|
Objection 1: It would seem that it was unfitting that Christ should
work miracles in the heavenly bodies. For, as Dionysius says
(Div. Nom. iv), "it beseems Divine providence not to destroy,
but to preserve, nature." Now, the heavenly bodies are by nature
incorruptible and unchangeable, as is proved De Coelo i. Therefore
it was unfitting that Christ should cause any change in the order of
the heavenly bodies.
Objection 2: Further, the course of time is marked out by the
movement of the heavenly bodies, according to Gn. 1:14: "Let
there be lights made in the firmament of heaven . . . and let them be
for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years." Consequently
if the movement of the heavenly bodies be changed, the distinction and
order of the seasons is changed. But there is no report of this having
been perceived by astronomers, "who gaze at the stars and observe the
months," as it is written (Is. 47:13). Therefore it seems
that Christ did not work any change in the movements of the heavenly
bodies.
Objection 3: Further, it was more fitting that Christ should work
miracles in life and when teaching, than in death: both because, as
it is written (2 Cor. 13:4), "He was crucified through
weakness, yet He liveth by the power of God," by which He worked
miracles; and because His miracles were in confirmation of His
doctrine. But there is no record of Christ having worked any miracles
in the heavenly bodies during His lifetime: nay, more; when the
Pharisees asked Him to give "a sign from heaven," He refused, as
Matthew relates (12,16). Therefore it seems that neither in
His death should He have worked any miracles in the heavenly bodies.
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 23:44,45): "There
was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour; and the sun was
darkened."
I answer that, As stated above (Question 43, Article 4) it
behooved Christ's miracles to be a sufficient proof of His Godhead.
Now this is not so sufficiently proved by changes wrought in the lower
bodies, which changes can be brought about by other causes, as it is
by changes wrought in the course of the heavenly bodies, which have
been established by God alone in an unchangeable order. This is what
Dionysius says in his epistle to Polycarp: "We must recognize that
no alteration can take place in the order end movement of the heavens
that is not caused by Him who made all and changes all by His word."
Therefore it was fitting that Christ should work miracles even in the
heavenly bodies.
Reply to Objection 1: Just as it is natural to the lower bodies to
be moved by the heavenly bodies, which are higher in the order of
nature, so is it natural to any creature whatsoever to be changed by
God, according to His will. Hence Augustine says (Contra
Faust. xxvi; quoted by the gloss on Rm. 11:24: "Contrary to
nature thou wert grafted," etc.): "God, the Creator and Author
of all natures, does nothing contrary to nature: for whatsoever He
does in each thing, that is its nature." Consequently the nature of
a heavenly body is not destroyed when God changes its course: but it
would be if the change were due to any other cause.
Reply to Objection 2: The order of the seasons was not disturbed by
the miracle worked by Christ. For, according to some, this gloom or
darkening of the sun, which occurred at the time of Christ's
passion, was caused by the sun withdrawing its rays, without any
change in the movement of the heavenly bodies, which measures the
duration of the seasons. Hence Jerome says on Mt. 27:45:
"It seems as though the 'greater light' withdrew its rays, lest it
should look on its Lord hanging on the Cross, or bestow its radiancy
on the impious blasphemers." And this withdrawal of the rays is not
to be understood as though it were in the sun's power to send forth or
withdraw its rays: for it sheds its light, not from choice, but by
nature, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). But the sun is said
to withdraw its rays in so far as the Divine power caused the sun's
rays not to reach the earth. On the other hand, Origen says this was
caused by clouds coming between (the earth and the sun). Hence on
Mt. 27:45 he says: "We must therefore suppose that many large
and very dense clouds were massed together over Jerusalem and the land
of Judea; so that it was exceedingly dark from the sixth to the ninth
hour. Hence I am of opinion that, just as the other signs which
occurred at the time of the Passion"---namely, "the rending of
the veil, the quaking of the earth," etc.---"took place in
Jerusalem only, so this also: . . . or if anyone prefer, it may
be extended to the whole of Judea," since it is said that "'there
was darkness over the whole earth,' which expression refers to the
land of Judea, as may be gathered from 3 Kgs. 18:10, where
Abdias says to Elias: 'As the Lord thy God liveth, there is no
nation or kingdom whither my lord hath not sent to seek thee': which
shows that they sought him among the nations in the neighborhood of
Judea."
On this point, however, credence is to be given rather to
Dionysius, who is an eyewitness as to this having occurred by the moon
eclipsing the sun. For he says (Ep. ad Polycarp): "Without any
doubt we saw the moon encroach on the sun," he being in Egypt at the
time, as he says in the same letter. And in this he points out four
miracles. The first is that the natural eclipse of the sun by
interposition of the moon never takes place except when the sun and moon
are in conjunction. But then the sun and moon were in opposition, it
being the fifteenth day, since it was the Jewish Passover.
Wherefore he says: "For it was not the time of
conjunction."---The second miracle is that whereas at the sixth
hour the moon was seen, together with the sun, in the middle of the
heavens, in the evening it was seen to be in its place, i.e. in the
east, opposite the sun. Wherefore he says: "Again we saw it,"
i.e. the moon, "return supernaturally into opposition with the
sun," so as to be diametrically opposite, having withdrawn from the
sun "at the ninth hour," when the darkness ceased, "until
evening." From this it is clear that the wonted course of the seasons
was not disturbed, because the Divine power caused the moon both to
approach the sun supernaturally at an unwonted season, and to withdraw
from the sun and return to its proper place according to the season.
The third miracle was that the eclipse of the sun naturally always
begins in that part of the sun which is to the west and spreads towards
the east: and this is because the moon's proper movement from west to
east is more rapid than that of the sun, and consequently the moon,
coming up from the west, overtakes the sun and passes it on its
eastward course. But in this case the moon had already passed the
sun, and was distant from it by the length of half the heavenly
circle, being opposite to it: consequently it had to return eastwards
towards the sun, so as to come into apparent contact with it from the
east, and continue in a westerly direction. This is what he refers to
when he says: "Moreover, we saw the eclipse begin to the east and
spread towards the western edge of the sun," for it was a total
eclipse, "and afterwards pass away." The fourth miracle consisted
in this, that in a natural eclipse that part of the sun which is first
eclipsed is the first to reappear (because the moon, coming in front
of the sun, by its natural movement passes on to the east, so as to
come away first from the western portion of the sun, which was the
first part to be eclipsed), whereas in this case the moon, while
returning miraculously from the east to the west, did not pass the sun
so as to be to the west of it: but having reached the western edge of
the sun returned towards the east: so that the last portion of the sun
to be eclipsed was the first to reappear. Consequently the eclipse
began towards the east, whereas the sun began to reappear towards the
west. And to this he refers by saying: "Again we observed that the
occultation and emersion did not begin from the same point," i.e. on
the same side of the sun, "but on opposite sides."
Chrysostom adds a fifth miracle (Hom. lxxxviii in Matth.),
saying that "the darkness in this case lasted for three hours, whereas
an eclipse of the sun lasts but a short time, for it is soon over, as
those know who have seen one." Hence we are given to understand that
the moon was stationary below the sun, except we prefer to say that the
duration of the darkness was measured from the first moment of
occultation of the sun to the moment when the sun had completely emerged
from the eclipse.
But, as Origen says (on Mt. 27:45), "against this the
children of this world object: How is it such a phenomenal occurrence
is not related by any writer, whether Greek or barbarian?" And he
says that someone of the name of Phlegon "relates in his chronicles
that this took place during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, but he does
not say that it occurred at the full moon." It may be, therefore,
that because it was not the time for an eclipse, the various
astronomers living then throughout the world were not on the look-out
for one, and that they ascribed this darkness to some disturbance of
the atmosphere. But in Egypt, where clouds are few on account of the
tranquillity of the air, Dionysius and his companions were
considerably astonished so as to make the aforesaid observations about
this darkness.
Reply to Objection 3: Then, above all, was there need for
miraculous proof of Christ's Godhead, when the weakness of human
nature was most apparent in Him. Hence it was that at His birth a
new star appeared in the heavens. Wherefore Maximus says (Serm. de
Nativ. viii): "If thou disdain the manger, raise thine eyes a
little and gaze on the new star in the heavens, proclaiming to the
world the birth of our Lord." But in His Passion yet greater
weakness appeared in His manhood. Therefore there was need for yet
greater miracles in the greater lights of the world. And, as
Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxviii in Matth.): "This is the sign
which He promised to them who sought for one saying: 'An evil and
adulterous generation seeketh a sign; and a sign shall not be given
it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet,' referring to His Cross .
. . and Resurrection . . . For it was much more wonderful that
this should happen when He was crucified than when He was walking on
earth."
|
|