Authors/Thomas Aquinas/Summa Theologiae/Part I/Q67

From The Logic Museum

Jump to: navigation, search
Q66 Q68



Latin English
Iª q. 67 pr. Consequenter considerandum est de opere distinctionis secundum se et primo, de opere primae diei; secundo, de opere secundae diei; tertio, de opere tertiae. Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum lux proprie in spiritualibus dici possit. Secundo, utrum lux corporalis sit corpus. Tertio, utrum sit qualitas. Quarto, utrum conveniens fuit prima die fieri lucem.
Iª q. 67 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod lux proprie in spiritualibus dicatur. Dicit enim Augustinus, IV super Gen. ad Litt., quod in spiritualibus melior et certior lux est, et quod Christus non sic dicitur lux quo modo lapis, sed illud proprie, hoc figurative. Objection 1. It would seem that "light" is used in its proper sense in spiritual things. For Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. iv, 28) that "in spiritual things light is better and surer: and that Christ is not called Light in the same sense as He is called the Stone; the former is to be taken literally, and the latter metaphorically."
Iª q. 67 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, Dionysius, IV cap. de Div. Nom., ponit lumen inter nomina intelligibilia Dei. Nomina autem intelligibilia proprie dicuntur in spiritualibus. Ergo lux proprie dicitur in spiritualibus. Objection 2. Further, Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) includes Light among the intellectual names of God. But such names are used in their proper sense in spiritual things. Therefore light is used in its proper sense in spiritual matters.
Iª q. 67 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, apostolus dicit, ad Ephes. V, omne quod manifestatur, lumen est. Sed manifestatio magis proprie est in spiritualibus quam in corporalibus. Ergo et lux. Objection 3. Further, the Apostle says (Ephesians 5:13): "All that is made manifest is light." But to be made manifest belongs more properly to spiritual things than to corporeal. Therefore also does light.
Iª q. 67 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Ambrosius, in libro de fide, ponit splendorem inter ea quae de Deo metaphorice dicuntur. On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Fide ii) that "Splendor" is among those things which are said of God metaphorically.
Iª q. 67 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod de aliquo nomine dupliciter convenit loqui, uno modo, secundum primam eius impositionem; alio modo, secundum usum nominis. Sicut patet in nomine visionis, quod primo impositum est ad significandum actum sensus visus; sed propter dignitatem et certitudinem huius sensus, extensum est hoc nomen, secundum usum loquentium, ad omnem cognitionem aliorum sensuum (dicimus enim, vide quomodo sapit, vel quomodo redolet, vel quomodo est calidum); et ulterius etiam ad cognitionem intellectus, secundum illud Matth. V, beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt. Et similiter dicendum est de nomine lucis. Nam primo quidem est institutum ad significandum id quod facit manifestationem in sensu visus, postmodum autem extensum est ad significandum omne illud quod facit manifestationem secundum quamcumque cognitionem. Si ergo accipiatur nomen luminis secundum suam primam impositionem, metaphorice in spiritualibus dicitur, ut Ambrosius dicit. Si autem accipiatur secundum quod est in usu loquentium ad omnem manifestationem extensum, sic proprie in spiritualibus dicitur. I answer that, Any word may be used in two ways--that is to say, either in its original application or in its more extended meaning. This is clearly shown in the word "sight," originally applied to the act of the sense, and then, as sight is the noblest and most trustworthy of the senses, extended in common speech to all knowledge obtained through the other senses. Thus we say, "Seeing how it tastes," or "smells," or "burns. "Further, sight is applied to knowledge obtained through the intellect, as in those words: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God" (Matthew 5:8). And thus it is with the word light. In its primary meaning it signifies that which makes manifest to the sense of sight; afterwards it was extended to that which makes manifest to cognition of any kind. If, then, the word is taken in its strict and primary meaning, it is to be understood metaphorically when applied to spiritual things, as Ambrose says (De Fide ii). But if taken in its common and extended use, as applied to manifestation of every kind, it may properly be applied to spiritual things.
Iª q. 67 a. 1 ad arg. Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. The answer to the objections will sufficiently appear from what has been said.
Iª q. 67 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod lux sit corpus. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de Lib. Arbit., quod lux in corporibus primum tenet locum. Ergo lux est corpus. Objection 1. It would seem that light is a body. For Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. iii, 5) that "light takes the first place among bodies."Therefore light is a body.
Iª q. 67 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, philosophus dicit quod lumen est species ignis. Sed ignis est corpus. Ergo lumen est corpus. Objection 2. Further, the Philosopher says (Topic. v, 2) that "light is a species of fire." But fire is a body, and therefore so is light.
Iª q. 67 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, ferri, intersecari, et reflecti est proprie corporum, haec autem omnia attribuuntur lumini vel radio. Coniunguntur etiam diversi radii et separantur, ut Dionysius dicit, II cap. de Div. Nom., quod etiam videtur non nisi corporibus convenire posse. Ergo lumen est corpus. Objection 3. Further, the powers of movement, intersection, reflection, belong properly to bodies; and all these are attributes of light and its rays. Moreover, different rays of light, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ii) are united and separated, which seems impossible unless they are bodies. Therefore light is a body.
Iª q. 67 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra, duo corpora non possunt simul esse in eodem loco. Sed lumen est simul cum aere. Ergo lumen non est corpus. On the contrary, Two bodies cannot occupy the same place simultaneously. But this is the case with light and air. Therefore light is not a body.
Iª q. 67 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod impossibile est lumen esse corpus. Quod quidem apparet tripliciter. Primo quidem, ex parte loci. Nam locus cuiuslibet corporis est alius a loco alterius corporis, nec est possibile, secundum naturam, duo corpora esse simul in eodem loco, qualiacumque corpora sint; quia contiguum requirit distinctionem in situ. Secundo, apparet idem ex ratione motus. Si enim lumen esset corpus, illuminatio esset motus localis corporis. Nullus autem motus localis corporis potest esse in instanti, quia omne quod movetur localiter, necesse est quod prius perveniat ad medium magnitudinis quam ad extremum. Illuminatio autem fit in instanti. Nec potest dici quod fiat in tempore imperceptibili. Quia in parvo spatio posset tempus latere, in magno autem spatio, puta ab oriente in occidentem, tempus latere non posset, statim enim cum sol est in puncto orientis, illuminatur totum hemisphaerium usque ad punctum oppositum. Est etiam aliud considerandum ex parte motus. Quia omne corpus habet motum naturalem determinatum, motus autem illuminationis est ad omnem partem, nec magis secundum circulum quam secundum rectitudinem. Unde manifestum est quod illuminatio non est motus localis alicuius corporis. Tertio, apparet idem ex parte generationis et corruptionis. Si enim lumen esset corpus, quando aer obtenebrescit per absentiam luminaris, sequeretur quod corpus luminis corrumperetur, et quod materia eius acciperet aliam formam. Quod non apparet, nisi aliquis dicat etiam tenebras esse corpus. Nec etiam apparet ex qua materia tantum corpus, quod replet medium hemisphaerium, quotidie generetur. Ridiculum est etiam dicere quod ad solam absentiam luminaris, tantum corpus corrumpatur. Si quis etiam dicat quod non corrumpitur, sed simul cum sole accedit et circumfertur, quid dici poterit de hoc, quod ad interpositionem alicuius corporis circa candelam, tota domus obscuratur? Nec videtur quod lumen congregetur circa candelam, quia non apparet ibi maior claritas post quam ante. Quia ergo omnia haec non solum rationi, sed sensui etiam repugnant, dicendum est quod impossibile est lumen esse corpus. I answer that, Light cannot be a body, for three evident reasons. First, on the part of place. For the place of any one body is different from that of any other, nor is it possible, naturally speaking, for any two bodies of whatever nature, to exist simultaneously in the same place; since contiguity requires distinction of place. The second reason is from movement. For if light were a body, its diffusion would be the local movement of a body. Now no local movement of a body can be instantaneous, as everything that moves from one place to another must pass through the intervening space before reaching the end: whereas the diffusion of light is instantaneous. Nor can it be argued that the time required is too short to be perceived; for though this may be the case in short distances, it cannot be so in distances so great as that which separates the East from the West. Yet as soon as the sun is at the horizon, the whole hemisphere is illuminated from end to end. It must also be borne in mind on the part of movement that whereas all bodies have their natural determinate movement, that of light is indifferent as regards direction, working equally in a circle as in a straight line. Hence it appears that the diffusion of light is not the local movement of a body. The third reason is from generation and corruption. For if light were a body, it would follow that whenever the air is darkened by the absence of the luminary, the body of light would be corrupted, and its matter would receive a new form. But unless we are to say that darkness is a body, this does not appear to be the case. Neither does it appear from what matter a body can be daily generated large enough to fill the intervening hemisphere. Also it would be absurd to say that a body of so great a bulk is corrupted by the mere absence of the luminary. And should anyone reply that it is not corrupted, but approaches and moves around with the sun, we may ask why it is that when a lighted candle is obscured by the intervening object the whole room is darkened? It is not that the light is condensed round the candle when this is done, since it burns no more brightly then than it burned before. Since, therefore, these things are repugnant, not only to reason, but to common sense, we must conclude that light cannot be a body.
Iª q. 67 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Augustinus accipit lucem pro corpore lucido in actu, scilicet pro igne, quod inter quatuor elementa nobilissimum est. Reply to Objection 1. Augustine takes light to be a luminous body in act--in other words, to be fire, the noblest of the four elements.
Iª q. 67 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Aristoteles lumen nominat ignem in propria materia, sicut ignis in materia aerea dicitur flamma, et in materia terrea dicitur carbo. Non tamen est multum curandum de eis exemplis quae Aristoteles inducit in libris logicalibus, quia inducit ea ut probabilia secundum opinionem aliorum. Reply to Objection 2. Aristotle pronounces light to be fire existing in its own proper matter: just as fire in aerial matter is "flame," or in earthly matter is "burning coal." Nor must too much attention be paid to the instances adduced by Aristotle in his works on logic, as he merely mentions them as the more or less probable opinions of various writers.
Iª q. 67 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod omnia illa attribuuntur lumini metaphorice, sicut etiam possent attribui calori. Quia enim motus localis est naturaliter primus motuum, ut probatur in VIII Physic., utimur nominibus pertinentibus ad motum localem, in alteratione et in omnibus motibus, sicut etiam nomen distantiae derivatum est a loco ad omnia contraria, ut dicitur in X Metaphys. Reply to Objection 3. All these properties are assigned to light metaphorically, and might in the same way be attributed to heat. For because movement from place to place is naturally first in the order of movement as is proved Phys. viii, text. 55, we use terms belonging to local movement in speaking of alteration and movement of all kinds. For even the word distance is derived from the idea of remoteness of place, to that of all contraries, as is said Metaph. x, text. 13.
Iª q. 67 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod lux non sit qualitas. Omnis enim qualitas permanet in subiecto etiam postquam agens discesserit; sicut calor in aqua postquam removetur ab igne. Sed lumen non remanet in aere recedente luminari. Ergo lumen non est qualitas. Objection 1. It would seem that light is not a quality. For every quality remains in its subject, though the active cause of the quality be removed, as heat remains in water removed from the fire. But light does not remain in the air when the source of light is withdrawn. Therefore light is not a quality.
Iª q. 67 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, omnis qualitas sensibilis habet contrarium; sicut calido contrariatur frigidum, et albo nigrum. Sed lumini nihil est contrarium, tenebra enim est privatio luminis. Ergo lumen non est qualitas sensibilis. Objection 2. Further, every sensible quality has its opposite, as cold is opposed to heat, blackness to whiteness. But this is not the case with light since darkness is merely a privation of light. Light therefore is not a sensible quality.
Iª q. 67 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, causa est potior effectu. Sed lux caelestium corporum causat formas substantiales in istis inferioribus. Dat etiam esse spirituale coloribus, quia facit eos visibiles actu. Ergo lux non est aliqua qualitas sensibilis, sed magis substantialis forma, aut spiritualis. Objection 3. Further, a cause is more potent than its effect. But the light of the heavenly bodies is a cause of substantial forms of earthly bodies, and also gives to colors their immaterial being, by making them actually visible. Light, then, is not a sensible quality, but rather a substantial or spiritual form.
Iª q. 67 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Damascenus dicit, in libro I, quod lux est quaedam qualitas. On the contrary, Damascene (De Fide Orth. i) says that light is a species of quality.
Iª q. 67 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod quidam dixerunt quod lumen in aere non habet esse naturale, sicut color in pariete; sed esse intentionale, sicut similitudo coloris in aere. Sed hoc non potest esse, propter duo. Primo quidem, quia lumen denominat aerem, fit enim aer luminosus in actu. Color vero non denominat ipsum, non enim dicitur aer coloratus. Secundo, quia lumen habet effectum in natura, quia per radios solis calefiunt corpora. Intentiones autem non causant transmutationes naturales. Alii vero dixerunt quod lux est forma substantialis solis. Sed hoc etiam apparet impossibile, propter duo. Primo quidem, quia nulla forma substantialis est per se sensibilis, quia quod quid est est obiectum intellectus, ut dicitur in III de anima. Lux autem est secundum se visibilis. Secundo, quia impossibile est ut id quod est forma substantialis in uno, sit forma accidentalis in alio, quia formae substantiali per se convenit constituere in specie; unde semper et in omnibus adest ei. Lux autem non est forma substantialis aeris, alioquin, ea recedente, corrumperetur. Unde non potest esse forma substantialis solis. Dicendum est ergo quod, sicut calor est qualitas activa consequens formam substantialem ignis, ita lux est qualitas activa consequens formam substantialem solis, vel cuiuscumque alterius corporis a se lucentis, si aliquod aliud tale est. Cuius signum est, quod radii diversarum stellarum habent diversos effectus, secundum diversas naturas corporum. I answer that, Some writers have said that the light in the air has not a natural being such as the color on a wall has, but only an intentional being, as a similitude of color in the air. But this cannot be the case for two reasons. First, because light gives a name to the air, since by it the air becomes actually luminous. But color does not do this, for we do not speak of the air as colored. Secondly, because light produces natural effects, for by the rays of the sun bodies are warmed, and natural changes cannot be brought about by mere intentions. Others have said that light is the sun's substantial form, but this also seems impossible for two reasons. First, because substantial forms are not of themselves objects of the senses; for the object of the intellect is what a thing is, as is said De Anima iii, text. 26: whereas light is visible of itself. In the second place, because it is impossible that what is the substantial form of one thing should be the accidental form of another; since substantial forms of their very nature constitute species: wherefore the substantial form always and everywhere accompanies the species. But light is not the substantial form of air, for if it were, the air would be destroyed when light is withdrawn. Hence it cannot be the substantial form of the sun. We must say, then, that as heat is an active quality consequent on the substantial form of fire, so light is an active quality consequent on the substantial form of the sun, or of another body that is of itself luminous, if there is any such body. A proof of this is that the rays of different stars produce different effects according to the diverse natures of bodies.
Iª q. 67 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum qualitas consequatur formam substantialem, diversimode se habet subiectum ad receptionem qualitatis, sicut se habet ad receptionem formae. Cum enim materia perfecte recipit formam, firmiter stabilitur etiam qualitas consequens formam; sicut si aqua convertatur in ignem. Cum vero forma substantialis recipitur imperfecte, secundum inchoationem quandam, qualitas consequens manet quidem aliquandiu, sed non semper; sicut patet in aqua calefacta, quae redit ad suam naturam. Sed illuminatio non fit per aliquam transmutationem materiae ad susceptionem formae substantialis, ut fiat quasi inchoatio aliqua formae. Et ideo lumen non remanet nisi ad praesentiam agentis. Reply to Objection 1. Since quality is consequent upon substantial form, the mode in which the subject receives a quality differs as the mode differs in which a subject receives a substantial form. For when matter receives its form perfectly, the qualities consequent upon the form are firm and enduring; as when, for instance, water is converted into fire. When, however, substantial form is received imperfectly, so as to be, as it were, in process of being received, rather than fully impressed, the consequent quality lasts for a time but is not permanent; as may be seen when water which has been heated returns in time to its natural state. But light is not produced by the transmutation of matter, as though matter were in receipt of a substantial form, and light were a certain inception of substantial form. For this reason light disappears on the disappearance of its active cause.
Iª q. 67 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod accidit luci quod non habeat contrarium, inquantum est qualitas naturalis primi corporis alterantis, quod est a contrarietate elongatum. Reply to Objection 2. It is accidental to light not to have a contrary, forasmuch as it is the natural quality of the first corporeal cause of change, which is itself removed from contrariety.
Iª q. 67 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut calor agit ad formam ignis quasi instrumentaliter in virtute formae substantialis, ita lumen agit quasi instrumentaliter in virtute corporum caelestium ad producendas formas substantiales, et ad hoc quod faciat colores visibiles actu, inquantum est qualitas primi corporis sensibilis. Reply to Objection 3. As heat acts towards perfecting the form of fire, as an instrumental cause, by virtue of the substantial form, so does light act instrumentally, by virtue of the heavenly bodies, towards producing substantial forms; and towards rendering colors actually visible, inasmuch as it is a quality of the first sensible body.
Iª q. 67 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter lucis productio in prima die ponatur. Est enim lux qualitas quaedam, ut dictum est. Qualitas autem, cum sit accidens, non habet rationem primi, sed magis rationem postremi. Non ergo prima die debet poni productio lucis. Objection 1. It would seem that the production of light is not fittingly assigned to the first day. For light, as stated above (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.
Iª q. 67 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, per lucem distinguitur nox a die. Hoc autem fit per solem, qui ponitur factus die quarta. Ergo non debuit poni productio lucis prima die. 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.
Iª q. 67 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, nox et dies fit per circularem motum corporis lucidi. Sed circularis motus est proprius firmamenti, quod legitur factum die secunda. Ergo non debuit poni in prima die productio lucis distinguentis noctem et diem. 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.
Iª q. 67 a. 4 arg. 4 Si dicatur quod intelligitur de luce spirituali, contra, lux quae legitur facta prima die, facit distinctionem a tenebris. Sed non erant in principio spirituales tenebrae, quia etiam Daemones fuerunt a principio boni, ut supra dictum est. Non ergo prima die debuit poni productio lucis. 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 (63, 5). Therefore the production of light ought not to be assigned to the first day.
Iª q. 67 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra, id sine quo non potest esse dies, oportuit fieri in prima die. Sed sine luce non potest esse dies. Ergo oportuit lucem fieri prima die. 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.
Iª q. 67 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod de productione lucis est duplex opinio. Augustino enim videtur quod non fuerit conveniens Moysen praetermisisse spiritualis creaturae productionem. Et ideo dicit quod, cum dicitur, in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram, per caelum intelligitur spiritualis natura adhuc informis, per terram autem intelligitur materia informis corporalis creaturae. Et quia natura spiritualis dignior est quam corporalis, fuit prius formanda. Formatio igitur spiritualis naturae significatur in productione lucis, ut intelligatur de luce spirituali formatio enim naturae spiritualis est per hoc quod illuminatur ut adhaereat verbo Dei. Aliis autem videtur quod sit praetermissa a Moyse productio spiritualis creaturae. Sed huius rationem diversimode assignant. Basilius enim dicit quod Moyses principium narrationis suae fecit a principio quod ad tempus pertinet sensibilium rerum; sed spiritualis natura, idest angelica, praetermittitur, quia fuit ante creata. Chrysostomus autem assignat aliam rationem. Quia Moyses loquebatur rudi populo, qui nihil nisi corporalia poterat capere; quem etiam ab idololatria revocare volebat. Assumpsissent autem idololatriae occasionem, si propositae fuissent eis aliquae substantiae supra omnes corporeas creaturas, eas enim reputassent deos, cum etiam proni essent ad hoc quod solem et lunam et stellas colerent tanquam deos; quod eis inhibetur Deut. IV. Praemissa autem fuerat Gen. I, circa creaturam corporalem multiplex informitas, una quidem in hoc quod dicebatur, terra erat inanis et vacua; alia vero in hoc quod dicebatur, tenebrae erant super faciem abyssi. Necessarium autem fuit ut informitas tenebrarum primo removeretur per lucis productionem, propter duo. Primo quidem, quia lux, ut dictum est, est qualitas primi corporis, unde secundum eam primo fuit mundus formandus. Secundo, propter communitatem lucis, communicant enim in ea inferiora corpora cum superioribus. Sicut autem in cognitione proceditur a communioribus, ita etiam in operatione, nam prius generatur vivum quam animal, et animal quam homo, ut dicitur in libro de Gener. Animal. Sic ergo oportuit ordinem divinae sapientiae manifestari, ut primo inter opera distinctionis produceretur lux, tanquam primi corporis forma, et tanquam communior. Basilius autem ponit tertiam rationem, quia per lucem omnia alia manifestantur. Potest et quarta ratio addi, quae in obiiciendo est tacta, quia dies non potest esse sine luce; unde oportuit in prima die fieri lucem. 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 (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.
Iª q. 67 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, secundum opinionem quae ponit informitatem materiae duratione praecedere formationem, oportet dicere quod materia a principio fuerit creata sub formis substantialibus; postmodum vero fuerit formata secundum aliquas conditiones accidentales, inter quas primum locum obtinet lux. 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.
Iª q. 67 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod quidam dicunt lucem illam fuisse quandam nubem lucidam, quae postmodum, facto sole, in materiam praeiacentem rediit. Sed istud non est conveniens. Quia Scriptura in principio Genesis commemorat institutionem naturae, quae postmodum perseverat, unde non debet dici quod aliquid tunc factum fuerit, quod postmodum esse desierit. Et ideo alii dicunt quod illa nubes lucida adhuc remanet, et est coniuncta soli, ut ab eo discerni non possit. Sed secundum hoc, illa nubes superflua remaneret, nihil autem est vanum in operibus Dei. Et ideo alii dicunt quod ex illa nube formatum est corpus solis. Sed hoc etiam dici non potest, si ponatur corpus solis non esse de natura quatuor elementorum, sed esse incorruptibile per naturam quia secundum hoc, materia eius non potest esse sub alia forma. Et ideo est dicendum, ut Dionysius dicit IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod illa lux fuit lux solis, sed adhuc informis, quantum ad hoc, quod iam erat substantia solis, et habebat virtutem illuminativam in communi; sed postmodum data est ei specialis et determinata virtus ad particulares effectus. Et secundum hoc, in productione huius lucis distincta est lux a tenebris, quantum ad tria. Primo quidem, quantum ad causam, secundum quod in substantia solis erat causa luminis, in opacitate autem terrae causa tenebrarum. Secundo, quantum ad locum, quia in uno hemisphaerio erat lumen, in alio tenebrae. Tertio, quantum ad tempus, quia in eodem hemisphaerio secundum unam partem temporis erat lumen, secundum aliam tenebrae. Et hoc est quod dicitur, lucem vocavit diem, et tenebras noctem. 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."
Iª q. 67 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Basilius dicit lucem et tenebras tunc fuisse per emissionem et contractionem luminis, et non per motum. Sed contra hoc obiicit Augustinus quod nulla ratio esset huius vicissitudinis emittendi et retrahendi luminis; cum homines et animalia non essent, quorum usibus hoc deserviret. Et praeterea hoc non habet natura corporis lucidi, ut retrahat lumen in sui praesentia, sed miraculose potest hoc fieri, in prima autem institutione naturae non quaeritur miraculum, sed quid natura rerum habeat, ut Augustinus dicit. Et ideo dicendum est quod duplex est motus in caelo. Unus communis toti caelo, qui facit diem et noctem, et iste videtur institutus primo die. Alius autem est, qui diversificatur per diversa corpora; secundum quos motus fit diversitas dierum ad invicem, et mensium et annorum. Et ideo in prima die fit mentio de sola distinctione noctis et diei, quae fit per motum communem. In quarta autem die fit mentio de diversitate dierum et temporum et annorum, cum dicitur, ut sint in tempora et dies et annos; quae quidem diversitas fit per motus proprios. 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.
Iª q. 67 a. 4 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod, secundum Augustinum, informitas non praecedit formationem duratione. Unde oportet dicere quod per lucis productionem intelligatur formatio spiritualis creaturae non quae est per gloriam perfecta, cum qua creata non fuit; sed quae est per gratiam perfecta, cum qua creata fuit, ut dictum est. Per hanc ergo lucem facta est divisio a tenebris, idest ab informitate alterius creaturae non formatae. Vel, si tota creatura simul formata fuit, facta est distinctio a tenebris spiritualibus, non quae tunc essent (quia Diabolus non fuit creatus malus); sed quas Deus futuras praevidit. 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 (62, 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.

Notes


  • [[]]
Personal tools