No More Learning

But beasts and cattle are quadrupeds. Therefore quadrupeds ought not to
be enumerated as a class with beasts and cattle.

Objection 3: Further, as animals belong to a determinate genus and
species, so also does man. But in the making of man nothing is said of
his genus and species, and therefore nothing ought to have been said
about them in the production of other animals, whereas it is said
"according to its genus" and "in its species. "

Objection 4: Further, land animals are more like man, whom God is
recorded to have blessed, than are birds and fishes. But as birds and
fishes are said to be blessed, this should have been said, with much
more reason, of the other animals as well.

Objection 5: Further, certain animals are generated from putrefaction,
which is a kind of corruption. But corruption is repugnant to the first
founding of the world. Therefore such animals should not have been
produced at that time.

Objection 6: Further, certain animals are poisonous, and injurious to
man. But there ought to have been nothing injurious to man before man
sinned. Therefore such animals ought not to have been made by God at
all, since He is the Author of good; or at least not until man had
sinned.

On the contrary, Suffices the authority of Scripture.

I answer that, As on the fifth day the intermediate body, namely, the
water, is adorned, and thus that day corresponds to the second day; so
the sixth day, on which the lowest body, or the earth, is adorned by
the production of land animals, corresponds to the third day. Hence the
earth is mentioned in both places. And here again Augustine says (Gen.
ad lit. v) that the production was potential, and other holy writers
that it was actual.

Reply to Objection 1: The different grades of life which are found in
different living creatures can be discovered from the various ways in
which Scripture speaks of them, as Basil says (Hom. viii in Hexaem. ).
The life of plants, for instance, is very imperfect and difficult to
discern, and hence, in speaking of their production, nothing is said of
their life, but only their generation is mentioned, since only in
generation is a vital act observed in them. For the powers of nutrition
and growth are subordinate to the generative life, as will be shown
later on ([590]Q[78], A[2]). But amongst animals, those that live on
land are, generally speaking, more perfect than birds and fishes, not
because the fish is devoid of memory, as Basil upholds (Hom. viii in
Hexaem. ) and Augustine rejects (Gen. ad lit. iii), but because their
limbs are more distinct and their generation of a higher order, (yet
some imperfect animals, such as bees and ants, are more intelligent in
certain ways). Scripture, therefore, does not call fishes "living
creatures," but "creeping creatures having life"; whereas it does call
land animals "living creatures" on account of their more perfect life,
and seems to imply that fishes are merely bodies having in them
something of a soul, whilst land animals, from the higher perfection of
their life, are, as it were, living souls with bodies subject to them.
But the life of man, as being the most perfect grade, is not said to be
produced, like the life of other animals, by earth or water, but
immediately by God.

Reply to Objection 2: By "cattle," domestic animals are signified,
which in any way are of service to man: but by "beasts," wild animals
such as bears and lions are designated. By "creeping things" those
animals are meant which either have no feet and cannot rise from the
earth, as serpents, or those whose feet are too short to life them far
from the ground, as the lizard and tortoise. But since certain animals,
as deer and goats, seem to fall under none of these classes, the word
"quadrupeds" is added. Or perhaps the word "quadruped" is used first as
being the genus, to which the others are added as species, for even
some reptiles, such as lizards and tortoises, are four-footed.

Reply to Objection 3: In other animals, and in plants, mention is made
of genus and species, to denote the generation of like from like. But
it was unnecessary to do so in the case of man, as what had already
been said of other creatures might be understood of him. Again, animals
and plants may be said to be produced according to their kinds, to
signify their remoteness from the Divine image and likeness, whereas
man is said to be made "to the image and likeness of God. "

Reply to Objection 4: The blessing of God gives power to multiply by
generation, and, having been mentioned in the preceding account of the
making of birds and fishes, could be understood of the beasts of the
earth, without requiring to be repeated. The blessing, however, is
repeated in the case of man, since in him generation of children has a
special relation to the number of the elect [*Cf. Augustine, Gen. ad
lit. iii, 12], and to prevent anyone from saying that there was any sin
whatever in the act of begetting children. As to plants, since they
experience neither desire of propagation, nor sensation in generating,
they are deemed unworthy of a formal blessing.

Reply to Objection 5: Since the generation of one thing is the
corruption of another, it was not incompatible with the first formation
of things, that from the corruption of the less perfect the more
perfect should be generated. Hence animals generated from the
corruption of inanimate things, or of plants, may have been generated
then. But those generated from corruption of animals could not have
been produced then otherwise than potentially.

Reply to Objection 6: In the words of Augustine (Super. Gen. contr.
Manich. i): "If an unskilled person enters the workshop of an artificer
he sees in it many appliances of which he does not understand the use,
and which, if he is a foolish fellow, he considers unnecessary.
Moreover, should he carelessly fall into the fire, or wound himself
with a sharp-edged tool, he is under the impression that many of the
things there are hurtful; whereas the craftsman, knowing their use,
laughs at his folly. And thus some people presume to find fault with
many things in this world, through not seeing the reasons for their
existence. For though not required for the furnishing of our house,
these things are necessary for the perfection of the universe. " And,
since man before he sinned would have used the things of this world
conformably to the order designed, poisonous animals would not have
injured him.
__________________________________________________________________

ON THE THINGS THAT BELONG TO THE SEVENTH DAY (THREE ARTICLES)

We must next consider the things that belong to the seventh day. Under
this head there are three points of inquiry:

(1) About the completion of the works;

(2) About the resting of God;

(3) About the blessing and sanctifying of this day.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the completion of the Divine works ought to be ascribed to the
seventh day?

Objection 1: It would seem that the completion of the Divine works
ought not to be ascribed to the seventh day. For all things that are
done in this world belong to the Divine works. But the consummation of
the world will be at the end of the world (Mat. 13:39,40). Moreover,
the time of Christ's Incarnation is a time of completion, wherefore it
is called "the time of fulness [*Vulg. : 'the fulness of time']" (Gal.
4:4). And Christ Himself, at the moment of His death, cried out, "It is
consummated" (Jn. 19:30). Hence the completion of the Divine works does
not belong to the seventh day.

Objection 2: Further, the completion of a work is an act in itself. But
we do not read that God acted at all on the seventh day, but rather
that He rested from all His work. Therefore the completion of the works
does not belong to the seventh day.

Objection 3: Further, nothing is said to be complete to which many
things are added, unless they are merely superfluous, for a thing is
called perfect to which nothing is wanting that it ought to possess.
But many things were made after the seventh day, as the production of
many individual beings, and even of certain new species that are
frequently appearing, especially in the case of animals generated from
putrefaction. Also, God creates daily new souls. Again, the work of the
Incarnation was a new work, of which it is said (Jer. 31:22): "The Lord
hath created a new thing upon the earth. " Miracles also are new works,
of which it is said (Eccles. 36:6): "Renew thy signs, and work new
miracles. " Moreover, all things will be made new when the Saints are
glorified, according to Apoc. 21:5: "And He that sat on the throne
said: Behold I make all things new. " Therefore the completion of the
Divine works ought not to be attributed to the seventh day.

On the contrary, It is said (Gn. 2:2): "On the seventh day God ended
His work which He had made. "

I answer that, The perfection of a thing is twofold, the first
perfection and the second perfection. The 'first' perfection is that
according to which a thing is substantially perfect, and this
perfection is the form of the whole; which form results from the whole
having its parts complete. But the 'second' perfection is the end,
which is either an operation, as the end of the harpist is to play the
harp; or something that is attained by an operation, as the end of the
builder is the house that he makes by building. But the first
perfection is the cause of the second, because the form is the
principle of operation. Now the final perfection, which is the end of
the whole universe, is the perfect beatitude of the Saints at the
consummation of the world; and the first perfection is the completeness
of the universe at its first founding, and this is what is ascribed to
the seventh day.

Reply to Objection 1: The first perfection is the cause of the second,
as above said. Now for the attaining of beatitude two things are
required, nature and grace. Therefore, as said above, the perfection of
beatitude will be at the end of the world. But this consummation
existed previously in its causes, as to nature, at the first founding
of the world, as to grace, in the Incarnation of Christ. For, "Grace
and truth came by Jesus Christ" (Jn. 1:17). So, then, on the seventh
day was the consummation of nature, in Christ's Incarnation the
consummation of grace, and at the end of the world will be the
consummation of glory.

Reply to Objection 2: God did act on the seventh day, not by creating
new creatures, but by directing and moving His creatures to the work
proper to them, and thus He made some beginning of the "second"
perfection. So that, according to our version of the Scripture, the
completion of the works is attributed to the seventh day, though
according to another it is assigned to the sixth. Either version,
however, may stand, since the completion of the universe as to the
completeness of its parts belongs to the sixth day, but its completion
as regards their operation, to the seventh. It may also be added that
in continuous movement, so long as any movement further is possible,
movement cannot be called completed till it comes to rest, for rest
denotes consummation of movement. Now God might have made many other
creatures besides those which He made in the six days, and hence, by
the fact that He ceased making them on the seventh day, He is said on
that day to have consummated His work.

Reply to Objection 3: Nothing entirely new was afterwards made by God,
but all things subsequently made had in a sense been made before in the
work of the six days. Some things, indeed, had a previous experience
materially, as the rib from the side of Adam out of which God formed
Eve; whilst others existed not only in matter but also in their causes,
as those individual creatures that are now generated existed in the
first of their kind. Species, also, that are new, if any such appear,
existed beforehand in various active powers; so that animals, and
perhaps even new species of animals, are produced by putrefaction by
the power which the stars and elements received at the beginning.
Again, animals of new kinds arise occasionally from the connection of
individuals belonging to different species, as the mule is the
offspring of an ass and a mare; but even these existed previously in
their causes, in the works of the six days. Some also existed
beforehand by way of similitude, as the souls now created. And the work
of the Incarnation itself was thus foreshadowed, for as we read (Phil.
2:7), The Son of God "was made in the likeness of men. " And again, the
glory that is spiritual was anticipated in the angels by way of
similitude; and that of the body in the heaven, especially the
empyrean. Hence it is written (Eccles. 1:10), "Nothing under the sun is
new, for it hath already gone before, in the ages that were before us. "
__________________________________________________________________

Whether God rested on the seventh day from all His work?

Objection 1: It would seem that God did not rest on the seventh day
from all His work. For it is said (Jn. 5:17), "My Father worketh until
now, and I work. " God, then, did not rest on the seventh day from all
His work.

Objection 2: Further, rest is opposed to movement, or to labor, which
movement causes. But, as God produced His work without movement and
without labor, He cannot be said to have rested on the seventh day from
His work.

Objection 3: Further, should it be said that God rested on the seventh
day by causing man to rest; against this it may be argued that rest is
set down in contradistinction to His work; now the words "God created"
or "made" this thing or the other cannot be explained to mean that He
made man create or make these things. Therefore the resting of God
cannot be explained as His making man to rest.

On the contrary, It is said (Gn. 2:2): "God rested on the seventh day
from all the work which He had done. "

I answer that, Rest is, properly speaking, opposed to movement, and
consequently to the labor that arises from movement. But although
movement, strictly speaking, is a quality of bodies, yet the word is
applied also to spiritual things, and in a twofold sense. On the one
hand, every operation may be called a movement, and thus the Divine
goodness is said to move and go forth to its object, in communicating
itself to that object, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ii). On the other
hand, the desire that tends to an object outside itself, is said to
move towards it. Hence rest is taken in two senses, in one sense
meaning a cessation from work, in the other, the satisfying of desire.
Now, in either sense God is said to have rested on the seventh day.
First, because He ceased from creating new creatures on that day, for,
as said above (A[1], ad 3), He made nothing afterwards that had not
existed previously, in some degree, in the first works; secondly,
because He Himself had no need of the things that He had made, but was
happy in the fruition of Himself. Hence, when all things were made He
is not said to have rested "in" His works, as though needing them for
His own happiness, but to have rested "from" them, as in fact resting
in Himself, as He suffices for Himself and fulfils His own desire. And
even though from all eternity He rested in Himself, yet the rest in
Himself, which He took after He had finished His works, is that rest
which belongs to the seventh day. And this, says Augustine, is the
meaning of God's resting from His works on that day (Gen. ad lit. iv).

Reply to Objection 1: God indeed "worketh until now" by preserving and
providing for the creatures He has made, but not by the making of new
ones.

Reply to Objection 2: Rest is here not opposed to labor or to movement,
but to the production of new creatures, and to the desire tending to an
external object.

Reply to Objection 3: Even as God rests in Himself alone and is happy
in the enjoyment of Himself, so our own sole happiness lies in the
enjoyment of God. Thus, also, He makes us find rest in Himself, both
from His works and our own. It is not, then, unreasonable to say that
God rested in giving rest to us. Still, this explanation must not be
set down as the only one, and the other is the first and principal
explanation.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether blessing and sanctifying are due to the seventh day?

Objection 1: It would seem that blessing and sanctifying are not due to
the seventh day. For it is usual to call a time blessed or holy for
that some good thing has happened in it, or some evil been avoided. But
whether God works or ceases from work nothing accrues to Him or is lost
to Him. Therefore no special blessing or sanctifying are due to the
seventh day.

Objection 2: Further, the Latin "benedictio" [blessing] is derived from
"bonitas" [goodness]. But it is the nature of good to spread and
communicate itself, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). The days,
therefore, in which God produced creatures deserved a blessing rather
than the day on which He ceased producing them.

Objection 3: Further, over each creature a blessing was pronounced, as
upon each work it was said, "God saw that it was good. " Therefore it
was not necessary that after all had been produced, the seventh day
should be blessed.

On the contrary, It is written (Gn. 2:3), "God blessed the seventh day
and sanctified it, because in it He had rested from all His work. "

I answer that, As said above [591](A[2]), God's rest on the seventh day
is understood in two ways. First, in that He ceased from producing new
works, though He still preserves and provides for the creatures He has
made. Secondly, in that after all His works He rested in Himself.
According to the first meaning, then, a blessing befits the seventh
day, since, as we explained (Q[72], ad 4), the blessing referred to the
increase by multiplication; for which reason God said to the creatures
which He blessed: "Increase and multiply. " Now, this increase is
effected through God's Providence over His creatures, securing the
generation of like from like. And according to the second meaning, it
is right that the seventh day should have been sanctified, since the
special sanctification of every creature consists in resting in God.
For this reason things dedicated to God are said to be sanctified.

Reply to Objection 1: The seventh day is said to be sanctified not
because anything can accrue to God, or be taken from Him, but because
something is added to creatures by their multiplying, and by their
resting in God.

Reply to Objection 2: In the first six days creatures were produced in
their first causes, but after being thus produced, they are multiplied
and preserved, and this work also belongs to the Divine goodness. And
the perfection of this goodness is made most clear by the knowledge
that in it alone God finds His own rest, and we may find ours in its
fruition.

Reply to Objection 3: The good mentioned in the works of each day
belongs to the first institution of nature; but the blessing attached
to the seventh day, to its propagation.
__________________________________________________________________

ON ALL THE SEVEN DAYS IN COMMON (THREE ARTICLES)

We next consider all the seven days in common: and there are three
points of inquiry:

(1) As to the sufficiency of these days;

(2) Whether they are all one day, or more than one?

(3) As to certain modes of speaking which Scripture uses in narrating
the works of the six days.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether these days are sufficiently enumerated?

Objection 1: It would seem that these days are not sufficiently
enumerated. For the work of creation is no less distinct from the works
of distinction and adornment than these two works are from one another.
But separate days are assigned to distinction and to adornment, and
therefore separate days should be assigned to creation.

Objection 2: Further, air and fire are nobler elements than earth and
water. But one day is assigned to the distinction of water, and another
to the distinction of the land. Therefore, other days ought to be
devoted to the distinction of fire and air.

Objection 3: Further, fish differ from birds as much as birds differ
from the beasts of the earth, whereas man differs more from other
animals than all animals whatsoever differ from each other. But one day
is devoted to the production of fishes, and another to that of the
beast of the earth. Another day, then, ought to be assigned to the
production of birds and another to that of man.

Objection 4: Further, it would seem, on the other hand, that some of
these days are superfluous. Light, for instance, stands to the
luminaries in the relation of accident to subject. But the subject is
produced at the same time as the accident proper to it. The light and
the luminaries, therefore, ought not to have been produced on different
days.

Objection 5: Further, these days are devoted to the first instituting
of the world. But as on the seventh day nothing was instituted, that
day ought not to be enumerated with the others.

I answer that, The reason of the distinction of these days is made
clear by what has been said above ([592]Q[70], A[1]), namely, that the
parts of the world had first to be distinguished, and then each part
adorned and filled, as it were, by the beings that inhabit it. Now the
parts into which the corporeal creation is divided are three, according
to some holy writers, these parts being the heaven, or highest part,
the water, or middle part, and the earth, or the lowest part. Thus the
Pythagoreans teach that perfection consists in three things, the
beginning, the middle, and the end. The first part, then, is
distinguished on the first day, and adorned on the fourth, the middle
part distinguished on the middle day, and adorned on the fifth, and the
third part distinguished on the third day, and adorned on the sixth.
But Augustine, while agreeing with the above writers as to the last
three days, differs as to the first three, for, according to him,
spiritual creatures are formed on the first day, and corporeal on the
two others, the higher bodies being formed on the first these two days,
and the lower on the second. Thus, then, the perfection of the Divine
works corresponds to the perfection of the number six, which is the sum
of its aliquot parts, one, two, three; since one day is assigned to the
forming of spiritual creatures, two to that of corporeal creatures, and
three to the work of adornment.

Reply to Objection 1: According to Augustine, the work of creation
belongs to the production of formless matter, and of the formless
spiritual nature, both of which are outside of time, as he himself says
(Confess. xii, 12). Thus, then, the creation of either is set down
before there was any day. But it may also be said, following other holy
writers, that the works of distinction and adornment imply certain
changes in the creature which are measurable by time; whereas the work
of creation lies only in the Divine act producing the substance of
beings instantaneously. For this reason, therefore, every work of
distinction and adornment is said to take place "in a day," but
creation "in the beginning" which denotes something indivisible.

Reply to Objection 2: Fire and air, as not distinctly known by the
unlettered, are not expressly named by Moses among the parts of the
world, but reckoned with the intermediate part, or water, especially as
regards the lowest part of the air; or with the heaven, to which the
higher region of air approaches, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ii,
13).

Reply to Objection 3: The production of animals is recorded with
reference to their adorning the various parts of the world, and
therefore the days of their production are separated or united
according as the animals adorn the same parts of the world, or
different parts.

Reply to Objection 4: The nature of light, as existing in a subject,
was made on the first day; and the making of the luminaries on the
fourth day does not mean that their substance was produced anew, but
that they then received a form that they had not before, as said above
([593]Q[70], A[1] ad 2).
Reply to Objection 5: According to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. iv, 15),
after all that has been recorded that is assigned to the six days,
something distinct is attributed to the seventh---namely, that on it
God rested in Himself from His works: and for this reason it was right
that the seventh day should be mentioned after the six. It may also be
said, with the other writers, that the world entered on the seventh day
upon a new state, in that nothing new was to be added to it, and that
therefore the seventh day is mentioned after the six, from its being
devoted to cessation from work.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether all these days are one day?

Objection 1: It would seem that all these days are one day. For it is
written (Gn. 2:4,5): "These are the generations of the heaven and the
earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord . . . made the
heaven and the earth, and every plant of the field, before it sprung up
in the earth. " Therefore the day in which God made "the heaven and the
earth, and every plant of the field," is one and the same day. But He
made the heaven and the earth on the first day, or rather before there
was any day, but the plant of the field He made on the third day.
Therefore the first and third days are but one day, and for a like
reason all the rest.

Objection 2: Further, it is said (Ecclus. 18:1): "He that liveth for
ever, created all things together. " But this would not be the case if
the days of these works were more than one. Therefore they are not many
but one only.

Objection 3: Further, on the seventh day God ceased from all new works.
If, then, the seventh day is distinct from the other days, it follows
that He did not make that day; which is not admissible.

Objection 4: Further, the entire work ascribed to one day God perfected
in an instant, for with each work are the words (God) "said . . . . and
it was . . . done. " If, then, He had kept back His next work to another
day, it would follow that for the remainder of a day He would have
ceased from working and left it vacant, which would be superfluous. The
day, therefore, of the preceding work is one with the day of the work
that follows.

On the contrary, It is written (Gn. 1), "The evening and the morning
were the second day . . . the third day," and so on. But where there is
a second and third there are more than one. There was not, therefore,
only one day.

I answer that, On this question Augustine differs from other
expositors. His opinion is that all the days that are called seven, are
one day represented in a sevenfold aspect (Gen. ad lit. iv, 22; De Civ.
Dei xi, 9; Ad Orosium xxvi); while others consider there were seven
distinct days, not one only. Now, these two opinions, taken as
explaining the literal text of Genesis, are certainly widely different.
For Augustine understands by the word "day," the knowledge in the mind
of the angels, and hence, according to him, the first day denotes their
knowledge of the first of the Divine works, the second day their
knowledge of the second work, and similarly with the rest. Thus, then,
each work is said to have been wrought in some one of these days,
inasmuch as God wrought in some one of these days, inasmuch as God
wrought nothing in the universe without impressing the knowledge
thereof on the angelic mind; which can know many things at the same
time, especially in the Word, in Whom all angelic knowledge is
perfected and terminated. So the distinction of days denotes the
natural order of the things known, and not a succession in the
knowledge acquired, or in the things produced. Moreover, angelic
knowledge is appropriately called "day," since light, the cause of day,
is to be found in spiritual things, as Augustine observes (Gen. ad lit.
iv, 28). In the opinion of the others, however, the days signify a
succession both in time, and in the things produced.

If, however, these two explanations are looked at as referring to the
mode of production, they will be found not greatly to differ, if the
diversity of opinion existing on two points, as already shown
([594]Q[67], A[1]; [595]Q[69], A[1]), between Augustine and other
writers is taken into account. First, because Augustine takes the earth
and the water as first created, to signify matter totally without form;
but the making of the firmament, the gathering of the waters, and the
appearing of dry land, to denote the impression of forms upon corporeal
matter. But other holy writers take the earth and the water, as first
created, to signify the elements of the universe themselves existing
under the proper forms, and the works that follow to mean some sort of
distinction in bodies previously existing, as also has been shown
([596]Q[67], AA[1],4; [597]Q[69], A[1] ). Secondly, some writers hold
that plants and animals were produced actually in the work of the six
days; Augustine, that they were produced potentially. Now the opinion
of Augustine, that the works of the six days were simultaneous, is
consistent with either view of the mode of production. For the other
writers agree with him that in the first production of things matter
existed under the substantial form of the elements, and agree with him
also that in the first instituting of the world animals and plants did
not exist actually. There remains, however, a difference as to four
points; since, according to the latter, there was a time, after the
production of creatures, in which light did not exist, the firmament
had not been formed, and the earth was still covered by the waters, nor
had the heavenly bodies been formed, which is the fourth difference;
which are not consistent with Augustine's explanation. In order,
therefore, to be impartial, we must meet the arguments of either side.

Reply to Objection 1: On the day on which God created the heaven and
the earth, He created also every plant of the field, not, indeed,
actually, but "before it sprung up in the earth," that is, potentially.
And this work Augustine ascribes to the third day, but other writers to
the first instituting of the world.

Reply to Objection 2: God created all things together so far as regards
their substance in some measure formless. But He did not create all
things together, so far as regards that formation of things which lies
in distinction and adornment. Hence the word "creation" is significant.

Reply to Objection 3: On the seventh day God ceased from making new
things, but not from providing for their increase, and to this latter
work it belongs that the first day is succeeded by other days.

Reply to Objection 4: All things were not distinguished and adorned
together, not from a want of power on God's part, as requiring time in
which to work, but that due order might be observed in the instituting
of the world. Hence it was fitting that different days should be
assigned to the different states of the world, as each succeeding work
added to the world a fresh state of perfection.

Reply to Objection 5: According to Augustine, the order of days refers
to the natural order of the works attributed to the days.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Scripture uses suitable words to express the work of the six days?

Objection 1: It would seem the Scripture does not use suitable words to
express the works of the six days. For as light, the firmament, and
other similar works were made by the Word of God, so were the heaven
and the earth. For "all things were made by Him" (Jn. 1:3). Therefore
in the creation of heaven and earth, as in the other works, mention
should have been made of the Word of God.

Objection 2: Further, the water was created by God, yet its creation is
not mentioned. Therefore the creation of the world is not sufficiently
described.

Objection 3: Further, it is said (Gn. 1:31): "God saw all the things
that He had made, and they were very good. " It ought, then, to have
been said of each work, "God saw that it was good. " The omission,
therefore, of these words in the work of creation and in that of the
second day, is not fitting.

Objection 4: Further, the Spirit of God is God Himself. But it does not
befit God to move and to occupy place. Therefore the words, "The Spirit
of God moved over the waters," are unbecoming.

Objection 5: Further, what is already made is not made over again.
Therefore to the words, "God said: Let the firmament be made . . . and
it was so," it is superfluous to add, "God made the firmament. " And the
like is to be said of other works.

Objection 6: Further, evening and morning do not sufficiently divide
the day, since the day has many parts. Therefore the words, "The
evening and morning were the second day" or, "the third day," are not
suitable.

Objection 7: Further, "first," not "one," corresponds to "second" and
"third. " It should therefore have been said that, "The evening and the
morning were the first day," rather than "one day. "

Reply to Objection 1: According to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. i, 4), the
person of the Son is mentioned both in the first creation of the world,
and in its distinction and adornment, but differently in either place.
For distinction and adornment belong to the work by which the world
receives its form. But as the giving form to a work of art is by means
of the form of the art in the mind of the artist, which may be called
his intelligible word, so the giving form to every creature is by the
word of God; and for this reason in the works of distinction and
adornment the Word is mentioned. But in creation the Son is mentioned
as the beginning, by the words, "In the beginning God created," since
by creation is understood the production of formless matter. But
according to those who hold that the elements were created from the
first under their proper forms, another explanation must be given; and
therefore Basil says (Hom. ii, iii in Hexaem. ) that the words, "God
said," signify a Divine command. Such a command, however, could not
have been given before creatures had been produced that could obey it.

Reply to Objection 2: According to Augustine (De Civ. Dei ix, 33), by
the heaven is understood the formless spiritual nature, and by the
earth, the formless matter of all corporeal things, and thus no
creature is omitted. But, according to Basil (Hom. i in Hexaem. ), the
heaven and the earth, as the two extremes, are alone mentioned, the
intervening things being left to be understood, since all these move
heavenwards, if light, or earthwards, if heavy. And others say that
under the word, "earth," Scripture is accustomed to include all the
four elements as (Ps. 148:7,8) after the words, "Praise the Lord from
the earth," is added, "fire, hail, snow, and ice. "

Reply to Objection 3: In the account of the creation there is found
something to correspond to the words, "God saw that it was good," used
in the work of distinction and adornment, and this appears from the
consideration that the Holy Spirit is Love. Now, "there are two
things," says Augustine (Gen. ad lit. i, 8) which came from God's love
of His creatures, their existence and their permanence. That they might
then exist, and exist permanently, "the Spirit of God," it is said,
"moved over the waters"---that is to say, over that formless matter,
signified by water, even as the love of the artist moves over the
materials of his art, that out of them he may form his work. And the
words, "God saw that it was good," signify that the things that He had
made were to endure, since they express a certain satisfaction taken by
God in His works, as of an artist in his art: not as though He knew the
creature otherwise, or that the creature was pleasing to Him otherwise,
than before He made it. Thus in either work, of creation and of
formation, the Trinity of Persons is implied. In creation the Person of
the Father is indicated by God the Creator, the Person of the Son by
the beginning, in which He created, and the Person of the Holy Ghost by
the Spirit that moved over the waters. But in the formation, the Person
of the Father is indicated by God that speaks, and the Person of the
Son by the Word in which He speaks, and the Person of the Holy Spirit
by the satisfaction with which God saw that what was made was good. And
if the words, "God saw that it was good," are not said of the work of
the second day, this is because the work of distinguishing the waters
was only begun on that day, but perfected on the third. Hence these
words, that are said of the third day, refer also to the second. Or it
may be that Scripture does not use these words of approval of the
second days' work, because this is concerned with the distinction of
things not evident to the senses of mankind. Or, again, because by the
firmament is simply understood the cloudy region of the air, which is
not one of the permanent parts of the universe, nor of the principal
divisions of the world. The above three reasons are given by Rabbi
Moses [*Perplex. ii. ], and to these may be added a mystical one derived
from numbers and assigned by some writers, according to whom the work
of the second day is not marked with approval because the second number
is an imperfect number, as receding from the perfection of unity.

Reply to Objection 4: Rabbi Moses (Perplex. ii) understands by the
"Spirit of the Lord," the air or the wind, as Plato also did, and says
that it is so called according to the custom of Scripture, in which
these things are throughout attributed to God. But according to the
holy writers, the Spirit of the Lord signifies the Holy Ghost, Who is
said to "move over the water"---that is to say, over what Augustine
holds to mean formless matter, lest it should be supposed that God
loved of necessity the works He was to produce, as though He stood in
need of them. For love of that kind is subject to, not superior to, the
object of love. Moreover, it is fittingly implied that the Spirit moved
over that which was incomplete and unfinished, since that movement is
not one of place, but of pre-eminent power, as Augustine says (Gen. ad
lit. i, 7). It is the opinion, however, of Basil (Hom. ii in Hexaem. )
that the Spirit moved over the element of water, "fostering and
quickening its nature and impressing vital power, as the hen broods
over her chickens. " For water has especially a life-giving power, since
many animals are generated in water, and the seed of all animals is
liquid. Also the life of the soul is given by the water of baptism,
according to Jn. 3:5: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy
Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "

Reply to Objection 5: According to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. i, 8), these
three phrases denote the threefold being of creatures; first, their
being in the Word, denoted by the command "Let . . . be made";
secondly, their being in the angelic mind, signified by the words, "It
was . . . done"; thirdly, their being in their proper nature, by the
words, "He made. " And because the formation of the angels is recorded
on the first day, it was not necessary there to add, "He made. " It may
also be said, following other writers, that the words, "He said," and
"Let . . . be made," denote God's command, and the words, "It was
done," the fulfilment of that command. But as it was necessary, for the
sake of those especially who have asserted that all visible things were
made by the angels, to mention how things were made, it is added, in
order to remove that error, that God Himself made them. Hence, in each
work, after the words, "It was done," some act of God is expressed by
some such words as, "He made," or, "He divided," or, "He called. "

Reply to Objection 6: According to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. iv, 22,30),
by the "evening" and the "morning" are understood the evening and the
morning knowledge of the angels, which has been explained ([598]Q[58],
A[6],7). But, according to Basil (Hom. ii in Hexaem. ), the entire
period takes its name, as is customary, from its more important part,
the day. And instance of this is found in the words of Jacob, "The days
of my pilgrimage," where night is not mentioned at all. But the evening
and the morning are mentioned as being the ends of the day, since day
begins with morning and ends with evening, or because evening denotes
the beginning of night, and morning the beginning of day. It seems
fitting, also, that where the first distinction of creatures is
described, divisions of time should be denoted only by what marks their
beginning. And the reason for mentioning the evening first is that as
the evening ends the day, which begins with the light, the termination
of the light at evening precedes the termination of the darkness, which
ends with the morning. But Chrysostom's explanation is that thereby it
is intended to show that the natural day does not end with the evening,
but with the morning (Hom. v in Gen. ).

Reply to Objection 7: The words "one day" are used when day is first
instituted, to denote that one day is made up of twenty-four hours.
Hence, by mentioning "one," the measure of a natural day is fixed.
Another reason may be to signify that a day is completed by the return
of the sun to the point from which it commenced its course. And yet
another, because at the completion of a week of seven days, the first
day returns which is one with the eighth day. The three reasons
assigned above are those given by Basil (Hom. ii in Hexaem. ).
__________________________________________________________________

TREATISE ON MAN (QQ[75]-102)
__________________________________________________________________

OF MAN WHO IS COMPOSED OF A SPIRITUAL AND A CORPOREAL SUBSTANCE: AND IN THE
FIRST PLACE, CONCERNING WHAT BELONGS TO THE ESSENCE OF THE SOUL (SEVEN
ARTICLES)

Having treated of the spiritual and of the corporeal creature, we now
proceed to treat of man, who is composed of a spiritual and corporeal
substance. We shall treat first of the nature of man, and secondly of
his origin. Now the theologian considers the nature of man in relation
to the soul; but not in relation to the body, except in so far as the
body has relation to the soul. Hence the first object of our
consideration will be the soul. And since Dionysius (Ang. Hier. xi)
says that three things are to be found in spiritual
substances---essence, power, and operation---we shall treat first of
what belongs to the essence of the soul; secondly, of what belongs to
its power; thirdly, of what belongs to its operation.

Concerning the first, two points have to be considered; the first is
the nature of the soul considered in itself; the second is the union of
the soul with the body. Under the first head there are seven points of
inquiry.

(1) Whether the soul is a body?

(2) Whether the human soul is a subsistence?

(3) Whether the souls of brute animals are subsistent?

(4) Whether the soul is man, or is man composed of soul and body?

(5) Whether the soul is composed of matter and form?

(6) Whether the soul is incorruptible?

(7) Whether the soul is of the same species as an angel?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the soul is a body?

Objection 1: It would seem that the soul is a body. For the soul is the
moving principle of the body. Nor does it move unless moved. First,
because seemingly nothing can move unless it is itself moved, since
nothing gives what it has not; for instance, what is not hot does not
give heat. Secondly, because if there be anything that moves and is not
moved, it must be the cause of eternal, unchanging movement, as we find
proved Phys. viii, 6; and this does not appear to be the case in the
movement of an animal, which is caused by the soul. Therefore the soul
is a mover moved. But every mover moved is a body. Therefore the soul
is a body.

Objection 2: Further, all knowledge is caused by means of a likeness.