 Question 66 of Summa Theologica, Parse Prima on the Angels and on the Six Days. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Tony Russell. Summa Theologica, Parse Prima on the Angels and on the Six Days by St. Thomas Aquinas. Translated by the fathers of the English Dominican province. Question 66 on the order of creation towards distinction in four articles. We must next consider the work of distinction. First, the ordering of creation towards distinction. Secondly, the distinction itself. Under the first head there are four points of inquiry. One, whether formlessness of created matter preceded in time its formation. Two, whether the matter of all corporal things is the same. Three, whether the Empyrean heaven was created contemporaneously with formless matter. Four, whether time was created simultaneously with it. Next article, one. Question 66, article one. Objection one. It would seem that formlessness of matter preceded in time its formation. For it is said, Genesis one, two. Quote, the earth was void and empty, end quote. Or, quote, invisible and shapeless, end quote. According to another version, Septuagint. By which is understood the formlessness of matter, as Augustine says. Confessions twelve, twelve. Therefore matter was formless until it received its form. Objection two. Further, nature in its working imitates the working of God, as a secondary cause imitates a first cause. But in the working of nature formlessness precedes form and time. It does so therefore in the divine working. Objection three. Further, matter is higher than accident, for matter is part of substance. But God can affect that accident exist without substance, as in the sacrament of the altar. He could therefore cause matter to exist without form. On the contrary, an imperfect effect proves imperfection in the agent. But God is an agent absolutely perfect, wherefore it is said of him, Deuteronomy thirty-two, four. Quote, the works of God are perfect, end quote. Therefore the work of his creation was at no time formless. Further, the formation of corporeal creatures was affected by the work of distinction. But confusion is opposed to distinction, as formlessness to form. If therefore formlessness preceded in time the formation of matter, it follows that at the beginning confusion, called by the ancients chaos, existed in the corporeal creation. Why answer that? On this point holy men defer in opinion. Augustine, for instance, the literal meaning of Genesis, one, fifteen, believes that the formlessness of matter was not prior in time to its formation, but only in origin or the order of nature, whereas others as Basil, second homily on the hexameron, on the hexameron one, and Chrysostom, second homily on Genesis, hold that formlessness of matter preceded in time its formation. And although these opinions seem mutually contradictory, in reality they defer but little. For Augustine takes the formlessness of matter in a different sense from the others. In his sense it means the absence of all form, and if we thus understand it, we cannot say that the formlessness of matter was prior in time, either to its formation or to its distinction. As to formation the argument is clear. For if formless matter preceded in duration it already existed. For this is implied by duration, since the end of creation is being in act. And act itself is a form. To say then that matter preceded, but without form, is to say that being existed actually, yet without act, which is a contradiction in terms. Nor can it be said that it possessed some common form on which afterwards supervened the different forms that distinguish it. For this would be to hold the opinion of the ancient natural philosophers, who maintained that primary matter was some corporeal thing in act, as fire, air, water, or some intermediate substance. Hence it followed that to be made means merely to be changed. For since that preceding form bestowed actual substantial being and made some particular thing to be, it would result that the supervening form would not simply make an actual being, but this actual being, which is the proper effect of an accidental form. Thus the consequent forms would be merely accidents, implying not generation, but alteration. Hence we must assert that primary matter was not created altogether formless, nor under any one common form, but under distinct forms. And so if the formlessness of matter be taken as referring to the condition of primary matter, which in itself is formless, this formlessness did not precede in time its formation or distinction, but only in origin and nature, as Augustine says. In the same way as potentiality is prior to act and the part to the whole. But the other holy writers understand by formlessness not the exclusion of all form, but the absence of that beauty and comeliness, which are now apparent in the corporeal creation. Accordingly they say that the formlessness of corporeal matter preceded its form and duration, and so when this is considered it appears that Augustine agrees with them in some respects and in others disagrees, as will be shown later, Question 69, Article 1, and Question 74, Article 2. As far as may be gathered from the text of Genesis, a three-fold beauty was wanting to corporeal creatures, for which reason they are said to be without form. For the beauty of light was wanting to all that transparent body which we call the heavens, whence it is said that, quote, darkness was upon the face of the deep, end quote. And the earth lacked beauty in two ways. First, that beauty which it acquired when its watery veil was withdrawn, and so we read that the earth was void or invisible in as much as the waters covered and concealed it from view. Secondly, that which it derives from being adorned by herbs and plants, for which reason it is called empty, or according to another reading, Septuagint, shapeless, that is, unadorned. Thus after mention of two created natures, the heaven and the earth, the formlessness of the heaven is indicated by the words darkness was upon the face of the deep, since the air is included under heaven and the formlessness of the earth by the words the earth was void and empty. Reply Objection 1. The word earth is taken differently in this passage by Augustine and by other writers. Augustine holds that by the words earth and water, in this passage, primary matter itself is signified on account of its being impossible for Moses to make the idea of such matter intelligible to an ignorant people, except under the similitude of well-known objects. Hence, he uses a variety of figures and speaking of it, calling it not water only, nor earth only, lest they should think it to be, in very truth, water or earth. At the same time, it has so far a likeness to earth, in that it is susceptible of form and to water in its adaptability to a variety of forms. In this respect, then, the earth is said to be void and empty, or invisible and shapeless. That matter is known by means of form. Hence, considered in itself, it is called invisible or void, and its potentiality is completed by form. Thus Plato says that matter is place. Tamius quoted by Aristotle. But other holy writers understand by earth the element of earth, and we have said, article one, how in this sense the earth was, according to them, without form. Reply Objection Two. Nature produces effect in act from being in potentiality, and consequently, in the operations of nature, potentiality must precede act in time, and formlessness precede form. But God produces being in act out of nothing, and can, therefore, produce a perfect thing in an instant, according to the greatness of His power. Reply Objection Three. Accident. Inasmuch as it is a form, is a kind of act, whereas matter, as such, is essentially being in potentiality. Hence it is more repugnant that matter should be in act without form than for accident to be without subject. In reply to the first argument in the contrary sense, we say that if, according to some holy writers, formlessness was prior in time to the informing of matter, this arose not from one of power on God's part, but from His wisdom, and from the design of preserving due order in the disposition of creatures by developing perfection from imperfection. In reply to the second argument, we say that certain of the ancient natural philosophers maintained confusion devoid of all distinction, except Anaxagoras, who taught that the intellect alone was distinct and without admixture. But previous to the work of distinction, Holy Scripture enumerates several kinds of differentiation, the first being that of the heaven from the earth, in which even a material distinction is expressed, as will be shown later, article three, and question sixty-eight, article one. This is signified by the words, quote, in the beginning God created heaven and earth, end quote. The second distinction mentioned is that of the elements according to their forms, since both earth and water are named. That air and fire are not mentioned by name as due to the fact that the corporeal nature of these would not be so evident as that of earth and water, to the ignorant people to whom Moses spoke. Plato, to me as twenty-six, nevertheless understood air to be signified by the words, spirit of God, since spirit is another name for air, and considered that by the word heaven is meant fire, for he held heaven to be composed of fire as Augustine relates. The city of God, eight eleven. But Rabbi Moses, guide for the perplexed, two. Though otherwise agreeing with Plato says that fire is signified by the word darkness, since said he, fire does not shine in its own sphere. However, it seems more reasonable to hold to what we stated above, because by the words spirit of God scripture usually means the Holy Ghost, who is said to move over the waters, not indeed in bodily shape, but as the craftsman's will may be said to move over the material to which he intends to give a form. The third distinction is that of place, since the earth is said to be under the waters that rendered it invisible, whilst the air, the subject of darkness, is described as being above the waters. In the words, quote, darkness was upon the face of the deep, end quote. The remaining distinctions will appear from what follows, question seventy-one. Second article, one, question sixty-six, article two. Whether the formless matter of all corporal things is the same, objection one, it would seem that the formless matter of all corporal things is the same. For Augustine says, confessions twelve, twelve, quote, I find two things thou hast made, one formed, the other formless, end quote. And he says that the latter was the earth invisible and shapeless, whereby he says the matter of all corporal things is designated. Therefore the matter of all corporal things is the same, objection two. Further, the philosopher says, metaphysics five, text ten, quote, things that are one in genus are one in matter, end quote. But all corporal things are in the same genus of body, therefore the matter of all bodies is the same. Objection three, further, different acts befit different potentialities, and the same act befits the same potentiality, but all bodies have the same form, corporality, therefore all bodies have the same matter. Objection four, further, matter, considered in itself is only in potentiality, but distinction is due to form, therefore matter considered in itself is the same in all corporal things. On the contrary, things of which the matter is the same are mutually interchangeable and mutually active or passive, as is said, generation of animals, one, text fifty. But heavenly and earthly bodies do not act upon each other mutually, therefore their matter is not the same. I answer that, on this question the opinions of philosophers have differed, Plato and all who preceded Aristotle held that all bodies are of the nature of the four elements, hence because the four elements have one common matter, as their mutual generation and corruption prove, it followed that the matter of all bodies is the same, but the fact of the incorruptibility of some bodies was ascribed by Plato, not to the condition of matter, but to the will of the Artificer, God, whom he represents as saying to the heavenly bodies, quote, by your own nature you are subject to dissolution, but by my will you are indissoluble. For my will is more powerful than the link that binds you together, end quote. But this theory, Aristotle, on the heavens, one, text five, disproves by the natural movements of bodies, for since, he says, the heavenly bodies have a natural movement different from that of the elements, it follows that they have a different nature from them. For movement in a circle, which is proper to the heavenly bodies, is not by contraries, whereas the movements of the elements are mutually opposite, one tending upwards, another downwards, so therefore the heavenly body is without contrarity, whereas the elemental bodies have contrarity in their nature, and as generation and corruption are from contraries, it follows that whereas the elements are corruptible, the heavenly bodies are incorruptible. But in spite of this difference of natural corruption and incorruption, Avisbran taught unity of matter in all bodies, arguing from their unity of form, and indeed if corporality were one form in itself, on which the other forms that distinguish bodies from each other supervene, this argument would necessarily be true. For this form of corporality would in here in matter immutably, and so far all bodies would be incorruptible, but corruption would then be merely accidental through the disappearance of successive forms, that is to say, it would be corruption, not pure and simple, but partial, since a being in act would subsist under the transient form. Thus the ancient natural philosophers taught that the substratum of bodies was some actual being, such as air or fire, but supposing that no form exists in corruptible bodies, which remains subsisting beneath generation and corruption, it follows necessarily that the matter of corruptible and incorruptible bodies is not the same. For matter, as it is in itself, is in potentiality to form. Considered in itself then, it is in potentiality in respect to all those forms to which it is common, and in receiving any one form it is in act only as regards that form. Hence it remains in potentiality to all other forms, and this is the case even where some forms are more perfect than others, and contain these others virtually in themselves. For potentiality in itself is indifferent with respect to perfection and imperfection, so that under an imperfect form it is in potentiality to a perfect form, and vice versa. Matter therefore, whilst existing under the form of an incorruptible body, would be in potentiality to the form of a corruptible body, and as it does not actually possess the latter, it has both form and the privation of form, for want of a form in that which is in potentiality, there too is privation. But this condition implies corruptibility. It is therefore impossible that bodies by nature corruptible and those by nature incorruptible should possess the same matter. Neither can we say, as a veroese on the substance of the heavens too imagines, that a heavenly body itself is the matter of the heaven, being in potentiality with regard to place though not to being, and that its form is a separate substance united to it as its motive force. For it is impossible to suppose any being in act unless in its totality it be act and form, or be something which has act or form. Setting aside then in thought the separate substance stated to be endowed with motive power, if the heavenly body is not something having form, that is something composed of a form and the subject of that form, it follows that in its totality it is form and act. But every such thing is something actually understood which the heavenly bodies are not being sensible. It follows then that the matter of the heavenly bodies considered in itself is in potentiality to that form alone which it actually possesses, nor does it concern the point at issue to inquire whether this is a soul or any other being. Hence this form perfects this matter in such a way that there remains in it no potentiality with respect to being, but only to place as Aristotle on the heavens one text 20 says. So then the matter of the heavenly bodies and of the elements is not the same except by analogy in so far as they agree in the character of potentiality. Reply Objection 1. Augustine follows in this the opinion of Plato who does not admit a fifth essence or we may say that formless matter is one with the unity of order as all bodies are one in the order of corporeal creatures. Reply Objection 2. If genus is taken in a physical sense corruptible and incorruptible things are not in the same genus on account of their different modes of potentiality as is said in metaphysics 10 text 26. Logically considered however there is but one genus of all bodies since they are all included in the one notion of corporeality. Reply Objection 3. The form of corporeality is not one in the same in all bodies being no other than the various forms by which bodies are distinguished as stated above. Reply Objection 4. As potentiality is directed towards act potential beings are differentiated by their different acts as sight is different color hearing by sound. Therefore for this reason the matter of the celestial bodies is different from that of the elemental because the matter of the celestial is not in potentiality to an elemental form. Third Article 1. Question 66. Article 3. Whether the imperian heaven was created at the same time as formless matter. Objection 1. It would seem that the imperian heaven was not created at the same time as formless matter for the imperian if it is anything at all must be a sensible body but all sensible bodies are movable and the imperian heaven is not movable for if it were so its movement would be ascertained by the movement of some visible body which is not the case. The imperian heaven then was not created contemporaneously with formless matter. Objection 2. Further Augustine says on the trinity 3.4 that quote the lower bodies are governed by the higher in a certain order end quote. If therefore the imperian heaven is the highest of bodies it must necessarily exercise some influence on bodies below it but this does not seem to be the case especially as it is presumed to be without movement for one body cannot move another unless itself also be moved therefore the imperian heaven was not created together with formless matter. Objection 3. Further if it is held that the imperian heaven is the place of contemplation and not ordained to natural effects on the contrary Augustine says on the trinity 4.20 quote in so far as we mentally apprehend eternal things so far are we not of this world end quote from which it is clear that contemplation lifts the mind above the things of this world. Corporal place therefore cannot be of contemplation. Objection 4. Further among the heavenly bodies exists a body partly transparent and partly luminous which we call the side real heaven. There exists also a heaven holy transparent called by some the aqueous or crystalline heaven. If then there exists a still higher heaven it must be holy luminous this cannot be for then the air would be constantly illuminated and there would be no night therefore the imperian heaven was not created together with formless matter. On the contrary Strabus says that in the passage quote in the beginning God created heaven and earth end quote heaven denotes not the visible firmament but the imperian or fiery heaven. I answer that the imperian heaven rests only on the authority of Strabus and Bede and also of Basil all of whom agree in one respect namely in holding it to be the place of the blessed. Strabus and Bede say that as soon as created it was filled with angels and Basil second homily on the hexameron says quote just as the lost are driven into the lowest darkness so the reward for worthy deeds is laid up in the light beyond this world where the just shall obtain the abode of rest end quote but they differ in the reasons on which they base their statement. Strabus and Bede teach that there is an imperian heaven because the firmament which they take to the side real heaven is said to have been made not in the beginning but on the second day whereas the reason given by Basil is that otherwise God would seem to have made darkness his first word as the Manicheans falsely assert when they call the God of the Old Testament the God of darkness. These reasons however are not very cogent for the question of the firmament said to have been made on the second day is solved in one way by Augustine and in another by other holy writers but the question of the darkness is explained according to Augustine the literal meaning of Genesis 1 and 7 by supposing that formlessness signified by darkness preceded form not by creation but by origin. According to others however since darkness is no creature but a privation of light it is a proof of divine wisdom that the things it created from nothing it produced first of all in an imperfect state and afterwards brought them to perfection but a better reason can be drawn from the state of glory itself for in the Lord to come a twofold glory is looked for spiritual and corporeal not only in the human body to be glorified but in the whole world which is to be made new. Now the spiritual glory began with the beginning of the world in the blessedness of the angels equality with whom is promised to the saints it is fitting then that even from the beginning there should be made some beginning of bodily glory in something corporeal free at the very outset from the servitude of corruption and change and holy luminous even as the whole bodily creation after the resurrection is expected to be. So then that heaven is called the imperian i.e. fiery not from its heat but from its brightness it is to be noticed however that Augustine the city of God ten nine and twenty seven says that porphyry sets the demons apart from the angels by supposing that the former inhabit the air the latter the ether or imperian but porphyry as a Platonist held the heaven known as side real to be fiery and therefore called it imperian or ethereal taking ethereal to denote the burning of flame and not as Aristotle understands it swiftness of movement on the heavens one text twenty-two this much has been said to prevent anyone from supposing that Augustine maintained an imperian heaven in the sense understood by modern writers reply objection one sensible corporeal things are movable in the present state of the world for by the movement of corporeal creatures is secured by the multiplication of the elements but when glory is finally consummated the movement of bodies will cease and such must have been from the beginning the condition of the imperian reply objection two it is sufficiently probable as some assert that the imperian heaven having the state of glory for its ordained end does not influence inferior bodies of another order those namely that are directed only to natural ends yet it seems still more probable that it does influence bodies that are moved though itself motionless just as angels of the highest rank who assist infra question one twelve article three influence those of lower degree who act as messengers though they themselves are not sent as Dionysius teaches on the heavenly hierarchy twelve for this reason it may be said that the influence of the imperian upon that which is called the first heaven and is moved produces therein not something that comes and goes as a result of movement but something of a fixed and stable nature as the power of conservation or causation or something of the kind pertaining to dignity reply objection three corporeal place is assigned to contemplation not as necessary but as Congress that the splendor without may correspond to that which is within hence Basil second homily on the hexamaran says quote the ministry and spirit could not live in darkness but made his habitual dwelling in light and joy and quote reply objection four as Basil says second homily on the hexamaran quote it is certain that the heaven was created spherical in shape of dense body and sufficiently strong to separate what is outside it from what it encloses on this account it darkens the region external to it the light by which itself is lit up being shut out from that region end quote but since the body of the firmament though solid is transparent for that it does not exclude light as is clear from the fact that we can see the stars through the intervening heavens we may also say that the Empyrean has light not condensed so as to emit rays as the Sun does but of a more subtle nature or it may have the brightness of glory which differs from your natural brightness fourth article one question sixty six article four whether time was created simultaneously with formless matter objection one it would seem that time was not created simultaneously with formless matter for Augustine says confessions twelve twelve quote I find two things that thou didst create before time was the primary corporeal matter and the angelic nature end quote therefore time was not created with formless matter objection two further time is divided by day and night but in the beginning there was neither day nor night for these began when God divided the light from the darkness therefore in the beginning time was not objection three further time is the measure of the firmament's movement and the firmament is said to have been made on the second day therefore in the beginning time was not objection four further movement precedes time and therefore should be reckoned among the first things created rather than time objection five further as time is the extrinsic measure of created things so is place place them as truly as time must be reckoned among the things first created on the contrary Augustine says the literal meaning of Genesis one three quote both spiritual and corporeal creatures were created at the beginning of time end quote I answer that it is commonly said that the first things created were these four the angelic nature the imperial heaven formless corporeal matter and time it must be observed however that this is not the opinion of Augustine for he confessions twelve twelve specifies only two things as first created the angelic nature and corporeal matter making no mention of the imperial heaven but these two namely the angelic nature and formless matter precede the formation by nature only and not by duration and therefore as they proceed formation so do they proceed movement and time time therefore cannot be included among them but the enumeration above given is that of other holy writers who hold that the formlessness of matter preceded by duration its form and this view postulates the existence of time as the measure of duration for otherwise there would be no such measure reply objection one the teaching of Augustine rests on the opinion that the angelic nature and formless matter precede time by origin or nature reply objection two as in the opinion of some holy writers matter was in some measure formless before it received its full form so time was in a manner formless before it was fully formed and distinguished into day and night reply objection three if the movement of the firmament did not begin immediately from the beginning then the time that preceded was the measure not of the firmaments movement but of the first movement of whatsoever kind for it is accidental to time to be the measure of the firmaments movement in so far as this is the first movement but if the first movement was another than this time would have been its measure for everything is measured by the first of its kind and it must be granted that forthwith from the beginning there was movement of some kind at least in the secession of concepts and affections in the angelic mind while movement without time cannot be conceived since time is nothing else than the measure of priority and secession in movement reply objection four among the first created things are to be reckoned those which have a general relationship to things and therefore among these time must be included as having the nature of a common measure but not movement which is related only to the movable subject reply objection five place is implied as existing in the imperian heaven this being the boundary of the universe and since place has reference to things permanent it was created at once in its totality but time as not being permanent was created in its beginning even as actually we cannot lay hold of any part of time save the now end of question 66 recording by Tony Russell question 67 of summa teologica pars prima on the angels and on the six days this is a liver vox recording all liver vox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit liver vox dot org recording by Tony Russell summa teologica pars prima on the angels and on the six days by st. Thomas Aquinas translated by the fathers of the English Dominican province question 67 on the work of distinction in itself in four articles we must consider next the work of distinction in itself first the work of the first day secondly the work of the second day thirdly the work of the third day under the first head there are four points of inquiry one whether the word light is used in its proper sense and speaking of spiritual things to whether light in corporal things is itself corporal three whether light is a quality for whether light was fittingly made on the first day first article one question 67 article one whether the word light is used in its proper sense in speaking of spiritual things objection one it would seem that light is used in its proper sense in spiritual things for Augustine says the literal meaning of Genesis 4 28 that quote in spiritual things light is better and sureer and that Christ is not called light in the same sense as he is called the stone the former is to be taken literally and the latter metaphorically end quote objection to further Dionysius divine names for includes light among the intellectual names of God but such names are used in their proper sense and spiritual things therefore light is used in its proper sense in spiritual matters objection three further the apostle says Ephesians 5 13 quote all that is made manifest is light end quote but to be made manifest belongs more properly to spiritual things than to corporal therefore also does light on the contrary Ambrose says on faith to that splendor is among those things which are said of God metaphorically I answer that any word may be used in two ways that is to say either in its original application or in its more extended meaning this is clearly shown in the word sight originally applied to the act of the sense and then as sight is the noblest and most trustworthy of the senses extended in common speech to all knowledge obtained through the other senses thus we say quote seen how it tastes in quote or smells or burns further sight is applied to knowledge obtained through the intellect as in those words quote blessed are the clean of heart for they shall see God end quote Matthew 5 8 and thus it is with the word light in its primary meaning it signifies that which makes manifest to the sense of sight afterwards it was extended to that which makes manifest to cognition of any kind if then the word is taken in its strict and primary meaning it is to be understood metaphorically when applied to spiritual things as Ambrose says on faith to but if taken in its common and extended use as applied to manifestation of every kind it may properly be applied to spiritual things the answer to the objections will sufficiently appear from what has been said second article one question 67 article 2 whether light is a body objection one it would seem that light is a body for Augustine says on free will 3 5 that quote light takes the first place among bodies end quote therefore light is a body objection 2 further the philosopher says the topics 5 2 that quote light is a species of fire end quote but fire is a body and therefore so is light objection 3 further the powers of movement intersection reflection belong properly to bodies and all these are attributes of light in its rays more over different rays of light as Dionysius says divine names to are united and separated which seems impossible unless they are bodies therefore light is a body on the contrary two bodies cannot occupy the same place simultaneously but this is the case with light and air therefore light is not a body I answer that light cannot be a body for three evident reasons first on the part of place for the place of any one body is different from that of any other nor is it possible naturally speaking for any two bodies of whatever nature to exist simultaneously in the same place since contiguity requires distinction of place the second reason is for movement for if light were a body its diffusion would be the local movement of a body now no local movement of a body can be instantaneous as everything that moves from one place to another must pass through the intervening space before reaching the end whereas the diffusion of light is instantaneous nor can it be argued that the time required is too short to be perceived for though this may be the case in short distances it cannot be so in distances so great as that which separates the east from the west yet as soon as the sun is at the horizon the whole hemisphere is illuminated from end to end it must also be born in mind on the part of movement that whereas all bodies have their natural determinant movement that of light is indifferent as regards direction working equally in a circle as in a straight line hence it appears that the diffusion of light is not the local movement of a body the third reason is from generation and corruption for if light were a body it would follow that whenever the air is darkened by the absence of the luminary the body of light would be corrupted and its matter would receive a new form but unless we are to say that darkness is a body this does not appear to be the case neither does it appear from what matter a body can be daily generated large enough to fill the intervening hemisphere also it would be absurd to say that a body of so great a bulk is corrupted by the mere absence of the luminary and should anyone reply that it is not corrupted but approaches and moves around the sun we may ask why it is that when a lighted candle is obscured by the intervening object the whole room is darkened it is not that the light is condensed around the candle when this is done since it burns no more brightly than that it burned before since therefore these things are repugnant not only to reason but to common sense we must conclude that light cannot be a body reply objection one Augustine takes light to be a luminous body in act in other words to be fire the noblest of the four elements reply objection two Aristotle pronounces light to be fire existing in its own proper matter just as fire in aerial matter is flame or in earthly matter is burning coal nor must too much attention be paid to the instances adduced by Aristotle in his works on logic as he merely mentions them as the more or less probable opinions of various writers reply objection three all these properties are assigned to light metaphorically and might in the same way be attributed to heat for because movement from place to place is naturally first in the order of movement as is proved physics eight text 55 we use terms belonging to local movement in speaking of alteration and movement of all kinds for even the word distance is derived from the idea of remoteness of place to that of all contraries as is said metaphysics 10 text 13 third article one question 67 article three whether light is a quality objection one it would seem that light is not a quality for every quality remains in its subject though the active cause of the equality be removed as heat remains in water removed from the fire but light does not remain in the air when the source of light is withdrawn therefore light is not a quality objection to further every sensible quality has its opposite as cold as opposed to heat blackness to whiteness but this is not the case with light since darkness is merely a privation of light light therefore is not a sensible quality objection three further a cause is more potent than its effect but the light of the heavenly bodies is a cause of substantial forms of earthly bodies and also gives to colors there in material being by making them actually visible light then is not a sensible quality but rather a substantial or spiritual form on the contrary damasin on the orthodox faith one says that light is a species of quality I answer that some writers have said that the light in the air has not a natural being such as the color on a wall has but only an intentional being as a similitude of color in the air but this cannot be the case for two reasons first because light gives a name to the air since by it the air becomes actually luminous but color does not do this for we do not speak of the air as colored secondly because light produces natural effects for by the rays of the sun bodies are warmed and natural changes cannot be brought about by mere intentions others have said that light is the sun's substantial form but this also seems impossible for two reasons first because substantial forms are not of themselves objects of the senses for the object of the intellect is what a thing is as is said on the level three text 26 whereas light is visible of itself in the second place because it is impossible that what is the substantial form of one thing should be the accidental form of another since substantial forms of their very nature constitute species where for the substantial form always and everywhere accompanies the species but light is not the substantial form of air for if it were the air would be destroyed when light is withdrawn hence it cannot be the substantial form of the sun we must say then that as heat is an active quality consequent of the substantial form of fire so light is an active quality consequent of the substantial form of the sun or of another body that is of itself luminous if there is any such body a proof of this is that the rays of different stars produce different effects according to the diverse natures of bodies reply objection one since quality is consequent upon substantial form the mode in which the subject receives a quality defers as the mode defers in which a subject receives a substantial form for when matter receives its form perfectly the qualities consequent upon the form are firm and enduring as when for instance water is converted into fire when however substantial form is received imperfectly so as to be as it were in process of being received rather than fully impressed the consequent quality lasts for a time but is not permanent as may be seen when water which has been heated returns in time to its natural state but light is not produced by the transmutation of matter as though matter were in receipt of a substantial form and light were a certain inception of substantial form for this reason light disappears on the disappearance of its active cause reply objection to it is accidental to light not to have a contrary for as much as it is the natural quality of the first corporeal cause of change which is itself removed from contrarity reply objection three as heat acts toward perfecting the form of fire as an instrumental cause by virtue of the substantial form so does light act instrumentally by virtue of the heavenly bodies towards producing substantial forms and towards rendering colors actually visible in as much as it is a quality of the first sensible body fourth article one question 67 article four whether the production of light is fittingly assigned to the first day objection one it would seem that the production of light is not fittingly assigned to the first day for light as stated above article three is a quality but qualities are accidents and as such should have not the first but a subordinate place the production of light then ought not to be assigned to the first day objection to further it is light that distinguishes night from day and this is affected by the sun which is recorded as having been made on the fourth day therefore the production of light could not have been on the first day objection three further night and day are brought about by the circular movement of a luminous body but movement of this kind is an attribute of the firmament and we read that the firmament was made on the second day therefore the production of light dividing night from day ought not to be assigned to the first day objection four further if it be said that spiritual light is here spoken of it may be replied that the light made on the first day dispels the darkness but in the beginning spiritual darkness was not for even the demons were in the beginning good as has been shown question sixty-three article five therefore the production of light ought not to be assigned to the first day on the contrary that without which there could not be day must have been made on the first day but there can be no day without light therefore light must have been made on the first day I answer that there are two opinions as to the production of light Augustine seems to say the city of God eleven nine and thirty three that Moses could not have fittingly passed over the production of the spiritual creature and therefore when we read quote in the beginning God created heaven and earth and quote a spiritual nature as yet formless is to be understood by the word heaven and formless matter of the corporal creature by the word earth and spiritual nature was formed first as being of higher dignity than corporal the forming therefore of this spiritual nature is signified by the production of light that is to say of spiritual light for a spiritual nature receives its form by the enlightenment whereby it is led to adhere to the word of God other writers think that the production of spiritual creatures was purposely emitted by Moses and give various reasons basal first homily on the heximaran says that Moses begins his narrative from the beginning of time which belongs to sensible things but the spiritual or angelic creation is passed over as created beforehand croissant second homily on Genesis gives as a reason for the admission that Moses was addressing an ignorant people to whom material things alone appealed and whom he was endeavoring to withdraw from the service of idols it would have been to them a pretext for idolatry if he had spoken to them of nature's spiritual in substance and nobler than all corporal creatures for they would have paid them divine worship since they were prone to worship as gods even the sun moon and stars which was forbidden them Deuteronomy 4 but mention is made of several kinds of formlessness in regard to the corporal creature one is where we read that quote was void and empty end quote and another where it is said that quote darkness was upon the face of the deep end quote now it seems to be required for two reasons that the formlessness of darkness should be removed first of all by the production of light in the first place because light is a quality of the first body as was stated article 3 and thus by means of light it was fitting that the world should first receive its form the second reason is because light is a common quality for light is common to terrestrial and celestial bodies but as in knowledge we proceed from general principles so do we in work of every kind for the living thing is generated before the animal and the animal before the man as is shown in two three it was fitting then as an evidence of the divine wisdom that among the works of distinction the production of light should take first place since light is a form of the primary body and because it is more common quality basal second homily on the heximaran indeed adds a third reason that all other things are made manifest by light and there's yet a fourth already touched upon in the objections that day cannot be unless light exists which was made therefore on the first day reply objection one according to the opinion of those who hold that the formlessness of matter preceded its form and duration matter must be held to have been created at the beginning with substantial forms afterwards receiving those accidental among which light holds the first place reply objection two in the opinion of some the light here spoken of was a kind of luminous nebula and that on the making of the sun this returned to the matter of which it had been formed but this cannot well be maintained as in the beginning of Genesis holy scripture records the institution of that order of nature which henceforth is to endure we cannot then say that what was made at that time afterwards ceased to exist others therefore held that this luminous nebula continues in existence but so closely attached to the sun as to be indistinguishable but this is as much to say that it is superfluous whereas none of God's works have been made in vain on this account it is held by some that the sun's body was made out of this nebula this too is impossible to those at least who believe that the sun is different in its nature from the four elements and naturally incorruptible for in that case its matter cannot take on another form I answer then with Dionysius divine names for that the light was the sun's light formless as yet being already the solar substance and possessing a luminative power in a general way to which was afterwards added the special and determinative power required to produce determinant effects thus then in the production of this light a triple distinction was made between light and darkness first as to the cause for as much as in the substance of the sun we have the cause of light and in the opaque nature of the earth the cause of darkness secondly as to place for in one hemisphere there was light in another darkness thirdly as to time because there was light for one and darkness for another in the same hemisphere and this is signified by the words quote he called the light day and the darkness night end quote reply objection three basil says second homily on the heximaran that day and night were then caused by expansion and contraction of light rather than by movement but Augustine objects to this the literal meaning of genesis to that there was no reason for this vicissitude of expansion and contraction since there were neither men nor animals on earth at that time for whose service this was required nor does the nature of a luminous body seem to admit of the withdrawal of light so long as the body is actually present though this might be affected by a miracle as to this however Augustine remarks the literal meaning of genesis one that in the first founding of the order of nature we must not look for miracles but for what nature we hold then that the movement of the heavens is two fold of these movements one is common to the entire heaven and is the cause of day and night this as it seems had its beginning on the first day the other varies in proportion as it affects various bodies and by its variations is the cause of the succession of days months and years thus it is that in the account of the first day the distinction between day and night alone is mentioned this distinction being brought about by the common movement of the heavens the further distinction into successive days seasons and years recorded as begun on the fourth day in the words quote let them be for seasons and for days and years end quote is due proper movements reply objection for as augustine teaches confessions twelve the literal meaning of genesis one fifteen formlessness did not precede forms in duration and so we must understand the production of light to signify the formation of spiritual creatures not indeed with the perfection of glory in which they were not created but the perfection of grace which they possessed from their creation as said above question sixty two article three thus the division of light from darkness will denote the distinction of the spiritual creature from other created things as yet without form but if all created things receive their form at the same time the darkness must be held to mean the spiritual darkness of the naked not as existing from the beginning but such as God foresaw would exist end of question sixty seven recording by Tony Russell question sixty eight of summa teologica pars prima on the angels and on the six days this is a Libervox recording all Libervox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer to visit www.summa.org recording by Tony Russell summa teologica pars prima on the angels and on the six days by St Thomas Aquinas translated by the fathers of the English Dominican province question sixty eight on the work of the second day in four articles we must next consider the work of the second day under this head are four points of inquiry one whether the firmament was made on the second day two whether there are waters above the firmament three whether the firmament divides waters from waters four whether there is more than one heaven first article one question sixty eight article one whether the firmament was made on the second day objection one it would seem that the firmament was not made on the second day for it is said genesis one eight quote god called the firmament heaven end quote but the heaven existed before days as is clear from the words quote in the beginning god created heaven and earth end quote therefore the firmament was not made on the second day objection two further the work of the six days is will become the divine wisdom to make afterwards that which is naturally first but though the firmament naturally precedes the earth and the waters these are mentioned before the formation of light which was on the first day therefore the firmament was not made on the second day objection three further all that was made in the six days was formed out of matter created before days began but the firmament had been formed out of pre existing matter for if so it would be liable to generation and corruption therefore the firmament was not made on the second day on the contrary it is written genesis one six quote god said let there be a firmament end quote and further on verse eight quote and the evening and morning were the second day end quote I answer that in discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed as Augustine teaches the literal meaning of genesis one eighteen the first is to hold the truth of scripture without wavering the second is that since holy scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as it should be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false lest holy scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers and obstacles be placed to their believing we say therefore that the words which speak of the firmament as made on the second day can be understood in two senses they may be understood first of the starry firmament on which point it is necessary to understand the different opinions of philosophers some of these believed it to be composed of the elements and this was the opinion of impedicles who however held further that the body of the firmament was not susceptible of dissolution because its parts are so to say not in disunion but in harmony others held the firmament to be of the nature of the four elements it were a simple element such was the opinion of Plato who held that element to be fire others again have held that the heaven is not of the nature of the four elements but is itself a fifth body existing over and above these this is the opinion of Aristotle on the heavens one text 6 and 32 according to the first opinion it may strictly speaking granted that the firmament was made even as to substance on the second day for it is part of the work of creation to produce the substance of the elements while it belongs to the work of distinction and adornment to give forms to the elements that pre-exist but the belief that the firmament was made as to its substance on the second day is incompatible with the opinion of Plato according to whom the making of the firmament implies the production of the element of fire this production however belongs to the work of creation at least according to those who hold that formlessness of matter preceded in time its formation since the first form received by matter is the elemental still less compatible with the belief that the substance of the firmament was produced on the second day is the opinion of Aristotle seeing that the mention of days denotes secession of time whereas the firmament being naturally incorruptible is of a matter not susceptible of change of form where for it could not be made out of matter existing antecedently in time hence to produce the substance of the firmament belongs to the work of creation but its formation in some degree belongs to the second day according to both opinions for as Dionysius says divine names for the light of the sun was without form during the first three days and afterwards on the fourth day received its form if however we take these days to denote merely sequence in the natural order as Augustine holds the literal meaning of genesis for 22 and 24 and not secession in time there is then nothing to prevent our saying whilst holding any one of the opinions given above that the substantial formation of the firmament belongs to the second day another possible explanation is to understand by the firmament that was made on the second day not that in which the stars are set but the part of the atmosphere where the clouds are collected and which has received the name firmament from the firmness and density of the air quote for a body is called form end quote dense and solid quote thereby deferring from a mathematical body end quote as is remarked by basal third homily on the hexahemerin if then this explanation is adopted none of these opinions will be found repugnant to reason Augustine in fact the literal meaning of genesis to four recommends it thus quote I consider this view of the question worthy of all commendation as neither contrary to faith nor difficult to be proved and believed end quote reply objection one according to chrissostom third homily on genesis Moses prefaces his record by speaking of the works of God collectively in the words quote in the beginning God created heaven and earth end quote and then proceeds to explain them by part in somewhat the same way as one might say quote this house was constructed by that builder end quote and then add quote first he laid the foundations then built the walls and thirdly put on the roof end quote in accepting this explanation we are therefore not bound to hold that a different heaven is spoken of in the words quote in the beginning God created heaven and earth end quote and when we read that the firmament was made on the second day we may also say that the heaven recorded as created in the beginning is not the same as that made on the second day and there are several senses in which this may be understood Augustine says the literal meaning of genesis one nine that the heaven recorded as made on the first day is the formless spiritual nature and that the heaven of the second day is the corporeal heaven according to bead hexayamaran one and strabis the heaven made on the first day is the imperian and the firmament made on the second day the starry heaven according to damascene on the orthodox faith two that of the first day was spherical in form and without stars the same in fact the philosophers speak of calling it the ninth sphere and the primary movable body that moves with diurnal movement while by the firmament made on the second day he understands the starry heaven according to another theory touched upon by Augustine the literal meaning of genesis two one the heaven made on the first day was the starry heaven and the firmament made on the second day was that region of the air where the clouds are collected which is also called heaven but equivocally and to show that the word is here used in an equivocal sense it is expressly said that quote God called the firmament heaven end quote just as in a preceding verse it said that quote God called the light day end quote since the word day is also used to denote a space of 24 hours other instances of a similar use occur as pointed out by Rabbi Moses the second and third objections are sufficiently answered by what has already been said second article one question 68 article 2 whether there are waters above the firmament objection 1 it would seem that there are not waters above the firmament heavy by nature and heavy things tend naturally downwards not upwards therefore there are not waters above the firmament objection 2 further water is fluid by nature and fluids cannot rest on a sphere as experience shows therefore since the firmament is a sphere there cannot be water above it objection 3 further water is an element and appointed to the generation of composite bodies according to the relation in which imperfect things stand towards perfect but bodies of composite nature have their place upon the earth and not above the firmament so that water would be useless there but none of God's works are useless therefore there are not waters above the firmament on the contrary it is written Genesis 1 7 quote God divided the waters that were under the firmament from those that were above the firmament end quote I answer with Augustine the literal meaning of Genesis 2 5 that quote these words of scripture have more authority than the most exalted human intellect hence whatever these waters are and whatever their mode of existence we cannot for a moment doubt that they are there end quote to the nature of these waters all are not agreed origin says first homily on Genesis that the waters that are above the firmament are quote spiritual substances end quote where for it is written Psalms 148 4 quote let the waters that are above the heavens praise the name of the lord end quote and Daniel 3 60 quote ye waters that are above the heavens blessed the lord end quote to this basil answers third homily on the hexa emeron that these words do not mean that these waters are rational creatures but that quote the thoughtful contemplation of them by those who understand fulfills the glory of the creator end quote hence in the same context fire hail and other like creatures are invoked in the same way though no one would attribute reason to these we must hold then these waters to be material but their exact nature will be differently defined according as opinions on the firmament defer for if by the firmament we understand the starry heaven and as being of the nature of the four elements for the same reason it may be believed that the waters above the heaven are of the same nature as the elemental waters but if by the firmament we understand the starry heaven not however as being of the nature of the four elements then the waters above the firmament will not be of the same nature as the elemental waters but just as according to Stravis one heaven is called imperian that is fiery solely on account of its splendor so this other heaven will be called aqueous solely on account of its transparent and this heaven is above the starry heaven again if the firmament is held to be of other nature than the elements it may still be said to divide the waters if we understand by water not the element but formless matter Augustine in fact says about on genesis against the manachese one five and seven that whatever divides bodies from bodies can be said to divide waters from waters if however we understand by the firmament that part of the air in which the clouds are collected then the waters above the firmament must rather be the vapors resolved from the waters which are raised above a part of the atmosphere and from which the rain falls but to say as some writers alluded to by Augustine the literal meaning of genesis two four that waters resolved into vapor may be lifted above the starry heaven is a mere absurdity the solid nature of the firmament the intervening region of fire wherein all vapor must be consumed the tendency in light and rarefied bodies to drift to one spot beneath the vault of the moon as well as the fact that vapors are perceived not to rise even to the tops of the higher mountains all to go to show the impossibility of this nor is it less absurd to say in support of this opinion that bodies may be rarefied infinitely since natural bodies cannot be infinitely rarefied or divided but up to a certain point only reply objection one some have attempted to solve this difficulty by supposing that in spite of the natural gravity of water it is kept in its place above the firmament by the divine power Augustine the literal meaning of genesis two one however will not admit this solution but says quote it is our business here to inquire how God has constituted the natures of his creatures not how far it may have pleased him to work on them by way of miracle end quote we leave this view them and answer that according to the last two opinions on the firmament and the waters the solution appears from what has been said according to the first opinion an order of the elements must be supposed different from that given by Aristotle that is to say that the waters surrounding the earth are of a dense consistency and those around the firmament of a rarer consistency in proportion to the respective density of the earth and of the heaven or by the water as stated we may understand the matter of bodies to be signified reply objection to the solution is clear from what has been said according to the last two opinions but according to the first opinion Basil gives two replies third homily on the hexa amaran he answers first that a body seen as con cave beneath need not necessarily be rounded or convex above secondly that the waters above the firmament are not fluid but exist outside it in a solid state as a massive ice and that this is the crystalline heaven of some writers reply objection three according to the third opinion given the waters above the firmament have been raised in the form of vapers and served to give rain to the earth but according to the second opinion they are above the heaven that is wholly transparent and starless this according to some is the primary mobile the cause of the daily revolution of the entire heaven whereby the continuance of generation is secured in the same way the starry heaven by the firmament is the cause whereby different bodies are generated or corrupted through the rising and setting of the stars and their various influences but according to the first opinion these waters are set there to temper the heat of the celestial bodies as Basil supposes third homily on the hexa amaran and Augustine says the literal meaning of Genesis two five that some have considered this to be proved by the extreme cold of Saturn owing to its nearness to the waters that are above the firmament third article one question sixty eight article three whether the firmament divides waters from waters objection one it would seem that the firmament does not divide waters from waters for bodies that are of one and the same species have naturally one and the same place but the philosopher says topics one six quote all water is the same species end quote water therefore cannot be distinct from water by place objection to further should it be said that the waters above the firmament defer in species from those under the firmament it may be argued on the contrary that things distinct in species need nothing else to distinguish them if then these waters defer in species it is not the firmament that distinguishes them objection three further it would appear that what distinguishes waters from waters must be something which is in contact with them on either side as a wall standing in the midst of a river but it is evident that the waters below do not reach up to the firmament therefore the firmament does not divide the waters from the waters on the contrary it is written Genesis one six quote let there be a firmament made amidst the waters and let it divide the waters from the waters end quote I answer that the text of Genesis considered superficially might lead to the adoption of a theory similar to that held by certain philosophers of antiquity who taught that water was a body infinite in dimension and the primary element of all bodies thus in the words quote darkness was upon the face of the deep end quote the word deep might be taken to mean the infinite mass of water understood as the principle of all other bodies these philosophers also taught that not all corporeal things are confined beneath the heaven perceived by our senses but that a body of water infinite in extent exists above that heaven on this view the firmament of heaven might be said to divide the waters without from those within that is to say from all bodies under the heaven since they took water to be the principle of them all as however this theory can be shown to be false by solid reasons it cannot be held to be the sense of holy scripture it should rather be considered that Moses was speaking to ignorant people and that out of condescension to their weakness he put before them only such things as our apparent to sense now even the most uneducated can perceive by their senses that earth and water are corporeal whereas it is not evident to all that air also is corporeal for there have been philosophers who said that air is nothing and called a space filled with air a vacuum Moses then while he expressly mentions water and earth makes no express mention of air by name to avoid setting before ignorant persons something beyond their knowledge in order however to express truth to those capable of understanding it he implies in the words quote darkness was upon the face of the deep end quote the existence of air as attendant so to say upon the water for it may be understood from these words that over the face of the water a transparent body was extended the subject of light and darkness which in fact is the air whether then we understand by the firmament the starry heaven or the cloudy region of the air it is true to say that it divides the waters from the waters according as we take water to denote formless matter or any kind of transparent body as fittingly designated under the name of waters for the starry heaven divides the lower transparent bodies from the higher and the cloudy region divides that higher part of the air where the rain and similar things are generated from the lower part which is connected with the water and included under that name reply objection one if by the firmament is understood the starry heaven the waters above are not of the same species as those beneath but if by the firmament is understood the cloudy region of the air both these waters are of the same species and two places are assigned to them though not for the same purpose the higher being the place of their begetting the lower the place of their repose reply objection two if the waters are held to defer in species the firmament cannot be said to divide the waters as the cause of their destruction but only as the boundary of each reply objection three on account of the air and other similar bodies being invisible moses includes all such bodies under the name of water and thus it is evident that waters are found on each side of the firmament whatever be the sense in which the word is used fourth article one question 68 article four whether there is only one heaven objection one it would seem that there is only one heaven for the heaven is contrasted with the earth in the words quote in the beginning god created heaven and earth end quote but there is only one earth therefore there is only one heaven objection two further that which consists of the entire sum of its own matter must be one and such as the heaven as the philosopher proves on the heavens one text 95 therefore there is but one heaven objection three further whatever is predicated of many things univocally is predicated of them according to some common notion but if there are more heavens than one they are so called univocally for if equivocally only they could not properly be called many if then they are many there must be some common notion by reason of which each is called heaven but this common notion cannot be assigned therefore there cannot be more than one heaven on the contrary it is said Psalms 148 for quote praise him ye heavens of heavens end quote I answer that on this point there seems to be a diversity of opinion of Basil and Chrysostom the latter says that there is only one heaven fourth homily on Genesis and that the words heavens of heavens are merely the translation of the Hebrew idiom according to which the word is always used in the plural just as in Latin there are many nouns that are wanting in the singular on the other hand Basil third homily Hexameron whom Damocene follows on the Orthodox faith too says that there are many heavens the difference however is more nominal than real for Chrysostom means by the one heaven the whole body that is above the earth and the water for which reason the birds that fly in the air are called birds of heaven Psalms 8 9 but since in this body there are many distinct parts Basil said that there are more heavens than one in order then to understand the distinction of heavens it must be born in mind that scripture speaks of heaven in a three fold sense sometimes it uses the word in its proper and natural meaning when it denotes that body on high which is luminous actually or potentially and incorruptible in this body there are three heavens the first is the imperian which is holy luminous the second is the aqueous or crystalline holy transparent and the third is called the starry heaven in part transparent and in part actually luminous and divided into eight spheres one of these is the sphere of the fixed stars the other seven which may be called the seven heavens are the spheres of the planets in the second place the name heaven is applied to a body that participates in any property of the heavenly body as sublimity and luminosity actual or potential thus damascene on the orthodox faith too holds as one heaven all the space between the waters and the moons orb calling the aerial according to him then there are three heavens the aerial the starry and one higher than both these of which the apostle is understood to speak when he says of himself that he was quote wrapped to the third heaven and quote but since this space contains two elements namely fire and air and in each of these there is what is called a higher and a lower the higher region ravenous sub divides this space into four distinct heavens the higher region of fire he calls the fiery heaven the lower the olympian heaven from a lofty mountain of that name the higher region of air he calls from its brightness the ethereal heaven the lower the aerial when therefore these four heavens are added to the three enumerated above the corporeal heavens in all in the opinion of ravenous thirdly there are metaphorical uses of the word heaven as when this name is applied to the blessed trinity who is the light and the most high spirit it is explained by some as thus applied in the words quote I will ascend into heaven end quote whereby the evil spirit is represented as seeking to make himself equal with god sometimes also spiritual blessings the recompense of the saints from being the highest of all good gifts are signified by the word heaven and in fact are so signified according to augustine on the lord's sermon on the mount in the words quote your reward is very great in heaven end quote matthew 5 12 again three kinds of supernatural visions bodily imaginative and intellectual are called sometimes so many heavens in reference to which augustine the literal meaning of genesis 12 expounds paul's rapture quote to the third heaven end quote reply objection one the earth stands in relation to the heaven as the center of a circle to its circumference but as one center may have many circumferences so though there is but one earth there may be many heavens reply objection two the argument holds good as to the heaven in so far as it denotes the entire sum of corporeal creation for in that sense it is one reply objection three all the heavens have in common sublimity and some degree of monocity as appears from what has been said end of question 68 recording by tony russell question 69 of sumat theologica paul's prima on the angels and on the six days this is a LibriVox recording all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain for more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org recording by Phil Chenevere sumat theologica paul's prima on the angels and on the six days by saint Thomas Aquinas translated by the fathers of the English Dominican province question 69 on the work of the third day in two articles we next consider the work of the third day under this head there are two points of inquiry one about the gathering together of the waters two about the production of plants first article whether it was fitting that the gathering together of the waters should take place as recorded on the third day objection one it would seem that it was not fitting that the gathering together of the waters should take place on the third day for what was made on the first and second days is expressly said to have been made in the words quote God said be light made and let there be affirmament made quote but the third day is contra distinguished from the first and the second days therefore the work of the third day should have been described as a making not as a gathering together objection two further the earth hitherto had been completely covered by the waters where for it was described as quote invisible close quote see question 66 article one objection one there was then no place on earth to which the waters could be gathered together objection three further things which are not in continuous contact cannot occupy one place but not all the waters are in continuous contact and therefore all were not gathered together into one place objection four further a gathering together is a mode of local movement but the waters flow naturally their course towards the sea in their case therefore a divine precept of this kind was unnecessary objection five further the earth is given its name at its first creation by the words quote in the beginning God created heaven and earth close quote therefore the imposition of its name on the third day seems to be recorded without necessity on the contrary the authority of scripture suffices I answer that it is necessary to apply differently to this question according to the different interpretations given by Augustine and other holy writers in all these works according to Augustine the literal meaning of Genesis one fifteen four twenty two thirty four concerning Genesis against the manatees one five and seven there was no order of duration but only of formation in nature he says that the formless spiritual and formless corporeal natures were created first of all and that the latter are at first indicated by the words earth and water not that this formlessness preceded formation in time but only in origin nor yet that one formation preceded another in duration but merely in the order of nature agreeably then to this order the highest or spiritual nature is recorded in the first place where it is said that light was made on the first day for as the spiritual nature is higher than the corporeal so the higher bodies are nobler than the lower hence the formation of the higher bodies is indicated in the second place by the words quote let there be made a firmament close quote by which is to be understood the impression of corporeal forms on formless matter that preceded with priority not of time but of origin only but in the third place the impression of elemental forms on formless matter is recorded also with a priority of origin only therefore the words quote let the waters be gathered together and the dry land appear close quote means that corporeal matter was impressed with the substantial form of water so as to have such movement and with the substantial form of earth so as to have such an appearance according however to other holy writers c. 66 article 1 an order of duration in the works is to be understood by which is meant that the formlessness of matter precedes its formation and one form another in order of time nevertheless they do not hold formlessness of matter implies the total absence of form since heaven earth and water already existed since these three are named as already clearly perceptible to the senses rather they understand by formlessness the want of due distinction of perfect beauty and in respect to these three scripture mentions three kinds of formlessness heaven the highest of them was the form so long as darkness filled it because it was the source of light the formlessness of water which holds the middle place is called the deep because as Augustine says against Faustus a Maniche chapter 22 11 this word signifies the mass of waters without order thirdly the formless state of the earth is touched upon when the earth is said to void or invisible because it was covered by the waters thus then the formation of the highest body took place on the first day and since time results from the movement of the heaven and is the numerical measure of the movement of the highest body from this formation resulted the distinction of time namely that of night and day on the second day the intermediate body water was formed receiving from the firmament a sort of distinction and order so that water be understood as including certain other things as explained above question 68 article 3 on the third day the earth the lowest body received its form by the withdrawal of the waters and there resulted the distinction in the lowest body namely of land and sea hence scripture having clearly expressed the formless state of the earth by saying that it was invisible or void expresses the manner in which it received its form by the equally suitable words quote let the dry land appear close quote reply to objection one according to Augustine the literal meaning of Genesis 2 7 8 3 20 scripture does not say of the work of the third day that it was made as it says of those that seed in order to show that higher and spiritual forms such as the angels and the heavenly bodies are perfect and stable in being whereas inferior forms are imperfect and mutable hence the impression of such forms is signified by the gathering of the waters and the appearing of the land for water to use Augustine's words quote glides and flows away the earth abides close quote Genesis odd lit 2 11 others again hold that the work of the third day was perfected on that day only as regards movement from place to place and that for this reason scripture has no reason to speak of it as made reply to objection two this argument is easily solved according to Augustine's opinion concerning Genesis against the manatees one because we need not suppose first covered by the waters and that these were afterwards gathered together but that they were produced in this very gathering together but according to the other writers there are three solutions which Augustine gives the literal meaning of Genesis 112 the first supposes that the waters are heaped up to a greater height at the place where they were gathered together for it has been proved in regard to the sea that the sea is higher than the land as Basil remarks forth humbly on the Hexamaran the second explains the water that covered the earth as being rarefied or nebulous which was afterwards condensed when the waters were gathered together the third suggests the existence of hollows in the earth to receive the confluence of waters of the above the first seems the most probable lie to objection three all the waters have the sea as their goal into which they flow by channels hidden or apparent and this may be the reason why they are said to be gathered together into one place or quote one place close quote is to be understood not simply but as contrasted with the place of the dry land so that the sense would be quote let the waters be gathered together in one place close quote that the waters occupied more places than one seems to be implied by the words that follow quote the gathering together of the waters he called seas close quote reply to objection four the divine command gives bodies their natural movement and by these natural movements they are said to quote fulfill his word close quote or we may say that it was according to the nature of water completely to cover the earth just as the air completely surrounds both water and earth but as a necessary means towards an end namely that plants and animals might be on the earth it was necessary for the waters to be withdrawn from a portion of the earth some philosophers attribute this uncovering of the earth's surface to the action of the sun lifting up the vapors and thus drying the land scripture however attributes it to the divine power not only in the book of genesis but also the book of Job chapter thirty-eight verse ten where in the person of the lord it is said quote I set my bounds around the sea close quote and Jeremiah chapter five verse twenty-two where it is written quote will you not then fear me says the lord who have set the sand a bound for the sea close quote reply to objection five according to Augustine concerning genesis against the manatees one primary matter is met by the word earth where first mentioned but in the present passage it is to be taken for the element itself again it may be said with Basil fourth homily on the Xamarin that the earth is mentioned in the first passage in respect of its nature but here in respect of its principal property namely dryness where for it is quote he called the dry land earth close quote it may also be said with Rabbi Moses that the expression quote he called close quote denotes throughout and the equivocal use of the name imposed thus we find it said at first that quote he called the light day close quote for the reason that later on a period of twenty-four hours is also called day where it is said that quote there was evening and morning one day close quote in like manner it is said that quote the firmament close quote that is the air quote he called heaven close quote for that which was first created was also called quote heaven close quote and here again it is said that quote the dry land close quote that is the part from which the waters had withdrawn quote he called earth close quote as distinct from the sea although the name earth is equally applied to that which is covered with waters or not so by the expression quote he called close quote we are to understand throughout that the nature or property he bestowed corresponded to the name he gave second article whether it was fitting that the production of plants should take place on the third day objection one it would seem that it was not fitting that the production of plants should take place on the third day for plants have life as animals have but the production of animals belongs to the work not of distinction but of adornment therefore the production of plants as also belonging to the work of adornment are not to be recorded as taking place on the third day which is devoted to the work of distinction objection two further a work by which the earth is accursed should have been recorded apart from the work on which it receives its farm but the words of Genesis chapter 3 verse 17 quote cursed is the earth in thy work thorns and thistles shall bring forth to thee close quote show that by the production of certain plants the earth accursed therefore the production of plants in general should not have been recorded on the third day which is concerned with the work of formation objection three further as plants are firmly fixed to the earth so are stones and metals which are nevertheless not mentioned in the work of formation plants therefore ought not to have been made on the third day on the contrary it is said Genesis chapter 1 verse 12 quote the earth brought forth the green herb close quote after which there follows quote the evening and the morning with a third day close quote I answer that on the third day as said in article 1 the formless state of the earth comes to an end but this state is described as twofold on the one hand the earth was quote invisible close quote or quote void close quote being covered by the waters on the other hand it was quote shapeless close quote or quote empty close quote that is without that comeliness which it owes to the plants that clothe it as it were with a garment thus therefore in either respect this formless state ends on the third day first when quote the waters were gathered together into one place and the dry land entered close quote secondly when quote the earth brought forth the green herb close quote but concerning the production of plants Augustine's opinion differs from that of others for other commentators in accordance with the surface meaning of the text consider that the plants were produced and act in their various species on this third day whereas Augustine the literal meaning of Genesis five and eight three says that the earth is said to have then produced plants and trees in their causes that is it received then the power to produce them he supports this view by the authority of scripture for it is said Genesis chapter two verses four and five quote these are the generations of the heaven and the earth when they were created in the day that God made the heaven and the earth and every plant of earth before it sprung up in the earth and every herb of the ground before it grew close quote therefore the production of plants in their causes within the earth took place before they sprang up from the earth's surface and this is confirmed by reason as follows in these first days God created all things in their origin or causes and from this work he subsequently rested yet afterwards by governing his creatures in the work of propagation quote he worketh until now close quote now the production of plants from the earth is a work of propagation and therefore they were not produced in act on the third day but in their causes only however in accordance with other writers it may be said that the first constitution of species belongs to the work of the six days but the production among them of like from like to the government of the universe and scripture indicates that in the words quote before it sprung up in the earth close quote and quote before it grew close quote that is before like was produced from like just as now happens in the natural course by the production of seed wherefore scripture says pointedly genesis chapter one verse 11 quote let the earth forth the green herb and such as may seed close quote as indicating the production of perfect species from which the seed of others should arise nor does the question where the seminal power may reside whether in root, stem, or fruit affect the argument reply to objection one life in plants is hidden since they lack the sense and local movement by which the animate and the inanimate are chiefly discernible and therefore since they are firmly fixed in the earth their production is treated as a part of the earth's formation reply to objection to even before the earth was accursed thorns and thistles had been produced either virtually or actually but they were not produced in punishment of man as though the earth which he tilled to gain his food produced unfruitful or noxious plants hence it is said quote shall it bring forth to the close quote reply to objection three Moses put before the people such things only as were manifest to their senses as we have said in question 67 article 4 question 68 article 3 but minerals are generated in hidden ways within the bowels of the earth moreover they seem hardly specifically distinct from earth and would seem to be species throughout for this reason therefore he makes no mention of them end of question 69