|
Objection 1: It would seem that the firmament was not made on the
second day. For it is said (Gn. 1:8): "God called the
firmament heaven." But the heaven existed before days, as is clear
from the words, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth."
Therefore the firmament was not made on the second day.
Objection 2: Further, the work of the six days is ordered
conformably to the order of Divine wisdom. Now it would ill become
the Divine wisdom to make afterwards that which is naturally first.
But though the firmament naturally precedes the earth and the waters,
these are mentioned before the formation of light, which was on the
first day. Therefore the firmament was not made on the second day.
Objection 3: Further, all that was made in the six days was formed
out of matter created before days began. But the firmament cannot have
been formed out of pre-existing matter, for if so it would be liable
to generation and corruption. Therefore the firmament was not made on
the second day.
On the contrary, It is written (Gn. 1:6): "God said: let
there be a firmament," and further on (verse 8); "And the
evening and morning were the second day."
I answer that, In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to
observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The
first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The
second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity
of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such
measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to
be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of
unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.
We say, therefore, that the words which speak of the firmament as
made on the second day can be understood in two senses. They may be
understood, first, of the starry firmament, on which point it is
necessary to set forth the different opinions of philosophers. Some of
these believed it to be composed of the elements; and this was the
opinion of Empedocles, who, however, held further that the body of
the firmament was not susceptible of dissolution, because its parts
are, so to say, not in disunion, but in harmony. Others held the
firmament to be of the nature of the four elements, not, indeed,
compounded of them, but being as it were a simple element. Such was
the opinion of Plato, who held that element to be fire. Others,
again, have held that the heaven is not of the nature of the four
elements, but is itself a fifth body, existing over and above these.
This is the opinion of Aristotle (De Coel. i, text. 6,32).
According to the first opinion, it may, strictly speaking, be
granted that the firmament was made, even as to substance, on the
second day. For it is part of the work of creation to produce the
substance of the elements, while it belongs to the work of distinction
and adornment to give forms to the elements that pre-exist.
But the belief that the firmament was made, as to its substance, on
the second day is incompatible with the opinion of Plato, according to
whom the making of the firmament implies the production of the element
of fire. This production, however, belongs to the work of creation,
at least, according to those who hold that formlessness of matter
preceded in time its formation, since the first form received by matter
is the elemental.
Still less compatible with the belief that the substance of the
firmament was produced on the second day is the opinion of Aristotle,
seeing that the mention of days denotes succession of time, whereas the
firmament, being naturally incorruptible, is of a matter not
susceptible of change of form; wherefore it could not be made out of
matter existing antecedently in time.
Hence to produce the substance of the firmament belongs to the work of
creation. But its formation, in some degree, belongs to the second
day, according to both opinions: for as Dionysius says (Div.
Nom. iv), the light of the sun was without form during the first
three days, and afterwards, on the fourth day, received its form.
If, however, we take these days to denote merely sequence in the
natural order, as Augustine holds (Gen. ad lit. iv,
22,24), and not succession in time, there is then nothing to
prevent our saying, whilst holding any one of the opinions given
above, that the substantial formation of the firmament belongs to the
second day.
Another possible explanation is to understand by the firmament that was
made on the second day, not that in which the stars are set, but the
part of the atmosphere where the clouds are collected, and which has
received the name firmament from the firmness and density of the air.
"For a body is called firm," that is dense and solid, "thereby
differing from a mathematical body" as is remarked by Basil (Hom.
iii in Hexaem.). If, then, this explanation is adopted none of
these opinions will be found repugnant to reason. Augustine, in fact
(Gen. ad lit. ii, 4), recommends it thus: "I consider this
view of the question worthy of all commendation, as neither contrary to
faith nor difficult to be proved and believed."
Reply to Objection 1: According to Chrysostom (Hom. iii in
Genes.), Moses prefaces his record by speaking of the works of God
collectively, in the words, "In the beginning God created heaven
and earth," and then proceeds to explain them part by part; in
somewhat the same way as one might say: "This house was constructed
by that builder," and then add: "First, he laid the foundations,
then built the walls, and thirdly, put on the roof." In accepting
this explanation we are, therefore, not bound to hold that a different
heaven is spoken of in the words: "In the beginning God created
heaven and earth," and when we read that the firmament was made on the
second day.
We may also say that the heaven recorded as created in the beginning is
not the same as that made on the second day; and there are several
senses in which this may be understood. Augustine says (Gen. ad
lit. i, 9) that the heaven recorded as made on the first day is the
formless spiritual nature, and that the heaven of the second day is the
corporeal heaven. According to Bede (Hexaem. i) and Strabus,
the heaven made on the first day is the empyrean, and the firmament
made on the second day, the starry heaven. According to Damascene
(De Fide Orth. ii) that of the first day was spherical in form and
without stars, the same, in fact, that the philosophers speak of,
calling it the ninth sphere, and the primary movable body that moves
with diurnal movement: while by the firmament made on the second day he
understands the starry heaven. According to another theory, touched
upon by Augustine [Gen. ad lit. ii, 1] the heaven made on the
first day was the starry heaven, and the firmament made on the second
day was that region of the air where the clouds are collected, which is
also called heaven, but equivocally. And to show that the word is
here used in an equivocal sense, it is expressly said that "God
called the firmament heaven"; just as in a preceding verse it said
that "God called the light day" (since the word "day" is also used
to denote a space of twenty-four hours). Other instances of a
similar use occur, as pointed out by Rabbi Moses.
The second and third objections are sufficiently answered by what has
been already said.
|
|