On a Purely Bodily Creature

Question 14

On a purely bodily creature

Then there were questions about a purely bodily creature. And about this there were two questions:

first, concerning the arc of clouds called a rainbow, whether it is a sign of no future flood;

second, whether it can be proven demonstratively that the world is not eternal.

Article 1

On the arc of clouds called a rainbow

To the first we proceed thus. It seems that the arc of clouds (Cf. Alfred of Sareshel, Commentary on the Metheora of Aristotle, ed. James K. Otte, Studien und texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters 19 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988), 3.10, 51.) is not a sign of no future flood.

Obj. 1: For that which is done out of necessity of nature does not seem to be instituted to signify anything. But the arc of clouds comes forth out of necessity on account of the opposition of the sun to a bedewed cloud. (Cf. Aristotle, Meteorology 3.5, 373b13–32.) Therefore, it does not seem to signify there will be no future flood.

Obj. 2: Apparitions of the air of this sort, such as a rainbow and a halo, that is, a circle containing the sun and the moon (Cf. Aristotle, Meteorology 3.5, 373a32.) and other things of this sort, (Aristotle, Meteorology 3.8, 377a29–378a14.) are caused especially from humid vapors existing in the air, out of which there follow rains, which make a flood. Therefore, the apparition of a rainbow rather is a sign of a future flood than of no future flood.

Obj. 3: If it is a sign of no future flood, either it is a sign there will never be a future flood, or a sign there will be no future flood up to some time. Yet if it is a sign there will never be a future flood, it would not have been necessary to appear except once. Yet if of no future flood up to some time, it would be necessary for the time to be determined, which indeed cannot be determined either by the authority of Scripture or by human reason. Therefore, a sign of this sort is given in vain.

On the contrary is that it is said in Genesis 9:13: I shall place my arc in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and between the earth; and afterwards there is added: and there shall not be further floods of water unto destroying all flesh (Gen 9:15).

I answer that in these things said in the Old Testament, the literal truth must be observed first. But, because the Old Testament is a figure of the New, generally in the Old Testament some things are proposed such that the mode of speaking itself designates that something is symbolized.

Therefore, it must be said that, because the causes of many things are hiding, yet the effects are more manifest, the effects are proposed in the designation of the causes. Yet it must be considered that the efficient cause of rains indeed is the sun, whereas the material humid vapor is raised through the power of the sun out of the earth and out of the waters. Yet these two things can exist in a threefold disposition. For sometimes the heat of the sun altogether overcomes the vapors and dries them, and then rains cannot follow; hence in Egypt and in very hot lands there are not rains; (Cf. ST III.44.2, ad 2; Commentary on Job, ch. 37, lect. 1, n. 483.) also in summer, on account of the nearness of the sun, rains are more rare, whereas in winter, they are more frequent. Whereas sometimes conversely the power of the sun prevails even unto multiplying vapors, but, nevertheless, it cannot dry them up; and then rains super-abound, and there is the reason for a flood of waters. Whereas sometimes it has itself by a middle way, namely, such that the power of the sun not only works unto the elevation of vapors, but also has victory over them so that they might not be multiplied so much as to induce a flood, nor also that the vapors be dried up altogether and rain not follow.

And a rainbow is caused by this middle disposition or comparison of the sun unto vapors, which does not appear with vapors altogether having dried up nor also with them altogether superabounding in the air. And for this reason, a rainbow is a sign of no future flood, inasmuch as it proceeds from such a cause which is repugnant to a flood. (Aristotle, Meteorology 3.4, 372b15–33; Seneca, Natural Questions 1.2, 8; 1.8, 7.) Yet Scripture uses such a way of speaking because through the rainbow there is signified Christ, (Cf. Aquinas, Sermon on the First Sunday of Advent (Nov. 30, 1270 or Nov. 29, 1271), “Ecce Rex tuus.”) through whom we are protected from spiritual flood.

Reply Obj. 1: It must be said that a rainbow proceeds naturally out of such causes which are repugnant to a flood, and for this reason, a rainbow fittingly is said to be a sign of no future flood.

Reply Obj. 2: It must be said that a rainbow can signify rains, but not superabundant ones such that they make a flood.

Reply Obj. 3: It must be said that a rainbow appearing once signifies that there will not be a flood for so long as the sun and vapors consist in the same disposition, and for this reason, it is not superfluous for it to appear frequently.

Article 2

Whether it can be proven demonstratively that the world is not eternal

To the second we proceed thus. It seems that it can be proven demonstratively that the world is not eternal.

Obj. 1: For if the world were eternal, there could not be computed the number of years from the beginning of the world. Yet this number is inscribed in the paschal candle. Thus, therefore, the pascal candle could not be blessed in the Church. (Cf. Philippe Grand, “Le Quodlibet XIV de Gerard of Abbeville. La vie de Gérard d’Abbeville,” Middle Ages Doctrinal and Literary History Archives 31 (1964): 266; Peter Comestor, Historia Scholastica, Genesis 5 (PL 198:1059).)

Obj. 2: Epacts are computed according to the growth of lunar years over solar years. But such growth could not be computed if the world were eternal. Therefore, the world is not eternal. Therefore, it can be demonstrated that the world is not eternal. (Cf. Philippe Grand, “Le Quodlibet XIV de Gerard of Abbeville,” 266.)

On the contrary: That which is of faith cannot be demonstrated because faith is of things not appearing (Heb 11:1). But that the world was created at a certain beginning of time is an article of faith (hence also it was said by Moses prophetically: in the beginning God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1], as Gregory says in his first homily on Ezekiel). (Gregory the Great, Homilies on Ezekiel the Prophet, bk. 1, homily 1, paras. 1–2 (CCSL 142:5–6; PL 76:786–87).) Therefore, that the world is not eternal cannot be proven demonstratively.

I answer that those things which are under the simple divine will cannot be proven demonstratively, because, as is said in 1 Corinthians 2:11, those things which are of God, no one knows except the Spirit of God. Yet the creation of the world does not depend upon another cause except upon the will of God alone. Hence those things which pertain to the beginning of the world cannot be proven demonstratively, but are held by faith alone, prophetically revealed through the Holy Spirit, just as the Apostle adds after the aforesaid: yet God has revealed to us through his Spirit (1 Cor 2:10).

Yet one must beware greatly lest to those things which are of faith anyone presume to adduce demonstrations, for two reasons. First, indeed, because in this he derogates from the excellence of faith, the truth of which exceeds every human reason, according to Sirach 3:25: many things above the sense of man have been shown to you. Yet those things which can be proven demonstratively are placed under human reason. Second, because such reasonings are generally frivolous, they give an occasion of derision to infidels when they think that we assent to these things which are of faith on account of such reasons.

And this appears expressly in the objections introduced here, which are derisible and of no moment.

Reply Obj. 1: What he introduces first concerning the paschal candle does not have force except through authority. Yet to prove through authority is not to prove demonstratively, but to make faith or opinion; and nevertheless, the authority of Sacred Scripture would be much mightier than of the paschal candle, especially since the paschal candle can be blessed without the inscription of the years of the world. For such an inscription of the paschal candle is not of necessity. Hence in many lands there is not the custom for something to be inscribed in the candle.

Reply Obj. 2: That which is opposed second also is derisible. For the growth of the years of the moon unto the sun are not computed from the beginning of the world but from some determinate root, for example, from some opposition of sun and moon, or from some conjunction, or from something of this sort, just as there is in all other astronomical computations.