [the Moon] cannot for this reason be understood [as] great with a real magnitude, comparatively with many Planets and Fixed stars, because [that] is repugnant to the manifest demonstrations of the Astronomers; and so we are compelled to take the word “great” here as to appearance—as teach St. Thomas (Sent. 2, dist. 15, q. 1), the Carthusian (on Genesis, art. 12), Cajetan, and Tostatus (on Genesis ch. 1).

[Margins: Why is the Moon [called] a great Luminary?; St. Chrysostom, St. Thomas, Vielmus; the Carthusian, Cajetan, Tostatus.]

But when sacred Scripture says that the Sun moves, [and that] the Earth stands still—from none of these sayings, taken according to the letter, does any inconvenience or manifest absurdity follow; and therefore [they] ought to be understood not [merely] as to appearance, but according to the truth: that the Sun really moves, and the Earth really does not move. [I am ashamed to relate the fables of the Talmudists, who [hold] that the Moon was from the beginning of a mass equal to the Sun, but was afterward diminished—because it dared to ask of God that the Sun’s splendour be diminished; or because a flying Angel touched it by its force and darkened the Moon—as Lyranus (in postils), Tostatus (on Genesis), and the Carthusian (art. 12) relate, and [the author of] the book On the Truth of the Christian Faith (bk. 3).]

[Translator’s note: ¶XIII is the heart of Riccioli’s reply to the Copernican “accommodation” argument: “great luminary” (of the Moon) must be read as apparent, because a literal reading contradicts astronomy—whereas “the Sun moves / the Earth stands still” entails no absurdity and so is to be taken as literally true.]

[XIV.] But that God called the Sun “the greater Luminary” is, [first], for another reason of magnitude: for the Sun is in fact the greatest of all the stars—nor is the earth larger [than the Sun] only seven times, as Anaximander thought (per Plutarch, bk. 2 On the Opinions, ch. 2, and Theodoret, bk. 4 On Matter and the World)—but [the Sun is] much larger [than the earth], as is clear from what was said (bk. 3, ch. 1). Secondly, inasmuch as [it is] a Luminary—namely, by reason of [its] splendour, which surpasses the ardour of [all] the stars even taken together; whence [it is] called “Sol” by the Latins, because it alone shines (solus lucet), and, the rest of the stars being overwhelmed by its brightness, it alone appears [by day]. Thirdly, because it is the source of light, and so is greater not only than the other planets but also than the Moon—it [shining] of itself, independently, whereas the rest of the Planets receive [their] primary light from the Sun, as we showed (bk. 7, sect. 1). Fourthly, by reason of [its] position—because it is placed in the middle of the Planetary system, in [its] fourth place, [whence] it shines forth. Fifthly, [because it is] the rule of the [planets’] motions, and the moderator of the seasons. Wherefore the Sun is rightly likened by David not only to “a bridegroom coming forth from [his] chamber,” but also to “a giant” (Psalm 18[:6]) [running] to run [its] course; and, on account of these [things], it deserved to be called the “greater Luminary.”

[Margins: [Why the Sun is called the greater Luminary]; Psalm 18.]

Hence, in its praises—which at last redound to the praise of its Creator—we read those profuse streams of sacred eloquence: Gregory Nazianzen (Oration 1 On Theology, which is the 34th), Basil (homily 6 Hexaemeron), St. Ambrose (bk. 4 Hexaem., ch. 1), Chrysostom (homily on Genesis), Tertullian (bk. 2 Against Marcion), and [also] Macrobius and Pliny (bk. 2, ch. 6); from whom, taken together, the Sun is called: “the eye of the world, the heart of heaven, the gladness of the day, the beauty of nature, the prince of the Planets, the king of the stars, the moderator and norm of the seasons”; and (not without cause, but somewhat unskilfully) by Pliny, “the soul of the whole world”; and more rightly and magnificently, by Ecclesiasticus (ch. 43), “a wonderful vessel, the work of the Most High.” That the Poets and Painters attached a four-horse chariot [quadriga] to it—hear St. Chrysostom, who for this reason compares Elijah to the Sun (or the Sun to Elijah), because in Greek [the Sun] is called Helios, as [in the name] Helias [Elijah]; for he says similar things about the ascent of Elijah: “Hence the Poets and painters, in figuring the image of the Sun, took [their] examples [from this]—[the Sun] which, with [its] chariot and shining horses, itself glowing and radiant, and washed by the Ocean, falling among the steep crags of the mountains, seems, as it were, to ascend from the deep, clothed in the likeness of [its] flaming light. For the Sun is called Helios in the Greek tongue; whence [it is] ‘truly Helios,’ because, with [its] chariot and horses shining with fire, [rising] from the waves of the Ocean—that is, from the commotion of the World—[and going] through the crags of the mountains—that is, advancing through the asperities of great labours—it ascends to the heavenly [heights].” But the names and offices of the four horses of the Sun, from Fulgentius (bk. 1 Etymologies), are [taken] from the four temperatures of the year, or rather from the distinction of the four ancient hours [of the day]: for Erythraeus is called in Greek “reddening,” because in the morning the Sun rises ruddy; Acteon (or “shining,” and “purged of vapours”), because [it is so] about the third hour; Lampas…

[Margins: The Sun’s encomia and [its] eulogists; The Sun’s chariot taken from the chariot of Elijah; The horses of the Sun.]

[The four horses are completed at the top of p. 232 (Lampas for midday, Philogeus for the declining day). Chapter IV then closes with Question 6 — the Sun’s solstitial/equinoctial placement and whether the Moon was created full or new — before Chapter V begins.]

(printed p. 232 — Conclusion of Chapter IV: the page completes a catalogue of poetic names for the Sun at the successive hours of the day, ending with Lampas, the Sun at noon, and Philogeus, “earth-loving,” as it bends downward toward the earth from the sixth toward the ninth hour.)

Question 6

Whether the Sun, on the fourth day, was placed at the Solstitial point of the heaven, or at the Equinoctial—and of which Equinox? And whether the Moon [was created] at the Full, or at the New, Moon?

[XV.] I suppose in this place that, by that word “He placed them in the firmament of heaven,” it is not understood that [God] then at last transferred the Luminaries and stars from outside the heaven, and then into the heaven (as, alone of the Fathers that I know, Anastasius Sinaita said, bk. 4 on the Hexaemeron), but that he placed [them] by making, or made [them] by placing, in the heaven itself—as St. Augustine taught (On Genesis, the imperfect [work], ch. 13), Procopius, and Catharinus (on Genesis); and that “he placed” is to be referred not so much to [their] placement as to the end and office for which they were made, and to be joined immediately with that word “that they might shine,” etc.

This being supposed: the question—whether the Sun, at the first instant in which it was founded, was at the summer Solstice (as Mercator and Kepler wish), or at the point of the vernal Equinox (as many wish), or rather at the point of the autumnal Equinox—pertains to that controversy, whether the World was created in Spring, in Autumn, or in summertime, which we treat fully (bk. 2 of the Chronology, chs. 4 and 16), to which places we refer the Reader.

As regards the second controversy, about the Moon: Anastasius Sinaita (Commentaries on the Hexaemeron, bk. 4) says: “When God had made the two Luminaries—the great one, namely the Sun—he straightway fixed [it] at the East of the firmament, but the Moon at the West”; from which it follows that the Moon was opposite to the Sun, and full of light. But also [the bishops] of the Palestinian synod (as Bede relates, vol. 2, the little work On the Vernal Equinox)—Theophilus presiding, by the authority of Pope Victor—concluded that the World was made in Spring, on account of that [text] of Genesis 1, “Let the earth bring forth the green herb,” and at the Equinox, because those words, “and he divided the light from the darkness,” [mean] “he divided the light and the darkness into equal parts”; and [that] on the fourth day of the World there was a Full Moon, because God made each luminary “great”—that is, perfect in that apparent magnitude—and bade the Moon “rule the night,” which it could not [do] unless it shone the whole night, and so had full light. And of the same opinion were not only Bede (in the Hexaem., and the book On the Reckoning of Times), but also Procopius (on Genesis ch. 1), St. Damascene (bk. 2 On the Faith, ch. 7), the Abulensis (on Genesis ch. 1), Lyranus (in postils), and St. Thomas, who holds the same probable (Prima Pars, q. 70, art. 1, ad 3). On the contrary, however, [St. Augustine] (bk. 2 On Genesis to the Letter, ch. 15)—though he defines neither absolutely, and affirms that, whether God made the Moon new or full, [he made it] easily perfect—yet inclines toward the New Moon, because [the Moon] ought to have begun at the beginning of its month; otherwise it would have been [made] not at the first, but at the fourteenth [day of the] lunar month, and would have begun to wane when it ought rather to wax.

[Margins: A star made in the heaven, not outside [it]; Whether the Moon [was] created at the Full or at the New Moon?]

But Pererius (bk. 1 on Genesis, p. 93) and Suárez (bk. 2 On the Work of the Six Days, ch. 9, n. 10) touch this question and press neither side. Suárez adds, however, that some, going the middle way, said the Moon was made at quadrature—about the seventh day from [conjunction] with the Sun; but the reason which he straightway adds betrays a slip, and a slip of the pen, in Suárez; for he says: “[The Moon was made] in that disposition which it is wont to have on the first day: which, without rising [until late], [shines] over the night… wherever the Sun sets, and so it can illumine the whole night.” [But] the Moon, on the seventh day, is at the Meridian when the Sun sets, and illumines not the whole night, but [only] the half.

[Margins: A slip of Suárez in Astronomy; The Author’s opinion.]

But I, if I set aside authority, incline toward the Full Moon; nay, now I see [it confirmed] in other [ways] too. For although God willed that [the Moon] should be at the first time of the vernal month—whose beginning fell on the day of the vernal Equinox, or after, as I taught, with the Fathers and the Catholic Church (bk. 1 of the Chronology, ch. 28)—it is very probable that the beginning of the first month of the World was at the vernal Equinox, and that the Sun was placed either at the beginning [of Aries], or in the fourth degree of Aries—so that, at that beginning, it conjoined with itself the fourteenth Moon (that is, the Full Moon); or that afterward, in the diminution of its light, [the Moon] showed [that it had been] full—being, under this title too, “a Luminary which is diminished in [its] completing” [cf. Ecclus 43:8], that is, when it has reached the highest perfection of light. Whatever [the case], the aspect of the Moon to the Sun at the beginning of the World was such as it was when, by the death of Christ, the World was restored. Now, the revolution of years being made—if we wish the World founded in our autumn, or [reckon] the Sabbatical [years], so that the Full or New Moon fell on the day of the vernal or autumnal Equinox, and [that] the World [was] created in that age which preceded the Christian Epoch by 4000 [years], as we showed (bk. 2 of the Chronology, ch. 15)—there occur to me, from Astronomical calculation, only four years probable for the beginning of the World (on account of the characters of the first syzygy), which it has pleased [me] to exhibit in the following table, in which we have reckoned the years and months in the Julian manner, the weekday being added, on which the Equinox and the new or full Moon fell together:

[Margin: Concurrence of the Lunar Syzygies on the day of the Equinox, and their time.]

[Here Chapter IV ends. Chapter V follows: “Whether the Heaven is a Simple body, or Composed of Form and Matter different from the elemental—or of the same kind [as the elements]?”]

(The CAPUT V heading and Question 1 with its opening paragraph [I.] stand at the foot of the right-hand column of printed p. 232 / PDF 267; the body of paragraph [I.] runs over onto printed p. 233. The remainder of this file is printed p. 233 / PDF 268.)