|
Objection 1: It would seem that the production of light is not
fittingly assigned to the first day. For light, as stated above
(Article 3), is a quality. But qualities are accidents, and as
such should have, not the first, but a subordinate place. The
production of light, then, ought not to be assigned to the first day.
Objection 2: Further, it is light that distinguishes night from
day, and this is effected by the sun, which is recorded as having been
made on the fourth day. Therefore the production of light could not
have been on the first day.
Objection 3: Further, night and day are brought about by the
circular movement of a luminous body. But movement of this kind is an
attribute of the firmament, and we read that the firmament was made on
the second day. Therefore the production of light, dividing night
from day, ought not to be assigned to the first day.
Objection 4: Further, if it be said that spiritual light is here
spoken of, it may be replied that the light made on the first day
dispels the darkness. But in the beginning spiritual darkness was
not, for even the demons were in the beginning good, as has been shown
(Question 63, Article 5). Therefore the production of light
ought not to be assigned to the first day.
On the contrary, That without which there could not be day, must
have been made on the first day. But there can be no day without
light. Therefore light must have been made on the first day.
I answer that, There are two opinions as to the production of light.
Augustine seems to say (De Civ. Dei xi, 9,33) that Moses
could not have fittingly passed over the production of the spiritual
creature, and therefore when we read, "In the beginning God created
heaven and earth," a spiritual nature as yet formless is to be
understood by the word "heaven," and formless matter of the corporeal
creature by the word "earth." And spiritual nature was formed
first, as being of higher dignity than corporeal. The forming,
therefore, of this spiritual nature is signified by the production of
light, that is to say, of spiritual light. For a spiritual nature
receives its form by the enlightenment whereby it is led to adhere to
the Word of God.
Other writers think that the production of spiritual creatures was
purposely omitted by Moses, and give various reasons. Basil [Hom.
i in Hexaem.] says that Moses begins his narrative from the
beginning of time which belongs to sensible things; but that the
spiritual or angelic creation is passed over, as created beforehand.
Chrysostom [Hom. ii in Genes.] gives as a reason for the omission
that Moses was addressing an ignorant people, to whom material things
alone appealed, and whom he was endeavoring to withdraw from the
service of idols. It would have been to them a pretext for idolatry if
he had spoken to them of natures spiritual in substance and nobler than
all corporeal creatures; for they would have paid them Divine
worship, since they were prone to worship as gods even the sun, moon,
and stars, which was forbidden them (Dt. 4).
But mention is made of several kinds of formlessness, in regard to the
corporeal creature. One is where we read that "the earth was void and
empty," and another where it is said that "darkness was upon the face
of the deep." Now it seems to be required, for two reasons, that
the formlessness of darkness should be removed first of all by the
production of light. In the first place because light is a quality of
the first body, as was stated (Article 3), and thus by means of
light it was fitting that the world should first receive its form. The
second reason is because light is a common quality. For light is
common to terrestrial and celestial bodies. But as in knowledge we
proceed from general principles, so do we in work of every kind. For
the living thing is generated before the animal, and the animal before
the man, as is shown in De Gener. Anim. ii, 3. It was
fitting, then, as an evidence of the Divine wisdom, that among the
works of distinction the production of light should take first place,
since light is a form of the primary body, and because it is more
common quality.
Basil [Hom. ii in Hexaem.], indeed, adds a third reason: that
all other things are made manifest by light. And there is yet a
fourth, already touched upon in the objections; that day cannot be
unless light exists, which was made therefore on the first day.
Reply to Objection 1: According to the opinion of those who hold
that the formlessness of matter preceded its form in duration, matter
must be held to have been created at the beginning with substantial
forms, afterwards receiving those that are accidental, among which
light holds the first place.
Reply to Objection 2: In the opinion of some the light here spoken
of was a kind of luminous nebula, and that on the making of the sun
this returned to the matter of which it had been formed. But this
cannot well be maintained, as in the beginning of Genesis Holy
Scripture records the institution of that order of nature which
henceforth is to endure. We cannot, then, say that what was made at
that time afterwards ceased to exist.
Others, therefore, held that this luminous nebula continues in
existence, but so closely attached to the sun as to be
indistinguishable. But this is as much as to say that it is
superfluous, whereas none of God's works have been made in vain. On
this account it is held by some that the sun's body was made out of
this nebula. This, too, is impossible to those at least who believe
that the sun is different in its nature from the four elements, and
naturally incorruptible. For in that case its matter cannot take on
another form.
I answer, then, with Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv), that the light
was the sun's light, formless as yet, being already the solar
substance, and possessing illuminative power in a general way, to
which was afterwards added the special and determinative power required
to produce determinate effects. Thus, then, in the production of
this light a triple distinction was made between light and darkness.
First, as to the cause, forasmuch as in the substance of the sun we
have the cause of light, and in the opaque nature of the earth the
cause of darkness. Secondly, as to place, for in one hemisphere
there was light, in the other darkness. Thirdly, as to time;
because there was light for one and darkness for another in the same
hemisphere; and this is signified by the words, "He called the light
day, and the darkness night."
Reply to Objection 3: Basil says (Hom. ii in Hexaem.) that
day and night were then caused by expansion and contraction of light,
rather than by movement. But Augustine objects to this (Gen. ad
lit. i), that there was no reason for this vicissitude of expansion
and contraction since there were neither men nor animals on the earth at
that time, for whose service this was required. Nor does the nature
of a luminous body seem to admit of the withdrawal of light, so long as
the body is actually present; though this might be effected by a
miracle. As to this, however, Augustine remarks (Gen. ad lit.
i) that in the first founding of the order of nature we must not look
for miracles, but for what is in accordance with nature. We hold,
then, that the movement of the heavens is twofold. Of these
movements, one is common to the entire heaven, and is the cause of day
and night. This, as it seems, had its beginning on the first day.
The other varies in proportion as it affects various bodies, and by
its variations is the cause of the succession of days, months, and
years. Thus it is, that in the account of the first day the
distinction between day and night alone is mentioned; this distinction
being brought about by the common movement of the heavens. The further
distinction into successive days, seasons, and years recorded as begun
on the fourth day, in the words, "let them be for seasons, and for
days, and years" is due to proper movements.
Reply to Objection 4: As Augustine teaches (Confess. xii;
Gen. ad lit. 1,15), formlessness did not precede forms in
duration; and so we must understand the production of light to signify
the formation of spiritual creatures, not, indeed, with the
perfection of glory, in which they were not created, but with the
perfection of grace, which they possessed from their creation as said
above (Question 62, Article 3). Thus the division of light
from darkness will denote the distinction of the spiritual creature from
other created things as yet without form. But if all created things
received their form at the same time, the darkness must be held to mean
the spiritual darkness of the wicked, not as existing from the
beginning but such as God foresaw would exist.
|
|