|
Objection 1: It would seem that the cause assigned for the
production of the lights is not reasonable. For it is said (Jer.
10:2): "Be not afraid of the signs of heaven, which the
heathens fear." Therefore the heavenly lights were not made to be
signs.
Objection 2: Further, sign is contradistinguished from cause. But
the lights are the cause of what takes place upon the earth. Therefore
they are not signs.
Objection 3: Further, the distinction of seasons and days began
from the first day. Therefore the lights were not made "for seasons,
and days, and years," that is, in order to distinguish them.
Objection 4: Further, nothing is made for the sake of that which is
inferior to itself, "since the end is better than the means"
(Topic. iii). But the lights are nobler than the earth.
Therefore they were not made "to enlighten it."
Objection 5: Further, the new moon cannot be said "to rule the
night." But such it probably did when first made; for men begin to
count from the new moon. The moon, therefore, was not made "to rule
the night."
On the contrary, Suffices the authority of Scripture.
I answer that, As we have said above (Question 65, Article
2), a corporeal creature can be considered as made either for the
sake of its proper act, or for other creatures, or for the whole
universe, or for the glory of God. Of these reasons only that which
points out the usefulness of these things to man, is touched upon by
Moses, in order to withdraw his people from idolatry. Hence it is
written (Dt. 4:19): "Lest perhaps lifting up thy eyes to
heaven, thou see the sun and the moon and all the stars of heaven, and
being deceived by error thou adore and serve them, which the Lord thy
God created for the service of all nations." Now, he explains this
service at the beginning of Genesis as threefold. First, the lights
are of service to man, in regard to sight, which directs him in his
works, and is most useful for perceiving objects. In reference to
this he says: "Let them shine in the firmament and give life to the
earth." Secondly, as regards the changes of the seasons, which
prevent weariness, preserve health, and provide for the necessities of
food; all of which things could not be secured if it were always summer
or winter. In reference to this he says: "Let them be for seasons,
and for days, and years." Thirdly, as regards the convenience of
business and work, in so far as the lights are set in the heavens to
indicate fair or foul weather, as favorable to various occupations.
And in this respect he says: "Let them be for signs."
Reply to Objection 1: The lights in the heaven are set for signs of
changes effected in corporeal creatures, but not of those changes which
depend upon the free-will.
Reply to Objection 2: We are sometimes brought to the knowledge of
hidden effects through their sensible causes, and conversely. Hence
nothing prevents a sensible cause from being a sign. But he says
"signs," rather than "causes," to guard against idolatry.
Reply to Objection 3: The general division of time into day and
night took place on the first day, as regards the diurnal movement,
which is common to the whole heaven and may be understood to have begun
on that first day. But the particular distinctions of days and seasons
and years, according as one day is hotter than another, one season
than another, and one year than another, are due to certain particular
movements of the stars: which movements may have had their beginning on
the fourth day.
Reply to Objection 4: Light was given to the earth for the service
of man, who, by reason of his soul, is nobler than the heavenly
bodies. Nor is it untrue to say that a higher creature may be made for
the sake of a lower, considered not in itself, but as ordained to the
good of the universe.
Reply to Objection 5: When the moon is at its perfection it rises
in the evening and sets in the morning, and thus it rules the night,
and it was probably made in its full perfection as were plants yielding
seed, as also were animals and man himself. For although the perfect
is developed from the imperfect by natural processes, yet the perfect
must exist simply before the imperfect. Augustine, however (Gen.
ad lit. ii), does not say this, for he says that it is not unfitting
that God made things imperfect, which He afterwards perfected.
|
|