Siderea

19. 38. Ponamus enim in eo quod scriptum est: Dixit Deus: Fiat lux; et facta est lux 58; alium sensisse lucem corporalem factam, et alium spiritalem. Esse spiritalem lucem in creatura spiritali, fides nostra non dubitat: esse autem lucem corporalem coelestem, aut etiam supra coelum, vel ante coelum, cui succedere nox potuerit, tamdiu non est contra fidem, donec veritate certissima refellatur. Quod si factum fuerit, non hoc habebat divina Scriptura, sed hoc senserat humana ignorantia. Si autem hoc verum esse certa ratio demonstraverit, adhuc incertum erit utrum hoc in illis verbis sanctorum Librorum scriptor sentiri voluerit, an aliud aliquid non minus verum. Quod si caetera contextio sermonis non hoc eum voluisse probaverit, non ideo falsum erit aliud, quod ipse intellegi voluit; sed et verum, et quod utilius cognoscatur. Si autem contextio Scripturae hoc voluisse intellegi scriptorem non repugnaverit, adhuc restabit quaerere utrum et aliud non potuit. Quod si et aliud potuisse invenerimus, incertum erit quidnam eorum ille voluerit: et utrumque sentiri voluisse, non inconvenienter creditur, si utrique sententiae certa circumstantia suffragantur.

38. Let us suppose that in explaining the words, "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and light was made," one man thinks that it was material light that was made, and another that it was spiritual. As to the actual existence of “spiritual light”65 in a spiritual creature, our faith leaves no doubt; as to the existence of material light, celestial or supercelestial, even existing before the heavens, a light which could have been followed by night, there will be nothing in such a supposition contrary to the faith until un-erring truth gives the lie to it. And if that should happen, this teaching was never in Holy Scripture but was an opinion pro-posed by man in his ignorance. On the other hand, if reason should prove that this opinion is unquestionably true, it will still be uncertain whether this sense was intended by the sacred writer when he used the words quoted above, or whether he meant something else no less true. And if the general drift of the passage shows that the sacred writer did not intend this teaching, the other, which he did intend, will not thereby be false; indeed, it will be true and more worth knowing. On the other hand, if the tenor of the words of Scripture does not militate against our taking this teaching as the mind of the writer, we shall still have to enquire whether he could not have meant something else besides. And if we find that he could have meant something else also, it will not be clear which of the two meanings he intended. And there is no difficulty if he is thought to have wished both interpretations if both are supported by clear indications in the context.