Directory:Logic Museum/Aquinas Summa-I-70-74

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE – QUESTIONS LXX - LXXIV

---

Index

• Question 70a1
• Question 70a2
• Question 70a3
• Question 71a1
• Question 72a1
• Question 73a1
• Question 73a2
• Question 73a3
• Question 74a1
• Question 74a2
• Question 74a3

Latin	English
Iª q. 70 pr. Consequenter considerandum est de opere ornatus. Et primo, de singulis diebus secundum se; secundo, de omnibus sex diebus in communi. Circa primum ergo, considerandum est primo de opere quartae diei, secundo, de opere quintae; tertio, de opere sextae; quarto, de iis quae pertinent ad septimum diem. Circa primum quaeruntur tria. Primo, de productione luminarium. Secundo, de fine productionis eorum. Tertio, utrum sint animata.
Iª q. 70 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod luminaria non debuerint produci quarta die. Luminaria enim sunt corpora incorruptibilia naturaliter. Ergo eorum materia non potest esse absque formis eorum. Sed eorum materia producta est in opere creationis, ante omnem diem. Ergo et eorum formae. Non ergo sunt facta quarta die.	Objection 1. It would seem that the lights ought not to have been produced on the fourth day. For the heavenly luminaries are by nature incorruptible bodies: wherefore their matter cannot exist without their form. But as their matter was produced in the work of creation, before there was any day, so therefore were their forms. It follows, then, that the lights were not produced on the fourth day.
Iª q. 70 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, luminaria sunt quasi vasa luminis. Sed lux est facta prima die. Ergo luminaria fieri debuerunt prima die, et non quarta.	Objection 2. Further, the luminaries are, as it were, vessels of light. But light was made on the first day. The luminaries, therefore, should have been made on the first day, not on the fourth.
Iª q. 70 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut plantae fixae sunt in terra, ita luminaria fixa sunt in firmamento, unde Scriptura dicit quod posuit ea in firmamento. Sed productio plantarum simul describitur cum formatione terrae, cui inhaerent. Ergo et productio luminarium simul debuit poni, secunda die, cum productione firmamenti.	Objection 3. Further, the lights are fixed in the firmament, as plants are fixed in the earth. For, the Scripture says: "He set them in the firmament." But plants are described as produced when the earth, to which they are attached, received its form. The lights, therefore, should have been produced at the same time as the firmament, that is to say, on the second day.
Iª q. 70 a. 1 arg. 4 Praeterea, sol et luna et alia luminaria sunt causae plantarum. Sed naturali ordine causa praecedit effectum. Ergo luminaria non debuerunt fieri quarta die, sed tertia vel ante.	Objection 4. Further, plants are an effect of the sun, moon, and other heavenly bodies. Now, cause precedes effect in the order of nature. The lights, therefore, ought not to have been produced on the fourth day, but on the third day.
Iª q. 70 a. 1 arg. 5 Praeterea, multae stellae, secundum astrologos, sunt luna maiores. Non ergo tantum sol et luna debuerunt poni duo magna luminaria.	Objection 5. Further, as astronomers say, there are many stars larger than the moon. Therefore the sun and the moon alone are not correctly described as the "two great lights."
Iª q. 70 a. 1 s. c. Sed in contrarium sufficit auctoritas Scripturae.	On the contrary, Suffices the authority of Scripture.
Iª q. 70 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in recapitulatione divinorum operum, Scriptura sic dicit, igitur perfecti sunt caeli et terra, et omnis ornatus eorum. In quibus verbis triplex opus intelligi potest, scilicet opus creationis, per quod caelum et terra producta leguntur, sed informia. Et opus distinctionis, per quod caelum et terra sunt perfecta, sive per formas substantiales attributas materiae omnino informi, ut Augustinus vult; sive quantum ad convenientem decorem et ordinem, ut alii sancti dicunt. Et his duobus operibus additur ornatus. Et differt ornatus a perfectione. Nam perfectio caeli et terrae ad ea pertinere videtur quae caelo et terrae sunt intrinseca, ornatus vero ad ea quae sunt a caelo et terra distincta. Sicut homo perficitur per proprias partes et formas, ornatur autem per vestimenta, vel aliquid huiusmodi. Distinctio autem aliquorum maxime manifestatur per motum localem, quo ab invicem separantur. Et ideo ad opus ornatus pertinet productio illarum rerum quae habent motum in caelo et in terra. Sicut autem supra dictum est, de tribus fit mentio in creatione, scilicet de caelo et aqua et terra. Et haec tria etiam formantur per opus distinctionis tribus diebus, primo die, caelum; secundo die distinguuntur aquae; tertio die fit distinctio in terra, maris et aridae. Et similiter in opere ornatus, primo die, qui est quartus, producuntur luminaria, quae moventur in caelo, ad ornatum ipsius. Secundo die, qui est quintus, aves et pisces, ad ornatum medii elementi, quia habent motum in aere et aqua, quae pro uno accipiuntur. Tertio die, qui est sextus, producuntur animalia quae habent motum in terra, ad ornatum ipsius. Sed sciendum est quod in productione luminarium non discordat Augustinus ab aliis sanctis. Dicit enim luminaria esse facta in actu, non in virtute tantum, non enim habet firmamentum virtutem productivam luminarium, sicut habet terra virtutem productivam plantarum. Unde Scriptura non dicit, producat firmamentum luminaria; sicut dicit, germinet terra herbam virentem.	I answer that, In recapitulating the Divine works, Scripture says (Genesis 2:1): "So the heavens and the earth were finished and all the furniture of them," thereby indicating that the work was threefold. In the first work, that of "creation," the heaven and the earth were produced, but as yet without form. In the second, or work of "distinction," the heaven and the earth were perfected, either by adding substantial form to formless matter, as Augustine holds (Gen. ad lit. ii, 11), or by giving them the order and beauty due to them, as other holy writers suppose. To these two works is added the work of adornment, which is distinct from perfect. For the perfection of the heaven and the earth regards, seemingly, those things that belong to them intrinsically, but the adornment, those that are extrinsic, just as the perfection of a man lies in his proper parts and forms, and his adornment, in clothing or such like. Now just as distinction of certain things is made most evident by their local movement, as separating one from another; so the work of adornment is set forth by the production of things having movement in the heavens, and upon the earth. But it has been stated above (69, 1), that three things are recorded as created, namely, the heaven, the water, and the earth; and these three received their form from the three days' work of distinction, so that heaven was formed on the first day; on the second day the waters were separated; and on the third day, the earth was divided into sea and dry land. So also is it in the work of adornment; on the first day of this work, which is the fourth of creation, are produced the lights, to adorn the heaven by their movements; on the second day, which is the fifth, birds and fishes are called into being, to make beautiful the intermediate element, for they move in air and water, which are here taken as one; while on the third day, which is the sixth, animals are brought forth, to move upon the earth and adorn it. It must also here be noted that Augustine's opinion (Gen. ad lit. v, 5) on the production of lights is not at variance with that of other holy writers, since he says that they were made actually, and not merely virtually, for the firmament has not the power of producing lights, as the earth has of producing plants. Wherefore Scripture does not say: "Let the firmament produce lights," though it says: "Let the earth bring forth the green herb."
Iª q. 70 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, secundum Augustinum, nulla difficultas ex hoc oritur. Non enim ponit successionem temporis in istis operibus, et ideo non oportet dicere quod materia luminarium fuerit sub alia forma. Secundum etiam eos qui ponunt caelestia corpora ex natura quatuor elementorum, nulla difficultas accidit, quia potest dici quod sunt formata ex praeiacenti materia, sicut animalia et plantae. Sed secundum eos qui ponunt corpora caelestia esse alterius naturae ab elementis et incorruptibilia per naturam, oportet dicere quod substantia luminarium a principio fuit creata; sed prius erat informis, et nunc formatur; non quidem forma substantiali, sed per collationem determinatae virtutis. Ideo tamen non fit mentio a principio de eis, sed solum quarta die, ut Chrysostomus dicit, ut per hoc removeat populum ab idololatria, ostendens luminaria non esse deos, ex quo nec a principio fuerunt.	Reply to Objection 1. In Augustine's opinion there is no difficulty here; for he does not hold a succession of time in these works, and so there was no need for the matter of the lights to exist under another form. Nor is there any difficulty in the opinion of those who hold the heavenly bodies to be of the nature of the four elements, for it may be said that they were formed out of matter already existing, as animals and plants were formed. For those, however, who hold the heavenly bodies to be of another nature from the elements, and naturally incorruptible, the answer must be that the lights were substantially created at the beginning, but that their substance, at first formless, is formed on this day, by receiving not its substantial form, but a determination of power. As to the fact that the lights are not mentioned as existing from the beginning, but only as made on the fourth day, Chrysostom (Hom. vi in Gen.) explains this by the need of guarding the people from the danger of idolatry: since the lights are proved not to be gods, by the fact that they were not from the beginning.
Iª q. 70 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, secundum Augustinum, nulla sequitur difficultas, quia lux de qua prima die facta est mentio, fuit lux spiritualis; nunc autem fit lux corporalis. Si autem lux primo die facta intelligitur lux corporalis, oportet dicere quod lux primo die fuit producta secundum communem lucis naturam, quarto autem die attributa est luminaribus determinata virtus ad determinatos effectus; secundum quod videmus alios effectus habere radium solis, et alios radium lunae, et sic de aliis. Et propter hanc determinationem virtutis, dicit Dionysius, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod lumen solis, quod primo erat informe, quarto die formatum est.	Reply to Objection 2. No difficulty exists if we follow Augustine in holding the light made on the first day to be spiritual, and that made on this day to be corporeal. If, however, the light made on the first day is understood to be itself corporeal, then it must be held to have been produced on that day merely as light in general; and that on the fourth day the lights received a definite power to produce determinate effects. Thus we observe that the rays of the sun have one effect, those of the moon another, and so forth. Hence, speaking of such a determination of power, Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) says that the sun's light which previously was without form, was formed on the fourth day.
Iª q. 70 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, secundum Ptolomaeum, luminaria non sunt fixa in sphaeris, sed habent motum seorsum a motu sphaerarum. Unde Chrysostomus dicit quod non ideo dicitur quod posuit ea in firmamento, quia ibi sint fixa; sed quia iusserit ut ibi essent; sicut posuit hominem in Paradiso, ut ibi esset. Sed secundum opinionem Aristotelis, stellae fixae sunt in orbibus, et non moventur nisi motu orbium, secundum rei veritatem. Tamen motus luminarium sensu percipitur, non autem motus sphaerarum. Moyses autem, rudi populo condescendens, secutus est quae sensibiliter apparent, ut dictum est. Si autem sit aliud firmamentum quod factum est secunda die, ab eo in quo posita sunt sidera, secundum distinctionem naturae, licet sensus non discernat, quem Moyses sequitur, ut dictum est; cessat obiectio. Nam firmamentum factum est secunda die, quantum ad inferiorem partem. In firmamento autem posita sunt sidera quarta die, quantum ad superiorem partem; ut totum pro uno accipiatur, secundum quod sensui apparet.	Reply to Objection 3. According to Ptolemy the heavenly luminaries are not fixed in the spheres, but have their own movement distinct from the movement of the spheres. Wherefore Chrysostom says (Hom. vi in Gen.) that He is said to have set them in the firmament, not because He fixed them there immovably, but because He bade them to be there, even as He placed man in Paradise, to be there. In the opinion of Aristotle, however, the stars are fixed in their orbits, and in reality have no other movement but that of the spheres; and yet our senses perceive the movement of the luminaries and not that of the spheres (De Coel. ii, text. 43). But Moses describes what is obvious to sense, out of condescension to popular ignorance, as we have already said (67, 4; 68, 3). The objection, however, falls to the ground if we regard the firmament made on the second day as having a natural distinction from that in which the stars are placed, even though the distinction is not apparent to the senses, the testimony of which Moses follows, as stated above (De Coel. ii, text. 43). For although to the senses there appears but one firmament; if we admit a higher and a lower firmament, the lower will be that which was made on the second day, and on the fourth the stars were fixed in the higher firmament.
Iª q. 70 a. 1 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut dicit Basilius, praemittitur productio plantarum luminaribus, ad excludendam idololatriam. Qui enim credunt luminaria esse deos, dicunt quod primordialem originem habent plantae a luminaribus. Quamvis, ut Chrysostomus dicit, sicut agricola cooperatur ad productionem plantarum, ita etiam et luminaria per suos motus.	Reply to Objection 4. In the words of Basil (Hom. v in Hexaem.), plants were recorded as produced before the sun and moon, to prevent idolatry, since those who believe the heavenly bodies to be gods, hold that plants originate primarily from these bodies. Although as Chrysostom remarks (Hom. vi in Gen.), the sun, moon, and stars cooperate in the work of production by their movements, as the husbandman cooperates by his labor.
Iª q. 70 a. 1 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, dicuntur duo luminaria magna non tam quantitate, quam efficacia et virtute. Quia etsi aliae stellae sint maiores quantitate quam luna, tamen effectus lunae magis sentitur in istis inferioribus. Et etiam secundum sensum maior apparet.	Reply to Objection 5. As Chrysostom says, the two lights are called great, not so much with regard to their dimensions as to their influence and power. For though the stars be of greater bulk than the moon, yet the influence of the moon is more perceptible to the senses in this lower world. Moreover, as far as the senses are concerned, its apparent size is greater.
Iª q. 70 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter causa productionis luminarium describatur. Dicitur enim Ierem. X, a signis caeli nolite metuere, quae gentes timent. Non ergo luminaria in signa facta sunt.	Objection 1. It would seem that the cause assigned for the production of the lights is not reasonable. For it is said (Jeremiah 10:2): "Be not afraid of the signs of heaven, which the heathens fear." Therefore the heavenly lights were not made to be signs.
Iª q. 70 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, signum contra causam dividitur. Sed luminaria sunt causa eorum quae hic aguntur. Ergo non sunt signa.	Objection 2. Further, sign is contradistinguished from cause. But the lights are the cause of what takes place upon the earth. Therefore they are not signs.
Iª q. 70 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, distinctio temporum et dierum incoepit a primo die. Non ergo facta sunt luminaria in tempora et dies et annos, idest in horum distinctionem.	Objection 3. Further, the distinction of seasons and days began from the first day. Therefore the lights were not made "for seasons, and days, and years," that is, in order to distinguish them.
Iª q. 70 a. 2 arg. 4 Praeterea, nihil fit propter vilius se, quia finis est melior iis quae sunt ad finem. Sed luminaria sunt meliora quam terra. Non ergo facta sunt ut illuminent terram.	Objection 4. Further, nothing is made for the sake of that which is inferior to itself, "since the end is better than the means" (Topic. iii). But the lights are nobler than the earth. Therefore they were not made "to enlighten it."
Iª q. 70 a. 2 arg. 5 Praeterea, luna non praeest nocti quando est prima. Probabile autem est quod luna facta fuerit prima, sic enim homines incipiunt computare. Ergo luna non est facta ut praesit nocti.	Objection 5. Further, the new moon cannot be said "to rule the night." But such it probably did when first made; for men begin to count from the new moon. The moon, therefore, was not made "to rule the night."
Iª q. 70 a. 2 s. c. In contrarium sufficit auctoritas Scripturae.	On the contrary, Suffices the authority of Scripture.
Iª q. 70 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est supra, creatura aliqua corporalis potest dici esse facta vel propter actum proprium, vel propter aliam creaturam, vel propter totum universum, vel propter gloriam Dei. Sed Moyses, ut populum ab idololatria revocaret, illam solam causam tetigit, secundum quod sunt facta ad utilitatem hominum. Unde dicitur Deut. IV, ne forte, elevatis oculis ad caelum, videas solem et lunam et omnia astra caeli, et errore deceptus adores ea et colas, quae creavit dominus Deus in ministerium cunctis gentibus. Hoc autem ministerium explicat in principio Genesis per tria. Primo enim provenit utilitas hominibus ex luminaribus quantum ad visum, qui est directivus in operibus, et maxime utilis ad cognoscendas res. Et quantum ad hoc, dicit, ut luceant in firmamento, et illuminent terram. Secundo, quantum ad vicissitudines temporum, quibus et fastidium tollitur et valetudo conservatur, et necessaria victui oriuntur quae non essent, si semper esset aut aestas aut hiems. Et quantum ad hoc, dicit, ut sint in tempora et dies et annos. Tertio, quantum ad opportunitatem negotiorum et operum, inquantum ex luminaribus caeli accipitur significatio pluviosi temporis vel sereni quae sunt apta diversis negotiis. Et quantum ad hoc dicit, ut sint in signa.	I answer that, As we have said above (65, 2), a corporeal creature can be considered as made either for the sake of its proper act, or for other creatures, or for the whole universe, or for the glory of God. Of these reasons only that which points out the usefulness of these things to man, is touched upon by Moses, in order to withdraw his people from idolatry. Hence it is written (Deuteronomy 4:19): "Lest perhaps lifting up thy eyes to heaven, thou see the sun and the moon and all the stars of heaven, and being deceived by error thou adore and serve them, which the Lord thy God created for the service of all nations." Now, he explains this service at the beginning of Genesis as threefold. First, the lights are of service to man, in regard to sight, which directs him in his works, and is most useful for perceiving objects. In reference to this he says: "Let them shine in the firmament and give life to the earth." Secondly, as regards the changes of the seasons, which prevent weariness, preserve health, and provide for the necessities of food; all of which things could not be secured if it were always summer or winter. In reference to this he says: "Let them be for seasons, and for days, and years." Thirdly, as regards the convenience of business and work, in so far as the lights are set in the heavens to indicate fair or foul weather, as favorable to various occupations. And in this respect he says: "Let them be for signs."
Iª q. 70 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod luminaria sunt in signa corporalium transmutationum, non autem eorum quae dependent ex libero arbitrio.	Reply to Objection 1. The lights in the heaven are set for signs of changes effected in corporeal creatures, but not of those changes which depend upon the free-will.
Iª q. 70 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod per causam sensibilem quandoque ducimur in cognitionem effectus occulti, sicut et e converso. Unde nihil prohibet causam sensibilem esse signum. Ideo tamen potius dicit signa quam causas, ut occasionem idololatriae tolleret.	Reply to Objection 2. We are sometimes brought to the knowledge of hidden effects through their sensible causes, and conversely. Hence nothing prevents a sensible cause from being a sign. But he says "signs," rather than "causes," to guard against idolatry.
Iª q. 70 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod in prima die facta est communis distinctio temporis per diem et noctem, secundum motum diurnum, qui est communis totius caeli; qui potest intelligi incoepisse primo die. Sed speciales distinctiones dierum et temporum, secundum quod dies est calidior die, et tempus tempore, et annus anno, fiunt secundum speciales motus stellarum; qui possunt intelligi quarto die incoepisse.	Reply to Objection 3. The general division of time into day and night took place on the first day, as regards the diurnal movement, which is common to the whole heaven and may be understood to have begun on that first day. But the particular distinctions of days and seasons and years, according as one day is hotter than another, one season than another, and one year than another, are due to certain particular movements of the stars: which movements may have had their beginning on the fourth day.
Iª q. 70 a. 2 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod in illuminatione terrae intelligitur utilitas hominis, qui secundum animam praefertur corporibus luminarium. Nihil tamen prohibet dici quod dignior creatura facta est propter inferiorem, non secundum quod in se consideratur sed secundum quod ordinatur ad integritatem universi.	Reply to Objection 4. Light was given to the earth for the service of man, who, by reason of his soul, is nobler than the heavenly bodies. Nor is it untrue to say that a higher creature may be made for the sake of a lower, considered not in itself, but as ordained to the good of the universe.
Iª q. 70 a. 2 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod luna, quando est perfecta, oritur vespere et occidit mane, et sic praeest nocti. Et satis probabile est quod luna fuerit facta plena; sicut et herbae factae sunt in sua perfectione, facientes semen, et similiter animalia et homo. Licet enim naturali processu ab imperfecto ad perfectum deveniatur, simpliciter tamen perfectum prius est imperfecto. Augustinus tamen hoc non asserit, quia dicit non esse inconveniens quod Deus imperfecta fecerit, quae postmodum ipse perfecit.	Reply to Objection 5. When the moon is at its perfection it rises in the evening and sets in the morning, and thus it rules the night, and it was probably made in its full perfection as were plants yielding seed, as also were animals and man himself. For although the perfect is developed from the imperfect by natural processes, yet the perfect must exist simply before the imperfect. Augustine, however (Gen. ad lit. ii), does not say this, for he says that it is not unfitting that God made things imperfect, which He afterwards perfected.
Iª q. 70 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod luminaria caeli sint animata. Superius enim corpus nobilioribus ornamentis ornari debet. Sed ea quae pertinent ad ornatum inferiorum corporum, sunt animata; scilicet pisces, aves et terrestria animalia. Ergo et luminaria, quae pertinent ad ornatum caeli.	Objection 1. It would seem that the lights of heaven are living beings. For the nobler a body is, the more nobly it should be adorned. But a body less noble than the heaven, is adorned with living beings, with fish, birds, and the beasts of the field. Therefore the lights of heaven, as pertaining to its adornment, should be living beings also.
Iª q. 70 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, nobilioris corporis nobilior est forma. Sed sol et luna et alia luminaria sunt nobiliora quam corpora plantarum et animalium. Ergo habent nobiliorem formam. Nobilissima autem forma est anima, quae est principium vitae, quia, ut Augustinus dicit in libro de vera Relig., quaelibet substantia vivens naturae ordine praefertur substantiae non viventi. Ergo luminaria caeli sunt animata.	Objection 2. Further, the nobler a body is, the nobler must be its form. But the sun, moon, and stars are nobler bodies than plants or animals, and must therefore have nobler forms. Now the noblest of all forms is the soul, as being the first principle of life. Hence Augustine (De Vera Relig. xxix) says: "Every living substance stands higher in the order of nature than one that has not life." The lights of heaven, therefore, are living beings.
Iª q. 70 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, causa nobilior est effectu. Sed sol et luna et alia luminaria sunt causa vitae, ut patet maxime in animalibus ex putrefactione generatis, quae virtute solis et stellarum vitam consequuntur. Ergo multo magis corpora caelestia vivunt et sunt animata.	Objection 3. Further, a cause is nobler than its effect. But the sun, moon, and stars are a cause of life, as is especially evidenced in the case of animals generated from putrefaction, which receive life from the power of the sun and stars. Much more, therefore, have the heavenly bodies a living soul.
Iª q. 70 a. 3 arg. 4 Praeterea, motus caeli et caelestium corporum sunt naturales, ut patet in I de caelo. Motus autem naturalis est a principio intrinseco. Cum igitur principium motus caelestium corporum sit aliqua substantia apprehensiva, quae movetur sicut desiderans a desiderato, ut dicitur in XII Metaphys.; videtur quod principium apprehendens sit principium intrinsecum corporibus caelestibus. Ergo sunt animata.	Objection 4. Further, the movement of the heaven and the heavenly bodies are natural (De Coel. i, text. 7,8): and natural movement is from an intrinsic principle. Now the principle of movement in the heavenly bodies is a substance capable of apprehension, and is moved as the desirer is moved by the object desired (Metaph. xii, text. 36). Therefore, seemingly, the apprehending principle is intrinsic to the heavenly bodies: and consequently they are living beings.
Iª q. 70 a. 3 arg. 5 Praeterea, primum mobile est caelum. In genere autem mobilium, primum est movens seipsum, ut probatur in VIII Physic., quia quod est per se, prius est eo quod est per aliud. Sola autem animata movent seipsa, ut in eodem libro ostenditur. Ergo corpora caelestia sunt animata.	Objection 5. Further, the first of movables is the heaven. Now, of all things that are endowed with movement the first moves itself, as is proved in Phys. viii, text. 34, because, what is such of itself precedes that which is by another. But only beings that are living move themselves, as is shown in the same book (text. 27). Therefore the heavenly bodies are living beings.
Iª q. 70 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Damascenus dicit in libro II, nullus animatos caelos vel luminaria aestimet; inanimati enim sunt et insensibiles.	On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii), "Let no one esteem the heavens or the heavenly bodies to be living things, for they have neither life nor sense."
Iª q. 70 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod circa istam quaestionem apud philosophos fuit diversa opinio. Anaxagoras enim, ut Augustinus refert Lib. XVIII de Civ. Dei, factus est reus apud Athenienses, quia dixit solem esse lapidem ardentem, negans utique ipsum esse Deum, vel aliquid animatum. Platonici vero posuerunt corpora caelestia animata. Similiter etiam apud doctores fidei, fuit circa hoc diversa opinio. Origenes enim posuit corpora caelestia animata. Hieronymus etiam idem sentire videtur, exponens illud Eccle. I, lustrans universa, per circuitum pergit spiritus. Basilius vero et Damascenus asserunt corpora caelestia non esse animata. Augustinus vero sub dubio dereliquit, in neutram partem declinans, ut patet in II supra Gen. ad Litt.; et in Enchirid., ubi etiam dicit quod, si sunt animata caelestia corpora, pertinent ad societatem Angelorum eorum animae. In hac autem opinionum diversitate, ut veritas aliquatenus innotescat, considerandum est quod unio animae et corporis non est propter corpus, sed propter animam, non enim forma est propter materiam, sed e converso. Natura autem et virtus animae deprehenditur ex eius operatione, quae etiam quodammodo est finis eius. Invenitur autem corpus necessarium ad aliquam operationem animae, quae mediante corpore exercetur; sicut patet in operibus animae sensitivae et nutritivae. Unde necesse est tales animas unitas esse corporibus propter suas operationes. Est autem aliqua operatio animae, quae non exercetur corpore mediante, sed tamen ex corpore aliquod adminiculum tali operationi exhibetur; sicut per corpus exhibentur animae humanae phantasmata, quibus indiget ad intelligendum. Unde etiam talem animam necesse est corpori uniri propter suam operationem, licet contingat ipsam separari. Manifestum est autem quod anima caelestis corporis non potest habere operationes nutritivae animae, quae sunt nutrire, augere et generare, huiusmodi enim operationes non competunt corpori incorruptibili per naturam. Similiter etiam nec operationes animae sensitivae corpori caelesti conveniunt, quia omnes sensus fundantur super tactum, qui est apprehensivus qualitatum elementarium. Omnia etiam organa potentiarum sensitivarum requirunt determinatam proportionem secundum commixtionem aliquam elementorum, a quorum natura corpora caelestia ponuntur remota. Relinquitur ergo quod de operationibus animae nulla potest competere animae caelesti nisi duae, intelligere et movere, nam appetere consequitur sensum et intellectum, et cum utroque ordinatur. Intellectualis autem operatio, cum non exerceatur per corpus, non indiget corpore nisi inquantum ei per sensus ministrantur phantasmata. Operationes autem sensitivae animae corporibus caelestibus non conveniunt, ut dictum est. Sic igitur propter operationem intellectualem, anima caelesti corpori non uniretur. Relinquitur ergo quod propter solam motionem. Ad hoc autem quod moveat, non oportet quod uniatur ei ut forma; sed per contactum virtutis, sicut motor unitur mobili. Unde Aristoteles, libro VIII Physic., postquam ostendit quod primum movens seipsum componitur ex duabus partibus, quarum una est movens et alia mota; assignans quomodo hae duae partes uniantur, dicit quod per contactum vel duorum ad invicem, si utrumque sit corpus, vel unius ad alterum et non e converso, si unum sit corpus et aliud non corpus. Platonici etiam animas corporibus uniri non ponebant nisi per contactum virtutis, sicut motor mobili. Et sic per hoc quod Plato ponit corpora caelestia animata, nihil aliud datur intelligi, quam quod substantiae spirituales uniuntur corporibus caelestibus ut motores mobilibus. Quod autem corpora caelestia moveantur ab aliqua substantia apprehendente, et non solum a natura, sicut gravia et levia, patet ex hoc, quod natura non movet nisi ad unum, quo habito quiescit, quod in motu corporum caelestium non apparet. Unde relinquitur quod moventur ab aliqua substantia apprehendente Augustinus etiam dicit, III de Trin., corpora omnia administrari a Deo per spiritum vitae. Sic igitur patet quod corpora caelestia non sunt animata eo modo quo plantae et animalia, sed aequivoce. Unde inter ponentes ea esse animata, et ponentes ea inanimata, parva vel nulla differentia invenitur in re, sed in voce tantum.	I answer that, Philosophers have differed on this question. Anaxagoras, for instance, as Augustine mentions (De Civ. Dei xviii, 41), "was condemned by the Athenians for teaching that the sun was a fiery mass of stone, and neither a god nor even a living being." On the other hand, the Platonists held that the heavenly bodies have life. Nor was there less diversity of opinion among the Doctors of the Church. It was the belief of Origen (Peri Archon i) and Jerome that these bodies were alive, and the latter seems to explain in that sense the words (Ecclesiastes 1:6), "The spirit goeth forward, surveying all places round about." But Basil (Hom. iii, vi in Hexaem.) and Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii) maintain that the heavenly bodies are inanimate. Augustine leaves the matter in doubt, without committing himself to either theory, though he goes so far as to say that if the heavenly bodies are really living beings, their souls must be akin to the angelic nature (Gen. ad lit. ii, 18; Enchiridion lviii). In examining the truth of this question, where such diversity of opinion exists, we shall do well to bear in mind that the union of soul and body exists for the sake of the soul and not of the body; for the form does not exist for the matter, but the matter for the form. Now the nature and power of the soul are apprehended through its operation, which is to a certain extent its end. Yet for some of these operations, as sensation and nutrition, our body is a necessary instrument. Hence it is clear that the sensitive and nutritive souls must be united to a body in order to exercise their functions. There are, however, operations of the soul, which are not exercised through the medium of the body, though the body ministers, as it were, to their production. The intellect, for example, makes use of the phantasms derived from the bodily senses, and thus far is dependent on the body, although capable of existing apart from it. It is not, however, possible that the functions of nutrition, growth, and generation, through which the nutritive soul operates, can be exercised by the heavenly bodies, for such operations are incompatible with a body naturally incorruptible. Equally impossible is it that the functions of the sensitive soul can appertain to the heavenly body, since all the senses depend on the sense of touch, which perceives elemental qualities, and all the organs of the senses require a certain proportion in the admixture of elements, whereas the nature of the heavenly bodies is not elemental. It follows, then, that of the operations of the soul the only ones left to be attributed to the heavenly bodies are those of understanding and moving; for appetite follows both sensitive and intellectual perception, and is in proportion thereto. But the operations of the intellect, which does not act through the body, do not need a body as their instrument, except to supply phantasms through the senses. Moreover, the operations of the sensitive soul, as we have seen, cannot be attributed to the heavenly bodies. Accordingly, the union of a soul to a heavenly body cannot be for the purpose of the operations of the intellect. It remains, then, only to consider whether the movement of the heavenly bodies demands a soul as the motive power, not that the soul, in order to move the heavenly body, need be united to the latter as its form; but by contact of power, as a mover is united to that which he moves. Wherefore Aristotle (Phys. viii, text. 42,43), after showing that the first mover is made up of two parts, the moving and the moved, goes on to show the nature of the union between these two parts. This, he says, is effected by contact which is mutual if both are bodies; on the part of one only, if one is a body and the other not. The Platonists explain the union of soul and body in the same way, as a contact of a moving power with the object moved, and since Plato holds the heavenly bodies to be living beings, this means nothing else but that substances of spiritual nature are united to them, and act as their moving power. A proof that the heavenly bodies are moved by the direct influence and contact of some spiritual substance, and not, like bodies of specific gravity, by nature, lies in the fact that whereas nature moves to one fixed end which having attained, it rests; this does not appear in the movement of heavenly bodies. Hence it follows that they are moved by some intellectual substances. Augustine appears to be of the same opinion when he expresses his belief that all corporeal things are ruled by God through the spirit of life (De Trin. iii, 4). From what has been said, then, it is clear that the heavenly bodies are not living beings in the same sense as plants and animals, and that if they are called so, it can only be equivocally. It will also be seen that the difference of opinion between those who affirm, and those who deny, that these bodies have life, is not a difference of things but of words.
Iª q. 70 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ad ornatum pertinent aliqua secundum proprium motum. Et quantum ad hoc, luminaria caeli conveniunt cum aliis quae ad ornatum pertinent, quia moventur a substantia vivente.	Reply to Objection 1. Certain things belong to the adornment of the universe by reason of their proper movement; and in this way the heavenly luminaries agree with others that conduce to that adornment, for they are moved by a living substance.
Iª q. 70 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod nihil prohibet aliquid esse nobilius simpliciter, quod tamen non est nobilius quantum ad aliquid. Forma ergo caelestis corporis, etsi non sit simpliciter nobilior anima animalis, est tamen nobilior quantum ad rationem formae, perficit enim totaliter suam materiam, ut non sit in potentia ad aliam formam; quod anima non facit. Quantum etiam ad motum, moventur corpora caelestia a nobilioribus motoribus.	Reply to Objection 2. One being may be nobler than another absolutely, but not in a particular respect. While, then, it is not conceded that the souls of heavenly bodies are nobler than the souls of animals absolutely it must be conceded that they are superior to them with regard to their respective forms, since their form perfects their matter entirely, which is not in potentiality to other forms; whereas a soul does not do this. Also as regards movement the power that moves the heavenly bodies is of a nobler kind.
Iª q. 70 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod corpus caeleste, cum sit movens motum, habet rationem instrumenti, quod agit in virtute principalis agentis. Et ideo ex virtute sui motoris, qui est substantia vivens, potest causare vitam.	Reply to Objection 3. Since the heavenly body is a mover moved, it is of the nature of an instrument, which acts in virtue of the agent: and therefore since this agent is a living substance the heavenly body can impart life in virtue of that agent.
Iª q. 70 a. 3 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod motus corporis caelestis est naturalis, non propter principium activum, sed propter principium passivum, quia scilicet habet in sua natura aptitudinem ut tali motu ab intellectu moveatur.	Reply to Objection 4. The movements of the heavenly bodies are natural, not on account of their active principle, but on account of their passive principle; that is to say, from a certain natural aptitude for being moved by an intelligent power.
Iª q. 70 a. 3 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod caelum dicitur movere seipsum, inquantum componitur ex motore et mobili, non sicut ex forma et materia, sed secundum contactum virtutis, ut dictum est. Et hoc etiam modo potest dici quod eius motor est principium intrinsecum, ut sic etiam motus caeli possit dici naturalis ex parte principii activi; sicut motus voluntarius dicitur esse naturalis animali inquantum est animal, ut dicitur in VIII Physic.	Reply to Objection 5. The heaven is said to move itself in as far as it is compounded of mover and moved; not by the union of the mover, as the form, with the moved, as the matter, but by contact with the motive power, as we have said. So far, then, the principle that moves it may be called intrinsic, and consequently its movement natural with respect to that active principle; just as we say that voluntary movement is natural to the animal as animal (Phys. viii, text. 27).
Iª q. 71 arg. 1 Deinde considerandum est de opere quintae diei. Et videtur quod inconvenienter hoc opus describatur. Illud enim aquae producunt, ad cuius productionem sufficit virtus aquae. Sed virtus aquae non sufficit ad productionem omnium piscium et avium, cum videamus plura eorum generari ex semine. Non ergo convenienter dicitur, producant aquae reptile animae viventis, et volatile super terram.	Objection 1. It would seem that this work is not fittingly described. For the waters produce that which the power of water suffices to produce. But the power of water does not suffice for the production of every kind of fishes and birds since we find that many of them are generated from seed. Therefore the words, "Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth," do not fittingly describe this work.
Iª q. 71 arg. 2 Praeterea, pisces et aves non tantum producuntur ex aqua, sed in eorum compositione videtur magis terra dominari quam aqua, quia corpora eorum naturaliter moventur ad terram; unde et in terra quiescunt. Non ergo convenienter dicitur pisces et aves ex aqua produci.	Objection 2. Further, fishes and birds are not produced from water only, but earth seems to predominate over water in their composition, as is shown by the fact that their bodies tend naturally to the earth and rest upon it. It is not, then, fittingly that fishes and birds are produced from water.
Iª q. 71 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut pisces habent motum in aquis, ita et aves in aere. Si ergo pisces ex aquis producuntur, aves non deberent produci ex aquis, sed ex aere.	Objection 3. Further, fishes move in the waters, and birds in the air. If, then, fishes are produced from the waters, birds ought to be produced from the air, and not from the waters.
Iª q. 71 arg. 4 Praeterea, non omnes pisces reptant in aquis, cum quidem habeant pedes, quibus gradiuntur in terra, sicut vituli marini. Non ergo sufficienter productio piscium designatur in hoc quod dicitur, producant aquae reptile animae viventis.	Objection 4. Further, not all fishes creep through the waters, for some, as seals, have feet and walk on land. Therefore the production of fishes is not sufficiently described by the words, "Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life."
Iª q. 71 arg. 5 Praeterea, animalia terrestria sunt perfectiora avibus et piscibus. Quod patet ex hoc quod habent membra magis distincta, et perfectiorem generationem, generant enim animalia, sed pisces et aves generant ova. Perfectiora autem praecedunt in ordine naturae. Non ergo quinta die debuerunt fieri pisces et aves, ante animalia terrestria.	Objection 5. Further, land animals are more perfect than birds and fishes which appears from the fact that they have more distinct limbs, and generation of a higher order. For they bring forth living beings, whereas birds and fishes bring forth eggs. But the more perfect has precedence in the order of nature. Therefore fishes and birds ought not to have been produced on the fifth day, before land animals.
Iª q. 71 s. c. In contrarium sufficit auctoritas Scripturae.	On the contrary, Suffices the authority of Scripture.
Iª q. 71 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, opus ornatus per ordinem respondet ordini distinctionis. Unde sicut inter tres dies distinctioni deputatos, media, quae est secunda, deputatur distinctioni medii corporis, scilicet aquae; ita inter tres dies deputatos ad opus ornatus, media, idest quinta, deputatur ad ornatum medii corporis, per productionem avium et piscium. Unde sicut Moyses in quarta die nominat luminaria et lucem, ut designet quod quarta dies respondet primae, in qua dixerat lucem factam; ita in hac quinta die facit mentionem de aquis et de firmamento caeli, ut designet quod quinta dies respondet secundae. Sed sciendum est quod, sicut in productione plantarum differt Augustinus ab aliis, ita et in productione piscium et avium. Alii enim dicunt pisces et aves quinta die esse productos in actu, Augustinus autem dicit, V super Gen. ad Litt., quod quinta die aquarum natura produxit pisces et aves potentialiter.	I answer that, As said above, (70, 1), the order of the work of adornment corresponds to the order of the work of distinction. Hence, as among the three days assigned to the work of distinction, the middle, or second, day is devoted to the work of distinction of water, which is the intermediate body, so in the three days of the work of adornment, the middle day, which is the fifth, is assigned to the adornment of the intermediate body, by the production of birds and fishes. As, then, Moses makes mention of the lights and the light on the fourth day, to show that the fourth day corresponds to the first day on which he had said that the light was made, so on this fifth day he mentions the waters and the firmament of heaven to show that the fifth day corresponds to the second. It must, however, be observed that Augustine differs from other writers in his opinion about the production of fishes and birds, as he differs about the production of plants. For while others say that fishes and birds were produced on the fifth day actually, he holds that the nature of the waters produced them on that day potentially.
Iª q. 71 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Avicenna posuit omnia animalia posse generari ex aliquali elementorum commixtione absque semine, etiam per viam naturae. Sed hoc videtur inconveniens. Quia natura determinatis mediis procedit ad suos effectus, unde illa quae naturaliter generantur ex semine, non possunt naturaliter sine semine generari. Et ideo dicendum est aliter, quod in naturali generatione animalium, principium activum est virtus formativa quae est in semine, in iis quae ex semine generantur; loco cuius virtutis, in iis quae ex putrefactione generantur, est virtus caelestis corporis. Materiale autem principium in utrorumque animalium generatione, est aliquod elementum vel elementatum. In prima autem rerum institutione, fuit principium activum verbum Dei, quod ex materia elementari produxit animalia vel in actu, secundum alios sanctos; vel virtute, secundum Augustinum. Non quod aqua aut terra habeat in se virtutem producendi omnia animalia, ut Avicenna posuit, sed quia hoc ipsum quod ex materia elementari, virtute seminis vel stellarum, possunt animalia produci, est ex virtute primitus elementis data.	Reply to Objection 1. It was laid down by Avicenna that animals of all kinds can be generated by various minglings of the elements, and naturally, without any kind of seed. This, however, seems repugnant to the fact that nature produces its effects by determinate means, and consequently, those things that are naturally generated from seed cannot be generated naturally in any other way. It ought, then, rather to be said that in the natural generation of all animals that are generated from seed, the active principle lies in the formative power of the seed, but that in the case of animals generated from putrefaction, the formative power of is the influence of the heavenly bodies. The material principle, however, in the generation of either kind of animals, is either some element, or something compounded of the elements. But at the first beginning of the world the active principle was the Word of God, which produced animals from material elements, either in act, as some holy writers say, or virtually, as Augustine teaches. Not as though the power possessed by water or earth of producing all animals resides in the earth and the water themselves, as Avicenna held, but in the power originally given to the elements of producing them from elemental matter by the power of seed or the influence of the stars.
Iª q. 71 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod corpora avium et piscium possunt dupliciter considerari. Uno modo, secundum se. Et sic necesse est quod in eis magis terrestre elementum dominetur, quia ad hoc quod fiat contemperatio mixtionis in corpore animalis necesse est quod quantitative abundet in eo elementum quod est minus activum, scilicet terra. Sed si considerentur secundum quod sunt nata moveri talibus motibus, sic habent affinitatem quandam cum corporibus in quibus moventur. Et sic eorum generatio hic describitur.	Reply to Objection 2. The bodies of birds and fishes may be considered from two points of view. If considered in themselves, it will be evident that the earthly element must predominate, since the element that is least active, namely, the earth, must be the most abundant in quantity in order that the mingling may be duly tempered in the body of the animal. But if considered as by nature constituted to move with certain specific motions, thus they have some special affinity with the bodies in which they move; and hence the words in which their generation is described.
Iª q. 71 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod aer, quia insensibilis est, non per seipsum connumeratur, sed cum aliis, partim quidem cum aqua, quantum ad inferiorem partem, quae exhalationibus aquae ingrossatur; partim etiam cum caelo, quantum ad superiorem partem. Aves autem motum habent in inferiori parte aeris, et ideo sub firmamento caeli volare dicuntur, etiam si firmamentum pro nebuloso aere accipiatur. Et ideo productio avium aquae adscribitur.	Reply to Objection 3. The air, as not being so apparent to the senses, is not enumerated by itself, but with other things: partly with the water, because the lower region of the air is thickened by watery exhalations; partly with the heaven as to the higher region. But birds move in the lower part of the air, and so are said to fly "beneath the firmament," even if the firmament be taken to mean the region of clouds. Hence the production of birds is ascribed to the water.
Iª q. 71 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod natura de uno extremo ad aliud transit per media. Et ideo inter terrestria et aquatica animalia sunt quaedam media, quae communicant cum utrisque; et computantur cum illis cum quibus magis communicant, secundum id quod cum eis communicant; non secundum id quod communicant cum alio extremo. Tamen, ut includantur omnia huiusmodi quae habent aliquid speciale inter pisces, subiungit, postquam dixerat, producant aquae reptile animae viventis, creavit Deus cete grandia, et cetera.	Reply to Objection 4. Nature passes from one extreme to another through the medium; and therefore there are creatures of intermediate type between the animals of the air and those of the water, having something in common with both; and they are reckoned as belonging to that class to which they are most allied, through the characters possessed in common with that class, rather than with the other. But in order to include among fishes all such intermediate forms as have special characters like to theirs, the words, "Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life," are followed by these: "God created great whales," etc.
Iª q. 71 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod productio horum animalium ordinatur secundum ordinem corporum quae eis ornantur, magis quam secundum propriam dignitatem. Et tamen, in via generationis, ab imperfectioribus ad perfectiora pervenitur.	Reply to Objection 5. The order in which the production of these animals is given has reference to the order of those bodies which they are set to adorn, rather than to the superiority of the animals themselves. Moreover, in generation also the more perfect is reached through the less perfect.
Iª q. 72 arg. 1 Deinde quaeritur de opere sextae diei. Et videtur quod inconvenienter describatur. Sicut enim aves et pisces habent viventem animam, ita etiam et animalia terrestria; non autem terrestria animalia sunt ipsa anima vivens. Ergo inconvenienter dicitur, producat terra animam viventem; sed debuit dici, producat terra quadrupedia animae viventis.	Objection 1. It would seem that this work is not fittingly described. For as birds and fishes have a living soul, so also have land animals. But these animals are not themselves living souls. Therefore the words, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature," should rather have been, "Let the earth bring forth the living four-footed creatures."
Iª q. 72 arg. 2 Praeterea, genus non debet dividi contra speciem. Sed iumenta et bestiae sub quadrupedibus computantur. Inconvenienter ergo quadrupedia connumerantur iumentis et bestiis.	Objection 2. Further, a genus ought not to be opposed to its species. But beasts and cattle are quadrupeds. Therefore quadrupeds ought not to be enumerated as a class with beasts and cattle.
Iª q. 72 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut alia animalia sunt in determinato genere et specie, ita et homo. Sed in factione hominis non fit mentio de suo genere vel specie. Ergo nec in productione aliorum animalium debuit fieri mentio de genere vel specie, cum dicitur, in genere suo, vel specie sua.	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."
Iª q. 72 arg. 4 Praeterea, animalia terrestria magis sunt similia homini, qui a Deo dicitur benedici, quam aves et pisces. Cum igitur aves et pisces dicantur benedici, multo fortius hoc dici debuit de aliis animalibus.	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.
Iª q. 72 arg. 5 Praeterea, quaedam animalia generantur ex putrefactione, quae est corruptio quaedam. Corruptio autem non convenit primae institutioni rerum. Non ergo animalia debuerunt in prima rerum institutione produci.	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.
Iª q. 72 arg. 6 Praeterea, quaedam animalia sunt venenosa et homini noxia. Nihil autem debuit esse homini nocivum ante peccatum. Ergo huiusmodi animalia vel omnino fieri a Deo non debuerunt, qui est bonorum auctor, vel non debuerunt fieri ante peccatum.	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.
Iª q. 72 s. c. In contrarium sufficit auctoritas Scripturae.	On the contrary, Suffices the authority of Scripture.
Iª q. 72 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in die quinto ornatur medium corpus, et respondet secundae diei ita in sexto die ornatur ultimum corpus, scilicet terra, per productionem animalium terrestrium, et respondet tertiae diei. Unde utrobique fit mentio de terra. Et hic etiam, secundum Augustinum animalia terrestria producuntur potentialiter, secundum vero alios sanctos, in actu.	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.
Iª q. 72 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Basilius dicit, diversus gradus vitae qui in diversis viventibus invenitur, ex modo loquendi Scripturae colligi potest. Plantae enim habent imperfectissimam vitam et occultam. Unde in earum productione nulla mentio fit de vita, sed solum de generatione, quia secundum hanc solum invenitur actus vitae in eis; nutritiva enim et augmentativa generativae deserviunt, ut infra dicetur. Inter animalia vero, perfectiora sunt, communiter loquendo, terrestria avibus et piscibus, non quod pisces memoria careant, ut Basilius dicit, et Augustinus improbat; sed propter distinctionem membrorum, et perfectionem generationis (quantum autem ad aliquas sagacitates, etiam aliqua animalia imperfecta magis vigent, ut apes et formicae). Et ideo pisces vocat, non animam viventem, sed reptile animae viventis, sed terrena animalia vocat animam viventem, propter perfectionem vitae in eis, ac si pisces sint corpora habentia aliquid animae, terrestria vero animalia, propter perfectionem vitae, sint quasi animae dominantes corporibus. Perfectissimus autem gradus vitae est in homine. Et ideo vitam hominis non dicit produci a terra vel aqua, sicut ceterorum animalium, sed a Deo.	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 (78, 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.
Iª q. 72 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod per iumenta, vel pecora, intelliguntur animalia domestica, quae homini serviunt qualitercumque. Per bestias autem intelliguntur animalia saeva, ut ursi et leones. Per reptilia vero, animalia quae vel non habent pedes quibus eleventur a terra, ut serpentes; vel habent breves, quibus parum elevantur, ut lacertae et tortucae et huiusmodi. Sed quia sunt quaedam animalia quae sub nullo horum comprehenduntur, ut cervi et capreae, ut etiam ista comprehenderentur, addidit quadrupedia. Vel quadrupedia praemisit quasi genus, et alia subiunxit quasi species, sunt enim etiam quaedam reptilia quadrupedia, ut lacertae et tortucae.	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.
Iª q. 72 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod in aliis animalibus et plantis mentionem fecit de genere et specie, ut designaret generationes similium ex similibus. In homine autem non fuit necessarium ut hoc diceretur, quia quod praemissum fuit de aliis, etiam de homine intelligi potest. Vel quia animalia et plantae producuntur secundum genus et speciem suam, quasi longe a similitudine divina remota, homo autem dicitur formatus ad imaginem et similitudinem Dei.	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."
Iª q. 72 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod benedictio Dei dat virtutem multiplicandi per generationem. Et ideo quod positum est in avibus et piscibus, quae primo occurrunt, non fuit necessarium repeti in terrenis animalibus, sed intelligitur. In hominibus autem iteratur benedictio, quia in eis est quaedam specialis multiplicationis ratio, propter complendum numerum electorum, et ne quisquam diceret in officio gignendi filios ullum esse peccatum. Plantae vero nullum habent propagandae prolis affectum, ac sine ullo sensu generant, unde indignae iudicatae sunt benedictionis verbis.	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.
Iª q. 72 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod, cum generatio unius sit corruptio alterius, quod ex corruptione ignobiliorum generentur nobiliora, non repugnat primae rerum institutioni. Unde animalia quae generantur ex corruptione rerum inanimatarum vel plantarum, potuerunt tunc generari. Non autem quae generantur ex corruptione animalium, tunc potuerunt produci, nisi potentialiter tantum.	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.
Iª q. 72 ad 6 Ad sextum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit in I super Gen. contra Manichaeos, si in alicuius opificis officinam imperitus intraverit, videt ibi multa instrumenta quorum causas ignorat, et si multum est insipiens, superflua putat. Iam vero si in fornacem incautus ceciderit, aut ferramento aliquo acuto se vulneraverit, noxia existimat ibi esse multa, quorum usum quia novit artifex, insipientiam eius irridet. Sic in hoc mundo quidam audent multa reprehendere, quorum causas non vident, multa enim, etsi domui nostrae non sunt necessaria, eis tamen completur universitatis integritas. Homo autem ante peccatum ordinate fuisset usus rebus mundi. Unde animalia venenosa ei noxia non fuissent.	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.
Iª q. 73 pr. Deinde considerandum est de iis quae pertinent ad septimum diem. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo, de completione operum. Secundo, de requie Dei. Tertio, de benedictione et sanctificatione huius diei.
Iª q. 73 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod completio divinorum operum non debeat septimo diei adscribi. Omnia enim quae in hoc saeculo aguntur, ad divina opera pertinent. Sed consummatio saeculi erit in fine mundi, ut habetur Matth. XIII. Tempus etiam incarnationis Christi est cuiusdam completionis tempus, unde dicitur tempus plenitudinis, Gal. IV. Et ipse Christus moriens dixit, consummatum est, ut dicitur Ioan. XIX. Non ergo completio divinorum operum competit diei septimo.	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 (Matthew 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']" (Galatians 4:4). And Christ Himself, at the moment of His death, cried out, "It is consummaed" (John 19:30). Hence the completion of the Divine works does not belong to the seventh day.
Iª q. 73 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, quicumque complet opus suum, aliquid facit. Sed Deus non legitur septimo die aliquid fecisse, quinimmo ab omni opere quievisse. Ergo completio operum non competit septimo diei.	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.
Iª q. 73 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, non dicitur aliquid esse completum, cui multa superadduntur, nisi forte sint illa superflua, quia perfectum dicitur cui nihil deest eorum quae debet habere. Sed post septimum diem multa sunt facta, et productio multorum individuorum; et etiam quarumdam novarum specierum, quae frequenter apparent, praecipue in animalibus ex putrefactione generatis. Quotidie etiam Deus novas animas creat. Novum etiam fuit incarnationis opus, de quo dicitur Ierem. XXXI, novum faciet dominus super terram. Nova etiam sunt miraculosa opera, de quibus dicitur Eccli. XXXVI, innova signa, et immuta mirabilia. Innovabuntur etiam omnia in glorificatione sanctorum, secundum illud Apoc. XXI, et dixit qui sedebat in throno, ecce nova facio omnia. Completio ergo divinorum operum non debet attribui septimo diei.	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 (Jeremiah 31:22): "The Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth." Miracles also are new works, of which it is said (Ecclesiastes 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.
Iª q. 73 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Gen. II, complevit Deus die septimo opus suum quod fecerat.	On the contrary, It is said (Genesis 2:2): "On the seventh day God ended His work which He had made."
Iª q. 73 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod duplex est rei perfectio, prima, et secunda. Prima quidem perfectio est, secundum quod res in sua substantia est perfecta. Quae quidem perfectio est forma totius, quae ex integritate partium consurgit. Perfectio autem secunda est finis. Finis autem vel est operatio, sicut finis citharistae est citharizare, vel est aliquid ad quod per operationem pervenitur, sicut finis aedificatoris est domus, quam aedificando facit. Prima autem perfectio est causa secundae, quia forma est principium operationis. Ultima autem perfectio, quae est finis totius universi, est perfecta beatitudo sanctorum; quae erit in ultima consummatione saeculi. Prima autem perfectio, quae est in integritate universi, fuit in prima rerum institutione. Et haec deputatur septimo diei.	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.
Iª q. 73 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, perfectio prima est causa secundae. Ad beatitudinem autem consequendam duo requiruntur, natura et gratia. Ipsa ergo beatitudinis perfectio erit in fine mundi, ut dictum est. Sed ista consummatio praecessit causaliter, quantum ad naturam quidem, in prima rerum institutione, quantum ad gratiam vero, in incarnatione Christi, quia gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est, ut dicitur Ioan. I. Sic igitur in septima die fuit consummatio naturae; in incarnatione Christi, consummatio gratiae; in fine mundi, consummatio gloriae.	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" (John 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.
Iª q. 73 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod septima die Deus aliquid operatus est, non novam creaturam condendo, sed creaturam administrando, et ad propriam operationem eam movendo, quod iam aliqualiter pertinet ad inchoationem quandam secundae perfectionis. Et ideo consummatio operum, secundum nostram translationem, attribuitur diei septimae. Sed secundum aliam translationem, attribuitur diei sextae. Et utrumque potest stare. Quia consummatio quae est secundum integritatem partium universi, competit sextae diei, consummatio quae est secundum operationem partium, competit septimae. Vel potest dici quod in motu continuo, quandiu aliquid potest moveri ulterius, non dicitur motus perfectus ante quietem, quies enim demonstrat motum consummatum. Deus autem poterat plures creaturas facere, praeter illas quas fecerat sex diebus. Unde hoc ipso quod cessavit novas creaturas condere in septima die, dicitur opus suum consummasse.	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 consummaed His work.
Iª q. 73 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod nihil postmodum a Deo factum est totaliter novum, quin aliqualiter in operibus sex dierum praecesserit. Quaedam enim praeextiterunt materialiter, sicut quod Deus de costa Adae formavit mulierem. Quaedam vero praeextiterunt in operibus sex dierum, non solum materialiter, sed etiam causaliter, sicut individua quae nunc generantur, praecesserunt in primis individuis suarum specierum. Species etiam novae, si quae apparent, praeextiterunt in quibusdam activis virtutibus, sicut et animalia ex putrefactione generata producuntur ex virtutibus stellarum et elementorum quas a principio acceperunt, etiam si novae species talium animalium producantur. Animalia etiam quaedam secundum novam speciem aliquando oriuntur ex commixtione animalium diversorum secundum speciem, sicut cum ex asino et equa generatur mulus, et haec etiam praecesserunt causaliter in operibus sex dierum. Quaedam vero praecesserunt secundum similitudinem; sicut animae quae nunc creantur. Et similiter incarnationis opus, quia, ut dicitur Philipp. II, filius Dei est in similitudinem hominum factus. Gloria etiam spiritualis secundum similitudinem praecessit in Angelis, corporalis vero in caelo, praecipue Empyreo. Unde dicitur Eccle. I, nihil sub sole novum; iam enim praecessit in saeculis quae fuerunt ante nos.	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 (Philippians 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 (Ecclesiastes 1:10), "Nothing under the sun is new, for it hath already gone before, in the ages that were before us."
Iª q. 73 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus septima die non requievit ab omni suo opere. Dicitur enim Ioan. V, pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor. Non ergo septima die requievit ab omni opere.	Objection 1. It would seem that God did not rest on the seventh day from all His work. For it is said (John 5:17), "My Father worketh until now, and I work." God, then, did not rest on the seventh day from all His work.
Iª q. 73 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, requies motui opponitur; vel labori qui interdum causatur ex motu. Sed Deus immobiliter, et absque labore sua opera produxit. Non ergo dicendum est septima die a suo opere requievisse.	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.
Iª q. 73 a. 2 arg. 3 Si dicatur quod Deus requievit die septima quia fecit hominem requiescere, contra, requies contraponitur eius operationi. Sed quod dicitur, Deus creavit vel fecit hoc vel illud, non exponitur quod Deus hominem fecit creare aut facere. Ergo nec convenienter exponi potest, ut dicatur Deus requievisse, quia fecit hominem requiescere.	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.
Iª q. 73 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Gen. II, requievit Deus die septimo ab omni opere quod patrarat.	On the contrary, It is said (Genesis 2:2): "God rested on the seventh day from all the work which He had done."
Iª q. 73 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod quies proprie opponitur motui; et per consequens labori, qui ex motu consurgit. Quamvis autem motus proprie acceptus sit corporum, tamen nomen motus etiam ad spiritualia derivatur dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum quod omnis operatio motus dicitur, sic enim et divina bonitas quodammodo movetur et procedit in res, secundum quod se eis communicat, ut Dionysius dicit, II cap. de Div. Nom. Alio modo, desiderium in aliud tendens quidam motus dicitur. Unde et requies dupliciter accipitur, uno modo, pro cessatione ab operibus; alio modo, pro impletione desiderii. Et utroque modo dicitur Deus requievisse die septima. Primo quidem, quia die septima cessavit novas creaturas condere, nihil enim postea fecit, quod non aliquo modo praecesserit in primis operibus, ut dictum est. Alio modo, secundum quod rebus conditis ipse non indigebat, sed seipso fruendo beatus est. Unde post conditionem omnium operum, non dicitur quod in suis operibus requievit, quasi eis ad suam beatitudinem indigens, sed ab eis requievit, utique in seipso, quia ipse sufficit sibi et implet desiderium suum. Et quamvis ab aeterno in seipso requieverit, tamen quod post opera condita in seipso requievit, hoc pertinet ad septimum diem. Et hoc est ab operibus requiescere, ut Augustinus dicit, super Gen. ad Litt.	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 (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).
Iª q. 73 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Deus usque modo operatur, conservando et administrando creaturam conditam, non autem novam creaturam condendo.	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.
Iª q. 73 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod requies non opponitur labori sive motui, sed productioni novarum rerum, et desiderio in aliud tendenti, ut dictum est.	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.
Iª q. 73 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Deus in solo se requiescit, et se fruendo beatus est; ita et nos per solam Dei fruitionem beati efficimur. Et sic etiam facit nos a suis et nostris operibus in seipso requiescere. Est ergo conveniens expositio, ut dicatur Deus requievisse, quia nos requiescere facit. Sed non est haec sola ponenda, sed alia expositio est principalior et prior.	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.
Iª q. 73 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod benedictio et sanctificatio non debeatur diei septimae. Tempus enim aliquod consuevit dici benedictum aut sanctum, propter aliquod bonum quod in illo tempore evenit; aut propter hoc quod aliquod malum vitatur sed Deo nihil accrescit aut deperit, sive operetur, sive ab operando cesset. Non ergo specialis benedictio et sanctificatio debetur diei septimae.	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.
Iª q. 73 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, benedictio a bonitate dicitur. Sed bonum est diffusivum et communicativum sui, secundum Dionysium. Ergo magis debuerunt benedici dies in quibus creaturas produxit, quam ille dies in quo a producendis creaturis cessavit.	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.
Iª q. 73 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, superius in singulis creaturis quaedam benedictio commemorata est, dum in singulis operibus dictum est, vidit Deus quod esset bonum. Non oportuit igitur quod post omnium productionem, dies septima benediceretur.	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.
Iª q. 73 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Gen. II, benedixit Deus diei septimo, et sanctificavit illum, quia in illo cessaverat ab omni opere suo.	On the contrary, It is written (Genesis 2:3), "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He had rested from all His work."
Iª q. 73 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, requies Dei in die septima dupliciter accipitur. Primo quidem, quantum ad hoc, quod cessavit a novis operibus condendis, ita tamen quod creaturam conditam conservat et administrat. Alio modo, secundum quod post opera requievit in seipso. Quantum ergo ad primum, competit septimae diei benedictio. Quia, sicut supra dictum est, benedictio ad multiplicationem pertinet, unde dictum est creaturis quas benedixit, crescite et multiplicamini. Multiplicatio autem rerum fit per administrationem creaturae, secundum quam ex similibus similia generantur. Quantum vero ad secundum, competit septimae diei sanctificatio. Maxime enim sanctificatio cuiuslibet attenditur in hoc quod in Deo requiescit, unde et res Deo dedicatae sanctae dicuntur.	I answer that, As said above (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 (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.
Iª q. 73 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod non propter hoc dies septimus sanctificatur, quia Deo possit aliquid accrescere vel decrescere, sed quia creaturis aliquid accrescit per multiplicationem et quietem in Deo.	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.
Iª q. 73 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod in primis sex diebus productae sunt res in suis primis causis. Sed postea ex illis primis causis res multiplicantur et conservantur, quod etiam ad bonitatem divinam pertinet. Cuius etiam perfectio in hoc maxime ostenditur quod in ipsa sola et ipse requiescit, et nos requiescere possumus, ea fruentes.	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.
Iª q. 73 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod bonum quod in singulis diebus commemoratur, pertinet ad primam naturae institutionem, benedictio autem diei septimae pertinet ad naturae propagationem.	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.
Iª q. 74 pr. Deinde quaeritur de omnibus septem diebus in communi. Et quaeruntur tria. Primo, de sufficientia horum dierum. Secundo, utrum sint unus dies, vel plures. Tertio, de quibusdam modis loquendi quibus Scriptura utitur, enarrando opera sex dierum.
Iª q. 74 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sufficienter isti dies enumerentur. Non minus enim distinguitur opus creationis ab operibus distinctionis et ornatus, quam haec duo opera ab invicem. Sed alii dies deputantur distinctioni, et alii ornatui. Ergo etiam alii dies debent assignari creationi.	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.
Iª q. 74 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, aer et ignis sunt nobiliora elementa quam terra et aqua. Sed unus dies deputatur distinctioni aquae, et alius distinctioni terrae. Ergo alii dies debent deputari distinctioni ignis et aeris.	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.
Iª q. 74 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, non minus distant volucres et pisces, quam volucres et terrestria animalia. Homo etiam plus distat ab aliis animalibus, quam alia quaecumque animalia ab invicem. Sed alius dies deputatur productioni piscium maris, et alius productioni animalium terrae. Ergo et alius dies debet deputari productioni avium caeli, et alius productioni hominis.	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.
Iª q. 74 a. 1 s. c. 1 Sed contra, videtur quod aliqui dies superflue assignentur. Lumen enim ad luminaria se habet ut accidens ad subiectum. Simul autem producitur subiectum cum proprio accidente. Non ergo alia die debuit produci lux, et alia luminaria.	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.
Iª q. 74 a. 1 s. c. 2 Praeterea, dies isti deputantur primae institutioni mundi. Sed in septima die nihil primitus est institutum. Ergo septima dies non debet aliis connumerari.	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.
Iª q. 74 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod ratio distinctionis horum dierum ex praemissis potest esse manifesta. Oportuit enim primo distingui partes mundi; et postmodum singulas partes ornari, per hoc quod quasi suis habitatoribus replentur. Secundum ergo alios sanctos, in creatura corporali tres partes designantur, prima, quae significatur nomine caeli; media, quae significatur nomine aquae; et, infima quae significatur nomine terrae. Unde et secundum Pythagoricos, perfectio in tribus ponitur, principio, medio et fine, ut dicitur in I de caelo. Prima ergo pars distinguitur prima die, et ornatur quarta; media distinguitur secunda die, et ornatur quinta; infima distinguitur tertia die, et ornatur sexta. Augustinus vero convenit quidem cum eis in ultimis tribus diebus, differt autem in tribus primis. Quia secundum eum, in primo die formatur creatura spiritualis, in duobus aliis creatura corporalis; ita quod in secundo corpora superiora, in tertio corpora inferiora. Et sic perfectio divinorum operum respondet perfectioni senarii numeri, qui consurgit ex suis partibus aliquotis simul iunctis; quae quidem partes sunt unum, duo, tria. Una enim dies deputatur formationi creaturae spiritualis, duae formationi creaturae corporalis, et tres ornatui.	I answer that, The reason of the distinction of these days is made clear by what has been said above (70, 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.
Iª q. 74 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, secundum Augustinum, opus creationis pertinet ad productionem materiae informis, et naturae spiritualis informis. Quae quidem duo sunt extra tempus, ut ipse dicit in XII Confess., et ideo creatio utriusque ponitur ante omnem diem. Sed secundum alios sanctos, potest dici quod opus distinctionis et ornatus attenditur secundum aliquam mutationem creaturae, quae tempore mensuratur. Opus autem creationis consistit in sola divina actione in instanti rerum substantiam producentis. Et ideo quodlibet opus distinctionis et ornatus dicitur factum in die, creatio autem dicitur facta in principio, quod sonat aliquid indivisibile.	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.
Iª q. 74 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ignis et aer, quia non distinguuntur a vulgo, inter partes mundi non sunt expresse nominata a Moyse; sed computantur cum medio, scilicet aqua, maxime quantum ad inferiorem aeris partem; quantum vero ad superiorem, computantur cum caelo, ut Augustinus dicit.	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).
Iª q. 74 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod productio animalium recitatur secundum quod sunt in ornatum partium mundi. Et ideo dies productionis animalium distinguuntur vel uniuntur, secundum hanc convenientiam vel differentiam, qua conveniunt vel differunt in ornando aliquam partem mundi.	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.
Iª q. 74 a. 1 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod prima die facta est natura lucis in aliquo subiecto. Sed quarto die facta dicuntur luminaria, non quia eorum substantia sit de novo producta; sed quia sunt aliquo modo formata, quo prius non erant, ut supra dictum est.	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 (70, 1 ad 2).
Iª q. 74 a. 1 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod septimae diei, secundum Augustinum, deputatur aliquid post omnia quae sex diebus attribuuntur, scilicet quod Deus a suis operibus in seipso requiescit. Et ideo oportuit post sex dies fieri mentionem de septimo. Secundum vero alios, potest dici quod in septimo die mundus habuit quendam novum statum, ut scilicet ei nihil adderetur de novo. Et ideo post sex dies ponitur septima, deputata cessationi ab opere.	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.
Iª q. 74 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod omnes isti dies sint unus dies. Dicitur enim Gen. II, istae sunt generationes caeli et terrae, quando creata sunt, in die quo fecit dominus caelum et terram, et omne virgultum agri, antequam oriretur in terra. Unus ergo est dies in quo fecit caelum et terram et omne virgultum agri. Sed caelum et terram fecit in prima die, vel potius ante omnem diem; virgultum autem agri, tertia die. Ergo unus est primus dies et tertius, et pari ratione, omnes alii.	Objection 1. It would seem that all these days are one day. For it is written (Genesis 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.
Iª q. 74 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, Eccli. XVIII, dicitur, qui vivit in aeternum, creavit omnia simul. Sed hoc non esset, si dies horum operum essent plures, quia plures dies non sunt simul. Ergo non sunt plures dies, sed unus tantum.	Objection 2. Further, it is said (Sirach 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.
Iª q. 74 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, die septimo cessavit Deus a novis operibus condendis. Si ergo septima dies est alia ab aliis diebus, sequitur quod illam diem non fecerit. Quod est inconveniens.	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.
Iª q. 74 a. 2 arg. 4 Praeterea, totum opus quod uni diei adscribitur, in instanti perfecit, cum in singulis operibus dicatur, dixit, et factum est. Si igitur sequens opus in diem alium reservasset, sequeretur quod in residua parte illius diei cessasset ab opere, quod esset superfluum. Non igitur est alius dies sequentis operis, a die operis praecedentis.	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.
Iª q. 74 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Gen. I dicitur, factum est vespere et mane dies secundus, et dies tertius, et sic de aliis. Secundum autem et tertium dici non potest, ubi est unum tantum. Ergo non fuit unus dies tantum.	On the contrary, It is written (Genesis 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.
Iª q. 74 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in hac quaestione Augustinus ab aliis expositoribus dissentit. Augustinus enim vult, et super Gen. ad Litt., et XI de Civ. Dei, et ad Orosium, quod omnes qui dicuntur septem dies, sunt unus dies septempliciter rebus praesentatus. Alii vero expositores sentiunt quod fuerunt septem dies diversi, et non unus tantum. Hae autem duae opiniones, si referantur ad expositionem litterae Genesis, magnam diversitatem habent. Nam secundum Augustinum, per diem intelligitur cognitio mentis angelicae; ut sic primus dies sit cognito primi divini operis, secundus dies cognitio secundi operis, et sic de aliis. Et dicitur unumquodque opus esse factum in aliqua die, quia nihil Deus produxit in rerum natura, quod non impresserit menti angelicae. Quae quidem multa simul potest cognoscere, praecipue in verbo, in quo omnis Angelorum cognitio perficitur et terminatur. Et sic distinguitur dies secundum naturalem ordinem rerum cognitarum, non secundum successionem cognitionis, aut secundum successionem productionis rerum. Cognitio autem angelica proprie et vere dies nominari potest, cum lux, quae est causa diei, proprie in spiritualibus, secundum Augustinum, inveniatur. Secundum vero alios, per istos dies et successio dierum temporalium ostenditur, et successio productionis rerum. Sed si istae duae opiniones referantur ad modum productionis rerum, non invenitur magna differentia. Et hoc propter duo in quibus, exponendo, diversificatur Augustinus ab aliis, ut ex supra dictis patet. Primo quidem, quia Augustinus per terram et aquam prius creatam, intelligit materiam corporalem totaliter informem, per factionem autem firmamenti, et congregationem aquarum, et apparitionem aridae, intelligit impressionem formarum in materiam corporalem. Alii vero sancti per terram et aquam primo creatas, intelligunt ipsa elementa mundi, sub propriis formis existentia, per sequentia autem opera, aliquam distinctionem in corporibus prius existentibus, ut supra dictum est. Secundo autem differunt quantum ad productionem plantarum et animalium, quae alii ponunt in opere sex dierum esse producta in actu; Augustinus vero potentialiter tantum. In hoc ergo quod Augustinus ponit opera sex dierum esse simul facta, sequitur idem modus productionis rerum. Nam secundum utrosque, in prima rerum productione materia erat sub formis substantialibus elementorum, et secundum utrosque, in prima rerum institutione non fuerunt animalia et plantae in actu. Sed remanet differentia quantum ad quatuor. Quia secundum alios sanctos, post primam productionem creaturae, fuit aliquod tempus in quo non erat lux; item in quo non erat firmamentum formatum; item in quo non erat terra discooperta aquis; et in quo non erant formata caeli luminaria, quod est quartum. Quae non oportet ponere secundum expositionem Augustini. Ut igitur neutri sententiae praeiudicetur, utriusque rationibus respondendum est.	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 (67, 1; 69, 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 (67, 1,4; 69, 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.
Iª q. 74 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in die in quo creavit Deus caelum et terram, creavit etiam omne virgultum agri, non in actu, sed antequam oriretur super terram, idest potentialiter. Quod Augustinus adscribit tertiae diei, alii vero primae rerum institutioni.	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.
Iª q. 74 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Deus creavit omnia simul, quantum ad rerum substantiam quodammodo informem. Sed quantum ad formationem quae facta est per distinctionem et ornatum, non simul. Unde signanter utitur verbo creationis.	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.
Iª q. 74 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod in die septimo cessavit Deus a novis operibus condendis, non autem a propagandis quibusdam ex aliis, ad quam propagationem pertinet quod post primum diem alii succedunt.	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.
Iª q. 74 a. 2 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod non est ex impotentia Dei, quasi indigentis tempore ad operandum, quod omnia non sunt simul distincta et ornata, sed ut ordo servaretur in rerum institutione. Et ideo oportuit ut diversis statibus mundi diversi dies deservirent. Semper autem per sequens opus novus perfectionis status mundo est additus.	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.
Iª q. 74 a. 2 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod, secundum Augustinum, ille ordo dierum referendus est ad naturalem ordinem operum quae diebus attribuuntur.	Reply to Objection 5. According to Augustine, the order of days refers to the natural order of the works attributed to the days.
Iª q. 74 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Scriptura non utatur convenientibus verbis ad exprimendum opera sex dierum. Sicut enim lux et firmamentum et huiusmodi opera per Dei verbum sunt facta, ita caelum et terra, quia omnia per ipsum facta sunt, ut dicitur Ioan. I. Ergo in creatione caeli et terrae debuit fieri mentio de verbo Dei, sicut in aliis operibus.	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" (John 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.
Iª q. 74 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, aqua est creata a Deo, quae tamen creata non commemoratur. Insufficienter ergo rerum creatio describitur.	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.
Iª q. 74 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut dicitur Gen. I, vidit Deus cuncta quae fecerat, et erant valde bona. In singulis ergo operibus debuit dici, vidit Deus quod esset bonum. Inconvenienter ergo praetermittitur in opere creationis, et in opere secundae diei.	Objection 3. Further, it is said (Genesis 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.
Iª q. 74 a. 3 arg. 4 Praeterea, spiritus Dei est Deus. Deo autem non competit ferri, nec situm habere. Inconvenienter ergo dicitur quod spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas.	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.
Iª q. 74 a. 3 arg. 5 Praeterea, nullus facit quod iam factum est. Inconvenienter ergo, postquam dictum est, dixit Deus, fiat firmamentum, et factum est ita, subditur, et fecit Deus firmamentum. Et similiter in aliis operibus.	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.
Iª q. 74 a. 3 arg. 6 Praeterea, vespere et mane non sufficienter dividunt diem, cum sint plures partes diei. Ergo inconvenienter dicitur quod factum est vespere et mane dies secundus, vel tertius.	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.
Iª q. 74 a. 3 arg. 7 Praeterea, secundo et tertio non convenienter correspondet unum, sed primum. Debuit ergo dici, factum est vespere et mane dies primus, ubi dicitur dies unus.	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."
Iª q. 74 a. 3 ad 1 Respondeo dicendum ad primum, quod secundum Augustinum, persona filii commemoratur tam in prima rerum creatione, quam in rerum distinctione et ornatu; aliter tamen et aliter. Distinctio enim et ornatus pertinet ad rerum formationem. Sicut autem formatio artificiatorum est per formam artis quae est in mente artificis, quae potest dici intelligibile verbum ipsius; ita formatio totius creaturae est per verbum Dei. Et ideo in opere distinctionis et ornatus fit mentio de verbo. In creatione autem commemoratur filius ut principium, cum dicitur, in principio creavit Deus, quia per creationem intelligitur productio informis materiae. Secundum vero alios, qui ponunt primo creata elementa sub propriis formis, oportet aliter dici. Basilius enim dicit quod per hoc quod dicitur, dixit Deus, importatur divinum imperium. Prius autem oportuit produci creaturam quae obediret, quam fieri mentionem de divino imperio.	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.
Iª q. 74 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, secundum Augustinum, per caelum intelligitur spiritualis natura informis; per terram autem materia informis omnium corporum. Et sic nulla creatura est praetermissa. Secundum Basilium vero, ponuntur caelum et terra tanquam duo extrema, ut ex his intelligantur media; praecipue quia omnium mediorum motus vel est ad caelum ut levium, vel ad terram, ut gravium. Alii vero dicunt quod sub nomine terrae comprehendere solet Scriptura omnia quatuor elementa. Unde in Psalmo CXLVIII, postquam dictum est, laudate dominum de terra, subditur, ignis, grando, nix, glacies.	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 (Psalm 148:7,8) after the words, "Praise the Lord from the earth," is added, "fire, hail, snow, and ice."
Iª q. 74 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod in opere creationis ponitur aliquid correspondens ei quod dicitur in opere distinctionis et ornatus, vidit Deus hoc vel illud esse bonum. Ad cuius evidentiam, considerandum est quod spiritus sanctus amor est. Duo autem sunt, ut Augustinus dicit I super Gen. ad Litt., propter quae Deus amat creaturam suam, scilicet ut sit, et ut permaneat. Ut ergo esset quod permaneret, dicitur quod spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquam (secundum quod per aquam materia informis intelligitur; sicut amor artificis fertur super materiam aliquam, ut ex ea formet opus), ut autem maneret quod fecerat, dicitur, vidit Deus quod esset bonum. In hoc enim significatur quaedam complacentia Dei opificis in re facta, non quod alio modo cognosceret, aut placeret ei creatura iam facta, quam antequam faceret. Et sic in utroque opere creationis et formationis, Trinitas personarum insinuatur. In creatione quidem, persona patris per Deum creantem; persona filii, per principium in quo creavit; spiritus sancti, qui superfertur aquis. In formatione vero, persona patris in Deo dicente; persona vero filii, in verbo quo dicitur; persona spiritus sancti, in complacentia qua vidit Deus esse bonum quod factum erat. In opere vero secundae diei non ponitur, vidit Deus quod esset bonum, quia opus distinctionis aquarum tunc inchoatur, et in tertio die perficitur, unde quod ponitur in tertia die, refertur etiam ad secundam. Vel, quia distinctio quae ponitur secunda die, est de his quae non sunt manifesta populo, ideo huiusmodi approbatione Scriptura non utitur. Vel iterum propter hoc, quod per firmamentum intelligitur aer nubilosus, qui non est de partibus permanentibus in universo, seu de partibus principalibus mundi. Et has tres rationes Rabbi Moyses ponit. Quidam autem assignant rationem mysticam ex parte numeri. Quia binarius ab unitate recedit, unde opus secundae diei non approbatur.	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.
Iª q. 74 a. 3 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod Rabbi Moyses per spiritum domini intelligit aerem vel ventum, sicut et Plato intellexit. Et dicit quod dicitur spiritus domini, secundum quod Scriptura consuevit ubique flatum ventorum Deo attribuere. Sed secundum sanctos, per spiritum domini intelligitur spiritus sanctus. Qui dicitur superferri aquae, idest materiae informi secundum Augustinum, ne facienda opera sua propter indigentiae necessitatem putaretur Deus amare, indigentiae enim amor rebus quas diligit subiicitur. Commode, autem factum est, ut prius insinuaretur aliquid inchoatum, cui superferri diceretur, non enim superfertur loco, sed praeexcellente potentia, ut Augustinus dicit I super Gen. ad Litt. Secundum Basilium vero, super ferebatur elemento aquae; idest, fovebat et vivificabat aquarum naturam, ad similitudinem gallinae cubantis, vitalem virtutem his quae foventur iniiciens. Habet enim aqua praecipue vitalem virtutem, quia plurima animalia generantur in aqua, et omnium animalium semina sunt humida. Vita etiam spiritualis datur per aquam Baptismi, unde dicitur Ioan. III, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto.	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."
Iª q. 74 a. 3 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod, secundum Augustinum, per illa tria designatur triplex esse rerum, primo quidem esse rerum in verbo, per hoc quod dixit, fiat; secundo, esse rerum in mente angelica per hoc quod dixit, factum est; tertio, esse rerum in propria natura, per hoc quod dixit, fecit. Et quia in primo die describitur formatio Angelorum, non fuit necesse ut ibi adderetur, fecit. Secundum alios vero, potest dici quod in hoc quod dicit, dixit Deus fiat, importatur imperium Dei de faciendo. Per hoc autem quod dicit, factum est, importatur complementum operis. Oportuit autem ut subderetur quomodo factum fuit, praecipue propter illos qui dixerunt omnia visibilia per Angelos facta. Et ideo ad hoc removendum, subditur quod ipse Deus fecit. Unde in singulis operibus, postquam dicitur, et factum est, aliquis actus Dei subditur; vel fecit, vel distinxit, vel vocavit, vel aliquid huiusmodi.	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."
Iª q. 74 a. 3 ad 6 Ad sextum dicendum quod, secundum Augustinum, per vespere et mane intelligitur vespertina et matutina cognitio in Angelis, de quibus dictum est supra. Vel, secundum Basilium, totum tempus consuevit denominari a principaliori parte, scilicet a die, secundum quod dixit Iacob, dies peregrinationis meae, nulla mentione facta de nocte. Vespere autem et mane ponuntur ut termini diei; cuius mane est principium, sed vespere finis. Vel quia per vespere designatur principium noctis, per mane principium diei. Congruum autem fuit, ut ubi commemoratur prima distinctio rerum, sola principia temporum designarentur. Praemittitur autem vespere, quia, cum a luce dies incoeperit, prius occurrit terminus lucis, quod est vespere, quam terminus tenebrarum et noctis, quod est mane. Vel, secundum Chrysostomum, ut designetur quod dies naturalis non terminatur in vespere, sed in mane.	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 (58, 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.).
Iª q. 74 a. 3 ad 7 Ad septimum dicendum quod dicitur unus dies in prima diei institutione, ad designandum quod viginti quatuor horarum spatia pertinent ad unum diem. Unde per hoc quod dicitur unus, praefigitur mensura diei naturalis. Vel propter hoc, ut significaret diem consummari per reditum solis ad unum et idem punctum. Vel quia completo septenario dierum, reditur ad primum diem, qui est unus cum octavo. Et has tres rationes Basilius assignat.	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.).