Article 2 — Whether the formation of matter occurred all at once or by degrees

The second point of inquiry is whether the formation of matter occurred all at once or by degrees. (Parallel texts: ST I.66.1; I.69.1; I.74.2; In II Sent. 12.4.)

Obj. 1: And it seems that it was formed by degrees. For it is written: you have done the things of old and have devised one thing after another (Jdt 9:5). Now, with God to devise is to act, according to Damascene; hence the text quoted continues: and what you have designed has been done. (John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith 2.3 (PG 94:866–74).) Therefore, things were made in a certain order and not all at once.

Obj. 2: Several parts of time cannot be together at once, because the whole of time comes about under a certain succession. Now, according to Genesis 1, things were formed at diverse parts of time. Therefore, seemingly things were formed by degrees, and not all at once.

Obj. 3: It will be said, perhaps, that according to the opinion of Augustine, those six days are not the days or divisions of time to which we are accustomed, but a six-fold manifestation of things to the angelic mind corresponding to the six genera of things. (Augustine, City of God 2.7, 2.9 (PL 41:52–55).)

On the contrary, day is caused by the presence of light, whereupon it is written that God called the light “day” (Gen 1:5). And light, properly speaking, is not found in spiritual creatures, but only in a metaphorical sense. Therefore, neither can the angels’ knowledge be called “day,” properly speaking. Consequently, it would seem not to be a literal exposition of the text to take “day” as signifying the angelic knowledge. The middle premise is proved thus: nothing that is sensible through itself is properly applicable to spiritual things, for things that are common to the sensible and the spiritual are not sensible except accidentally, for instance, substance, power, virtue, and the like. Now, light through itself is sensible to sight. Hence, it cannot be applied properly speaking to spiritual things.

Obj. 4: An angel has two ways of knowing things, in the Word and in their own proper natures; consequently, “day” must refer to the one or the other. It cannot signify his knowledge whereby he knows a thing within the Word, since this knowledge is only one for all those things; for whatsoever things an angel knows in the Word, he knows simultaneously and by one knowledge, because he sees the Word. Thus, there would be but one day. On the other hand, if it refers to his knowledge of things in their own proper natures, it would follow that there were many more than six days, since there are many genera and species of creatures. Hence, it would seem that the six days cannot refer to the angelic knowledge.

Obj. 5: It is written: six days shall you labor, but on the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God; you shall do no work on it (Exod 20:9–10), and afterwards, the reason is given: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth and the sea and all things that are in them, and he rested on the seventh day (Exod 20:11). Now, in permitting work on six days and forbidding it on the seventh, the Law speaks literally of material days. Therefore, the days ascribed to God’s works are to be taken in the material sense.

Obj. 6: If “day” signifies the angels’ knowledge, it follows that to make a thing in a day is nothing else but to produce it in the angelic knowledge. But it does not follow that if a thing is produced in the angelic knowledge, it therefore exists in its own nature, but only that it is known by the angels. Consequently, the creation of things in their respective natures would not be manifested by this, which is contrary to Scripture.

Obj. 7: The knowledge of any single angel differs from that of any other. If, then, “day” signifies an angel’s knowledge, there should be as many days as there are angels, and not only six, as Scripture tells us.

Obj. 8: Augustine says, in The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 2, by the words God said: let it be made, we are to understand that the thing to be made pre-existed in the Word; that by the words it was so, we understand that knowledge of the thing was produced in the intellectual creature; and by the words God made, we understand that the creature came to be in its own genus. (Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 2.7–8 (PL 34:268–70).) If, then, day signifies the angels’ knowledge, then having said of this or that work, and it was so, in reference to the angelic knowledge, it was superfluous to add the evening and morning were the first or the second day.

Obj. 9: But it will be said that these words are added to indicate the spiritual creature’s twofold manner of knowing things. One is his knowledge of things in the Word, and this is called morning, or “morning knowledge”; the other is his knowledge of things in their respective natures, and this is called evening, or “evening knowledge.”

On the contrary, though an angel can at the same time consider several things in the Word, he cannot at the same time consider several things in his own nature, since he understands different things in their respective natures by means of different species. If, then, each of the six days has both morning and evening, there must have been some succession in the six days, and consequently, the formation of things did not take place all at once.

Obj. 10: Several actions cannot proceed from one power at the same time, any more than one straight line can terminate at one end in more than one point; for a power is determined in an action. Now, the consideration of a thing in the Word and in its proper nature is not one but several actions. Therefore, morning and evening knowledge are not simultaneous, and thus again it follows that there was succession in those six days.

Obj. 11: As stated in the previous article, Augustine explains the division of light from darkness as that of the formed creature from the formlessness of matter that had yet to be formed. Therefore, the one was formed on the side of the matter, the other still remained to be formed; and consequently, matter was not formed all at once. (Q. 4, a. 1, ad 5.)

Obj. 12: According to Augustine, the angels’ morning knowledge signifies their knowledge of the Word in whom they knew the creatures yet to be made. But this would not be the case if the creatures whose formation is assigned to the following days were formed at the same time as the angels. Therefore, not all things were created at the same time.

Obj. 13: In spiritual matters, “day” is spoken of through a likeness with sensible days. Now, in sensible days morning precedes evening. Therefore, in these days, evening should not have been mentioned before the morning: evening and morning were the first day.

Obj. 14: Between evening and morning is night, and between morning and evening is midday. Hence, as Scripture mentions evening and morning, it should have mentioned midday also.

Obj. 15: Every sensible day has both evening and morning. But this is not the case with these seven days, for the first has no morning, and the seventh has no evening. Therefore, it is unreasonable to speak of these days according to a likeness with ours.

Obj. 16: It might be said that the first day has no morning because “morning” signified that knowledge of the creature yet to be made, which the angel received in the Word; but before being made, the spiritual creature itself could not receive in the Word any knowledge of its own future coming to be.

On the contrary, from this it follows that the angel at one time existed, whereas other creatures were not yet made but were still to be made. Therefore, not all things were made at the same time.

Obj. 17: The spiritual creature does not acquire knowledge of lower realities from those realities themselves; and thus, he does not need their presence in order to know them. Consequently, before those things were made, he could know them as things to be made in their respective natures and not only in the Word; thus, knowledge of a thing to be made would seem to belong to the evening as well as the morning knowledge; and thus, according to the foregoing exposition, the second day should have had neither morning nor evening.

Obj. 18: Those things that are first simply speaking are better known to an angel, since the fact that things that are posterior are better known to us is due to our acquiring knowledge from sensation. Now, the accounts of things in the Word are simply speaking prior to the things themselves. Therefore, the angels’ knowledge of things in the Word precedes his knowledge of things in their respective natures, and consequently, the morning should have been ordered before the evening, which is contrary to the text of Scripture.

Obj. 19: Things that are not of one account cannot constitute something one. Now, knowledge of things in the Word and in their proper natures belong to different accounts, since their medium of knowing is entirely different. Consequently, according to the foregoing exposition, morning and evening could not complete one day.

Obj. 20: The Apostle says that knowledge will be destroyed in the heavenly fatherland (1 Cor 13:8), and this only refers to the knowledge of things in their respective natures, which is the evening knowledge. Now, in the heavenly fatherland we shall be as the angels (Matt 12:30). Therefore, evening knowledge is not in the angels.

Obj. 21: Knowledge of things in the Word surpasses knowledge of them in their respective natures more than the sun’s brightness surpasses candlelight. But sunlight renders useless the light of a candle. Therefore, much more does the morning knowledge render evening knowledge useless.

Obj. 22: Augustine queries whether Adam’s soul were made apart from his body at the same time as the angels or at the same time as his body. (Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 7.24–25 (PL 34:368–69).) But there would be no purpose in discussing this question if all things were made at the same time, because then the human body was made at the same time as the angels. It would seem, then, that in Augustine’s opinion, not all things were made at the same time.

Obj. 23: The portion of earth from which man’s body was made had a certain form similar to slime, as, according to Genesis 2:7, it is said that the man’s body was formed from it. But it did not yet have the form of a human body. Therefore, forms were not all at the same time produced in matter.

Obj. 24: An angel’s knowledge of things in their own natures cannot be understood except as the knowledge that occurs through the species bestowed on him naturally; for it cannot be said that he acquires any species from the things known, since he lacks sensory organs. Now, these species bestowed on the angels are independent of corporeal things; and thus, even before things existed angels could know them in their respective natures. Consequently, from the fact that angels knew a thing in its own proper nature we cannot argue that the thing was brought into being; therefore, the explanation given above would seem unreasonable.

Obj. 25: The morning knowledge whereby the angels knew things in the Word must have been through some species, since all knowledge is such. Now, it could not be through a species issuing from the Word, because such a species would be a creature, and thus the knowledge would be evening rather than morning knowledge; for evening knowledge is that which arises through a creature. Nor may it be said that the aforesaid knowledge was acquired by means of a species that is the Word himself, since then the angel would have to see the Word himself, which he did not do before he was made blessed; for the vision of the Word makes one blessed. But the angels were not made blessed in the first instant of their creation, as neither did the demons sin in that first instant. Therefore, if “morning” signifies the knowledge that angels have in the Word, we must infer that not all things were created at the same time.

Obj. 26: It will be said, perhaps, that in that instant the angels saw the Word as the type of things to be created, but not as the end of the blessed.

On the contrary, there is only a relative difference between the Word as end and as type. Now, the knowledge of God’s relation to creatures does not render one blessed, seeing that this relation in reality is more on the side of the creature, and it is only the vision of the divine essence that makes one blessed. Consequently, as regards the blessedness of those who see him, it matters not whether they see him as the end of beatitude or as the type.

Obj. 27: Prophets also are said to have seen the future in the mirror of eternity, inasmuch as they saw the divine mirror as type of the things that are to come to be. Therefore there would be no difference between the angel’s morning knowledge and the knowledge of a prophet.

Obj. 28: It is written that God made every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth and every herb of the ground before it grew (Gen 2:5). Now, the herbs were brought forth on the third day. Hence, some things were made before the third day, and all were not made at the same time.

Obj. 29: It is written that God made all things in wisdom (Ps 103:24). Now, it belongs to the wise man to put things in order, as is said in Metaphysics 1. (Aristotle, Metaphysics 1.2, 982a16–21, 982b1–10.) Therefore, it seems that God did not make all things together, but successively in an order of time.

Obj. 30: It might be said that though an order of time was not observed in the production of things, the order of nature was.

On the contrary, in the order of nature, the sun, moon, and stars are prior to the plants, for it is clear that they are causes of plants; and yet, we are told that the heavenly lights were made after the plants. Therefore, the order of nature was not observed.

Obj. 31: The heavenly firmament is naturally prior to the earth and water, and yet Scripture mentions these before the firmament, which we are told was made on the second day.

Obj. 32: The subject is naturally prior to its accident. Now, light is an accident and its first subject is the firmament. Therefore, the creation of light would not precede that of the firmament.

Obj. 33: Animals that walk are more perfect than those that swim or fly, principally by reason of their likeness to man; and yet the creation of fishes and birds is related before that of terrestrial animals. Therefore, the right order of nature was not observed.

Obj. 34: Fishes and birds seemingly do not in their respective natures differ from each other more than from terrestrial animals, and yet we are told that fishes and birds were created on the same day. Therefore, the days do not correspond to various genera of things, but rather to various successive times, and then all things were not created at the same time.

On the contrary (1), it is written: 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 (Gen 2:4–5). Now, we are told that the plants of the field were created on the third day, whereas heaven and earth were made on the first day, or even before all days. Hence, the things made on the third day were created at the same time as those which were made on the first day or before all days; and thus, in like manner, all things were made at the same time.

Furthermore (2), it is written: behold Behemoth whom I made with you (Job 40:10). Now, according to Gregory, Behemoth signifies the devil, who was made on the first day or before all days, while man, to whom the Lord’s words are addressed, was made on the sixth day. (Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job 32.12 (PL 76:644–46).) Hence, things made on the sixth day were created at the same time as those that were made on the first day, and so we arrive at the same conclusion as before.

Furthermore (3), the parts of the universe depend on one another, especially the lower on the higher parts. Therefore, it was impossible for some parts to be made before others, especially the lower before the higher.

Furthermore (4), there is a greater distance between corporeal and spiritual creatures than between one corporeal creature and another. Now, as we have already shown, (See q. 3, aa. 18–19.) the spiritual and corporeal creatures were made at the same time. Therefore, much more were all spiritual creatures made at the same time.

Furthermore (5), by reason of the immensity of his power, God works in an instant; and thus, the work of each day was accomplished suddenly and instantaneously. Therefore, there is no sense in saying that he waited until the next day to do his next work and remained idle for a whole day.

Furthermore (6), if the days mentioned in the formation of things were ordinary days, it does not appear that the night could be wholly distinct from the day, and light from darkness. For if the light, which we are told was made on the first day, enveloped the whole earth, nowhere was there darkness, which is the earth’s shadow cast on the side opposite to the light that causes day. And if that light by its movement revolved around the earth, so as to cause day and night, then there was always day on one side, and night on the other; and consequently, night was not wholly divided from the day, and this is contrary to Scripture.

Furthermore (7), the division between day and night is caused by the sun and other heavenly luminaries; therefore, it is written in the work of the fourth day: let there be lights made in the firmament of the heaven, and the text continues, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years (Gen 1:14). Seeing, then, that the effect does not precede its cause, it cannot be that the first three days were of the same account as the days that now are regulated by the sun; and consequently, the mention of those days is no proof that things were made successively.

Furthermore (8), if there was some other light that by its movement caused day and night, there must have been something carrying that other light in a circular movement, such that thereby it would illuminate the earth successively. Now, this carrier is the firmament, which we are told was made on the second day. Therefore, at least the first day could not be of the same account as the days we have now, nor (for the same reason) as the other days of the text.

Furthermore (9), if that light was made so that it might produce day and night, it would also do so now; for it is unreasonable to say that it was made solely to serve this purpose for the three days that preceded the creation of the sun, and that afterwards it ceased to exist. But we see now no other light causing day and night besides the light of the sun. Therefore, neither during those three days was there any other corporeal light to cause the distinction between day and night.

Someone might say (10) that out of this light was later formed the body of the sun.

On the contrary, whenever a thing comes to be out of preexistent matter, it has a matter in which a succession of forms is possible. But such is not the matter of the sun or of any other heavenly body, because in them there is no contrariety, as is proved in On the Heavens 1. (Averroes, On the Heavens 1.6–7, 270a12–b25, comm. 20–75.) Therefore, it is impossible that the body of the sun was afterwards formed out of that light.

I answer that, in the supposition that formless matter did not precede its formation of things in time, but only in origin (and it could not be otherwise if “formless matter” is understood as matter entirely devoid of form), it follows of necessity that the formation of things was accomplished simultaneously; for it is not possible for any part of matter to be, even for an instant, entirely formless. Besides, as regards that particular part, matter would precede its formation in time. Therefore, if we adopt the opinion of Augustine as discussed in the preceding article, (Q. 4, a. 1.) there is no reason to propose the question at the head of this article; rather, we must state at once that all things were formed at the same time, except insofar as it remains for us to explain in what sense we are to take the six days mentioned by Scripture. For if we are to take them to be like the days we have now, this would be in contradiction with the aforesaid opinion, since then we should have to hold that the formation of things took place during a series of days.

Now, Augustine explains these days in two ways. First, in The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1, he says the distinction of light from darkness signifies the distinction of formed matter from formless matter, which remains to be formed not in time but in the order of nature. (Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1.17 (PL 34:258–60).) He holds that the very order between formlessness and formation insofar as all things are ordered by God is implied by day and night, for day and night are an ordering of light and darkness. He says that “evening” denotes the termination of the work done, and “morning” the future beginning of the work, future not in the order of time but only in the order of nature. For the first work contains already a kind of indication of the future work to be done. According to this view, we must take the days as being distinct from one another, inasmuch as there were various formations, and consequently, various lacks of form.

Since, however, it would follow from this that the seventh day also was distinct from the first six, if these also were distinct from one another (whence it would seem to follow either that God did not make the seventh day, or that he made something after the seven days wherein he completed his work), Augustine maintained, in consequence, that all these seven days were but one, namely, the angelic knowledge, and that the number refers to the distinction between the things they knew rather than to a distinction of days; in other words, that the six days signify the angel’s knowledge in reference to the six classes of things created by God, while one day signifies the angel’s knowledge in reference to the Maker’s rest, in that he rested in himself from the things he had made, so that “evening” signifies knowledge of a thing in its own nature, and “morning” knowledge in the Word.

According to other holy men, these days denote both a temporal order and a succession in the production of things. In their opinion, an order not only of nature but also of time and duration is seen in the works of the six days, for they contend that as matter was in a formless condition before its formation, so also one formation preceded another in duration of time. But as stated in the preceding article, (Q. 4, a. 1.) by the formlessness of matter they did not understand a lack and exclusion of all form (since there already was heaven, water, and earth—by which they understood the heavenly bodies, spiritual substances, and the four elements—subsisting under their respective forms); rather, they understood the formlessness of matter only as an absence and exclusion of the due distinction and complete beauty of each thing, in that it was lacking in that elegance and comeliness now to be seen in the corporeal creature.

Thus, we can gather from the text of Genesis that the corporeal nature was lacking in a threefold beauty, for which reason it is described as formless. For the heavens and the entire diaphanous body lacked the comeliness and beauty of light, and this is denoted by the darkness. The element of water lacked due order and distinction from the element of earth, and this lack of form is designated by the word deep, which signifies a certain inordinate immensity of the waters, according to Augustine. (Augustine, Against Faustus the Manichee 22.11 (PL 42:405–6).) The earth lacked a twofold beauty: one that it acquired by the withdrawal of the waters, and this is signified by the words: and the earth was void and empty or invisible, because it could not be seen, by reason of the waters covering it on all sides; the other that it acquires through being adorned with plants, and this is indicated when it is said that it was empty or incomposite, that is, unadorned.

Thus, then, before the work of distinction, Scripture mentions a manifold distinction as already existing in the elements of the world from the beginning of its creation.

First, it mentions the distinction between heaven and earth, insofar as “the heaven” signifies the entire transparent body, which includes fire and air, on account of the transparency that they share with the heaven.

Second, it mentions the distinction of the elements as regards their substantial forms, which it names “water” and “earth,” which are rather apparent to sensation; thereby it implies also the other two elements, which are less apparent to sensation.

Third, it mentions positional distinction, for the earth was beneath the waters that rendered it invisible, while the air, which is the subject of darkness, is indicated as being above the waters in the words, darkness was over the face of the deep.

Accordingly, the formation of the first body, namely, the heaven, took place on the first day by the production of light, whose illuminating property was communicated to the sun and heavenly bodies, which already existed in respect of their substantial forms, and thus, the formlessness of darkness was removed. From this formation resulted the distinction of movement and time, namely, of night and day, since time is consequent to the movement of the highest heaven. Hence, the text mentions the distinction of light and darkness, since the cause of light was in the substance of the sun, and the cause of darkness was in the opaqueness of the earth, so that while there was light in one hemisphere, there was darkness in the other, and again in the one hemisphere light at one time and darkness at another. This is expressed in the words, he called the light ‘day,’ and the darkness ‘night.’

On the second day the middle body was formed and distinguished, namely, water, by the formation of the firmament, receiving a certain distinction and order. Thus, under the name “water” are understood all transparent bodies; and thus the “firmament” (that is, the starry heaven), having been produced on the second day not in substance but as to a certain accidental perfection, divided the waters that are above the firmament—that is, the whole transparent heaven without the stars, known also as the “aqueous” or “crystalline heaven.” Philosophers say that it is the ninth sphere and the first mobile, which causes the whole heaven to revolve with the daily movement, and producing by that movement a continuity of generation. In like manner, the heaven in which are the stars, through its motion according to the zodiac, causes diversity in generation and corruption by approaching to or receding from us and by the varying power of the stars. By the firmament, I say, is divided the crystalline heaven, which is above the firmament, from the waters, that is, from other transparent corruptible bodies, which are beneath the firmament. Consequently, these lower transparent bodies signified under the name “waters” received from the firmament a certain order and appropriate distinction.

On the third day was formed the last body, namely, the earth, insofar as it was freed of its watery covering, and the lowest division was made of the sea from the dry land. It was thus quite fitting that the text, having expressed the formlessness of the earth in the words the earth was invisible or empty, should signify its formation in the words and let the dry land appear, and the waters being gathered together into one place apart from the dry land, and God called the dry land ‘earth,’ and the gathering together of the waters he called ‘seas’: and whereas the earth was hitherto formless and empty, he adorned it with plants and herbs.

On the fourth day took place the adornment of the first part of the corporeal creature that had been made distinct on the first day, namely, the adornment of the heavens by the creation of the luminaries. These as to their substance were created from the beginning, but since beforehand their substance was formless, now on the fourth day it was formed—not indeed with a substantial form but by receiving a certain determinate power, inasmuch as these luminaries were endowed with determinate powers for determinate effects, insofar as we see the rays of the sun and the rays of the moon and stars have different effects. Dionysius refers to this distinction of powers when he says that the light of the sun was formed on the fourth day, whereas hitherto it had been formless. (Pseudo-Dionysius, The Divine Names 4.1, 4.4 (PG 3:693–700).) If Scripture makes no mention of these luminaries themselves from the outset but only on the fourth day, it was, according to Chrysostom, in order to keep the people from idolatry by showing that the luminaries were not gods, seeing that they did not exist from the beginning.

On the fifth day, the second part of corporeal nature, which had been divided on the second day, was adorned by the creation of birds and fishes. Therefore, on this fifth day Scripture mentions the waters and the heavenly firmament so as to show that the fifth day corresponds to the second, where mention was made of the waters and firmament. On this day, then, by God’s word the birds and fishes in their respective natures were brought into actual being from the already created elemental matter in order to adorn the air and the water, which are naturally suited for proportionate animal movements.

On the sixth day, the third part of corporeal nature and the lowest body, namely, the earth, was adorned by the creation of terrestrial animals to which it is connatural to move on the earth. Hence, just as in the work of creation the text indicates a threefold division of corporeal creatures—the first signified under the name “heaven,” the middle signified under the name “water,” and the lowest signified under the name “earth,” while the first part (the heaven) was distinguished on the first day and adorned on the fourth, the middle part (the waters) distinguished on the second day and adorned on the fifth, as we have stated—so was it fitting that the lowest part (the earth), which was distinguished on the third day, should be adorned on this the sixth day by the terrestrial animals being brought into actual existence and divided into their proper species.

From all this it is clear that Augustine differs from other holy men in his explanation of the works of the six days.

First, by the earth and water created prior to the work of creation, he understands a wholly unformed prime matter, and by the creation of the firmament and the gathering together of the waters and the uncovering of the dry land, he understands the impression of substantial forms into corporeal matter. But the other saints take the earth and water first created to signify the very elements of the world existing each under their own proper forms, and the subsequent works to indicate some kind of division of the already existing bodies through their receiving certain powers and accidental properties, as stated above.

Second, they differ in respect of the production of plants and animals. For the other saints say that these were actually produced in their proper natures during the work of the six days, while Augustine holds that they were produced only potentially.

Third, in holding that all the works of the six days took place at the same time, Augustine apparently does not differ from the others as to the manner in which things were produced. (Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 4.34 (PL 34:319–20).)

First, because both views agree in saying that in the first production of things matter was under the substantial forms of the elements; thus, prime matter did not precede the substantial forms of the elements of the world by any duration.

Second, because both opinions are agreed that, in the first establishment of things by the work of creation, plants and animals did not exist in act but only in potency, such that they could be brought out from the elements themselves by the power of the Word.

There is, however, a fourth point in which they differ. According to the other saints, after the first production of the creature, when the elements of the world and the heavenly bodies as to their substantial forms were produced, there was a time when there was no light; also when the firmament was not yet formed, or the transparent body adorned and made distinct; also when the earth was still covered with the waters and as yet the luminaries were not formed. This is the fourth point wherein they differ from the view of Augustine, who held that all these things were formed together in the same instant of time. (Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 4.34 (PL 34:319–20).)

That the works of the six days, according to the other saints, were produced not simultaneously but by degrees, was not owing to lack of power in the Creator, who could have produced all things at once; rather, it was so that the order of divine wisdom would be demonstrated in the establishment of things, in that, when it made things out of nothing, it did not at once bring them from nothingness to their ultimate natural perfection, but it first made them in a certain imperfect existence and afterwards led them to a perfect one; in this way, the world would gradually rise from nothingness to its ultimate perfection. Thus, different days corresponded to the various degrees of perfection, and it was thus shown that things derived their being from God (against those who contended that matter was uncreated), and that moreover, he is the author of their perfection (against those who ascribed the formation of lower things to other causes).

The first explanation of these things, namely, that of Augustine, is the more subtle and a better defense of Scripture against the ridicule of unbelievers, but the second, that of the other saints, is easier to grasp and more in keeping with words of the text, as far as their surface. Seeing, however, that neither is in contradiction with the truth of faith and that the details of the text admit of either interpretation, therefore, in order that neither may be unduly favored, we now proceed to deal with the arguments on either side.

Reply Obj. 1: In the divine works, the order of nature and origin and not that of duration was observed. For formless spiritual and corporeal natures were formed first by priority of nature and origin, and later they were formed. And though both natures were formed at the same time, still, because the spiritual nature is naturally of greater dignity than the corporeal, its formation needed to precede that of the corporeal nature in the order of nature. Again, since an incorruptible corporeal nature is of greater dignity than a corruptible nature, it behooved the former to be formed first in the very order of nature. Therefore, on the first day, the formation of the spiritual nature is signified by the creation of light, whereby the mind of the spiritual creature was illumined through its conversion to the Word. On the second day, the formation of the corporeal nature, heavenly and incorruptible, is signified by the creation of the firmament, which we understand to include the production of all the heavenly bodies and their distinction in respect of their various forms. On the third day, the formation of the corporeal nature of the four elements is signified by the gathering together of the waters and the appearance of the dry land. On the fourth day, the adornment of the heaven is signified by the creation of the luminaries, and this in the order of nature should precede the adornment of the waters and the earth, which took place on the following days. Thus, God’s works were wrought in order indeed, not of duration but of nature.

Reply Obj. 2: The formation of things was not accomplished successively or in diverse parts of time; rather, all these days which the text assigns to God’s works are but one day presented in six distinctions of things, according to which it is numbered, even as the Word, by whom all things were made, is one, namely, the Son of God, and yet we read repeatedly, God said. And just as those works persevere in his subsequent works, which are propagated from them by the agency of nature, so too do those six days continue throughout the succession of time. This may be made clear as follows. The angelic nature itself is intellectual and is properly called “light,” and thus, the enlightening of the angel should be called “day.” Now, the angelic nature, when things were first created, was given the knowledge of these things, so that in a way the light of the angel’s intellect was made present to the things created, insofar as they were known by the light of his mind. Hence, this very knowledge of things, implying that the light of the angelic intellect is made present to the things known, is called “day,” and various days are distinguished and ordered according to the various genera and order of the things known. Thus, the first day is the knowledge of God’s first work in forming the spiritual creature through turning it to the Word. The second day is the knowledge of the second work, whereby the higher corporeal creature was formed by the formation of the firmament. The third day is the knowledge of the third work of the formation of the corporeal creature in respect of the lower part, namely, the earth, water, and neighboring air. The fourth day is the knowledge of the fourth work or the adornment of the higher part of the corporeal creature, that is, of the firmament, by the production of luminaries. The fifth day is the knowledge of the fifth divine work, whereby the air and water were adorned by the creation of birds and fishes. The sixth day is the knowledge of God’s sixth work, namely, of the adornment of the earth by the production of terrestrial animals. The seventh day is the angelic knowledge as referred to the Maker’s rest in that he rested in himself from the production of new works.

Now, since God is all light, and there is no darkness in him, God’s knowledge in itself is full light; but because the creature, through being made from nothing, contains within itself the darkness of possibility and imperfection, consequently, the knowledge whereby a creature is known must be mingled with darkness. Now, a creature may be known in two ways. It is known either within the Word as it goes forth from the divine art—and in this way knowledge of it is called “morning knowledge,” because just as the morning is the end of darkness and the beginning of light, so too the creature, while before it was not in existence, receives a beginning of light from the light of the Word. And it is also known insofar as it is existing in its own proper nature—and this is called “evening knowledge,” because just as the evening is the end of light and verges into night, so too the creature as subsistent in itself is the terminus of the activity of the light of the divine Word, in that it is made through the Word, and of itself it tends to the darkness of failure unless it is upheld by the Word.

And this is why this knowledge divided by morning and evening is called “day,” for just as in comparison with the knowledge of the Word it is dark, so in comparison with ignorance, which is in a way dark, it is called “light.” In this way, we may observe a certain circular movement of morning and evening, inasmuch as the angel, knowing his very self in his own proper nature, referred this knowledge to the praise of the Word as to his end, and in the Word as in its principle, he received the knowledge of the next work. And as this morning is the end of the preceding day, so is it the beginning of the next, for day is a part of time and the effect of light. But the distinction of those first days is not a distinction of different time, but refers to the spiritual light according to which diverse and distinct genera of things are known by the angelic mind.

Reply Obj. 3: The statement that light properly speaking is not in spiritual things is untrue. For Augustine says that in spiritual things the light is better and more certain, (Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 4.24 (PL 34:313).) and that Christ is not called “light” the way he is called “stone,” for the former is said properly, the latter metaphorically. The reason is that all that is made manifest is light (Eph 5:13), and manifestation belongs more properly to spiritual than to corporeal things. Hence, in On the Divine Names, ch. 4, Dionysius numbers “light” among the intelligible names of God, and intelligible names are said properly of spiritual things. (Pseudo-Dionysius, The Divine Names 4.1 (PG 3:693–96).) In proof of the opposite statement, it is said that the name “light” was first employed to signify the cause of manifestation to the sense of sight, and in this way, light is a quality sensible through itself, and is not said properly in spiritual things. It has later been extended by common use so as to signify anything that causes a manifestation in any kind of knowledge, and so it is in the common usage of speech; and in this way, light is said more properly in spiritual things.

Reply Obj. 4: As we have stated above, these days are differentiated not in respect of succession in knowledge, but according to the natural order of the things known. Hence, Augustine holds that these seven days are one day presented by things in seven ways. (Augustine, City of God 11.7, 11.9 (PL 41:322–25).) Consequently, the order of the days should be referred to the natural order of the works, which are assigned to days insofar as they are known by the light of the angelic mind together in the Word.

Reply Obj. 5: The six days wherein God is said to have created the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all that are in them do not signify a succession of time, but the angelic knowledge as related to six genera of things created by God, while the seventh day is the angel’s knowledge itself as related to the rest of the Maker. For in Augustine’s opinion, God is said to have rested on the seventh day inasmuch as he revealed to the angelic mind his own proper rest, that whereby he rests in his very self from the things created, whereby he is blessed, in no need of creatures, being all-sufficient to himself, and this knowledge Augustine calls “day.” (Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 4.15 (PL 34:304–6).) And God is said to have rested from work on the seventh day because afterwards he did nothing new that did not in some way already exist, either materially or causally or in respect of some specific or generic likeness in the works of the six days.

And because after the completion of all his works, God rested in his very self on the seventh day, Scripture and the Law commanded the seventh day to be kept holy. For then most of all is a thing made holy, when it rests in God; thus, things dedicated to God (like the tabernacle, the vessels, the ministers) are called “holy.” Now, the seventh day was dedicated to the worship of God, and for this reason it is said to be made holy. Accordingly, as God, after producing six kinds of things and making them known to the angelic mind, rested not indeed in the things he had created, as though they were his end, but in himself and from the things he had created, inasmuch as he himself is his own beatitude (since he is not blessed by the fact that he made things, but by being all-sufficient in his very self and not standing in need of the things he made); so too are we to learn to rest not in God’s works nor in our own as in our end, but to rest from work and in God, in whom our beatitude consists. In fact, for this very reason was man commanded to labor in his own works for six days and to rest on the seventh, making space for the worship of God and the rest of divine contemplation, wherein man’s sanctification consists most of all.

The newness of the world also demonstrates most of all the existence of God, and that he does not need creatures; therefore, man was commanded in the Law to rest and hold festival on the seventh day, on which occurred the completion of the world, in order that, through the newness of the world produced all at once and the six different kinds of things, man might always remain in the knowledge of God. Rest was also commanded so that man might be led to give thanks to God for the great and fruitful blessing of creation, so as to rest his mind in him as in his end, both in the present life by grace, in the future life by glory.

Reply Obj. 6: Every new work of God, as referred to the angelic knowledge, is called a “day,” and as there were only six kinds of things created in the beginning by God and made known to the angelic intellect, as stated above, so are there but six days, to which the seventh is added, namely, the same angelic knowledge as referred to God’s rest in himself. For God produced nothing in nature without first, in the order of nature, making it known to the angel’s mind.

Reply Obj. 7: The solution is clear from what has been said, because these days are not differentiated in relation to a difference in the angelic knowledge, but by the different primordial works as referred to that knowledge; and thus, those first days are distinct in reference to different works and not in reference to different knowledges. Hence, these six days are distinct according as the light of the angelic mind is shed on the six kinds of things made known to it.

Reply Obj. 8: According to Augustine, these three denote a threefold being of things.

First, their being in the Word, for things have being in the divine art, which is his Word, before they have being in their very selves; and this is signified by the words God said: let . . . be made, that is, he begot the Word in whom things were such as they would come to be.

Second, things have being in the angelic mind, because God created nothing in the nature of things without having previously impressed its nature on the angelic mind; and this is signified in the words it was so done, namely, by the influence of the Word upon the angelic mind.

Third, things have being in their own proper nature, and this is signified when it is said, he made. For just as the account whereby the creature is fashioned is in the Word before it is produced in the creature itself, so too in the order of nature was knowledge of that same account in the angelic mind before the very production of the creature.

And in this way the angel has a threefold knowledge of things: namely, as they are in the Word, as they are in his mind, and as they are in their own proper nature. The first is called “morning knowledge,” while the other two are included in “evening knowledge.”

And to indicate this twofold mode of a spiritual creature’s knowledge of things, it is said: evening and morning were one day. Accordingly, by these six days wherein we read that God made all things, Augustine understands not these ordinary days that are measured by the course of the sun (since we are told that the sun was created on the fourth day), but one day, that is, the angelic knowledge made present to the six kinds of things. (Augustine, City of God 11.9 (PL 41:323–25).) Thus, just as the presence of a corporeal light by its shining on this lower world makes a temporal day, so the presence of the spiritual light of the angelic mind by its shining on created things makes a spiritual day; thereby in his opinion these six days are differentiated insofar as the light of the angel’s intellect shines on the six kinds of things made known to it, such that the first day is his knowledge of God’s first work, the second day, his knowledge of the second work, and so on.

Consequently, these six days differ not in the order of time or a succession of things, but in the natural order of the things known, insofar as one thing was known before another in the order of nature. And, just as in a natural or material day, the morning is the beginning and the evening the end and term, even so the angel’s knowledge of each work in its original being, namely, as having its being in the Word, is called, “morning knowledge”; while the knowledge thereof in respect of its ultimate being, and as existing in its own nature, is called, “evening knowledge.” For the origin of everything’s being lies in its cause, from which it flows, whereas its terminus lies in the very thing in which it is received and at which the action of the cause terminates. Therefore, the primal knowledge of something considers the thing as within the cause from which it flows, whereas the ultimate knowledge of a thing considers it as it is in its very self.

Therefore, the being of things flows from the eternal Word as from their primordial principle, and this outflowing terminates in the being that things have in their own proper nature; from this it follows that knowledge of things in the Word, which pertains to their primal and primordial being, should be called “morning knowledge,” by way of likeness with the morning that is the beginning of day, whereas a knowledge of a thing in its own proper nature, which pertains to its ultimate and terminated being, should be called “evening knowledge,” since the evening ends the day. Hence, as the six kinds of things distinguish days in relation to the angelic knowledge, so too the unity of the thing known, which is knowable by various acts of cognition, constitutes the unity of the day and distinguishes the day into evening and morning.

Reply Obj. 9: An angel is unable primarily and principally to understand several things in their own natures; but he is well able to understand several things in a consequent way, insofar as they have an order to one intelligible thing. And because all things that were produced in their own proper nature were, by the order of nature, first impressed according to their own likenesses on the angelic mind, the angel, by knowing himself, at the same time in a way knows those six kinds of realities, which hold a natural order among themselves; for by knowing himself, he knows whatsoever has being in himself.

Reply Obj. 10: One power can exercise two activities at the same time, if one of these is referred and ordered to the other; and it is evident that the will at the same time wills the end and the means, and the intellect at the same time understands the principles and the conclusions through the principles when he has acquired knowledge. Now, the angels’ evening knowledge is referred to their morning knowledge, according to Augustine, just as natural knowledge and love are ordered to the knowledge and love belonging to glory. (Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 2.3, 2.8 (PL 34:265, 269–70); Augustine, Dialogue of 65 Questions, q. 26 (PL 40:741–42).)

Therefore, nothing hinders an angel from having at the same time morning and evening knowledge, just as natural knowledge and the knowledge belonging to glory are together. For one power cannot exercise at the same time two activities that proceed from two species of the same genus, if the one be not ordered to the other (and such are all created species inhering in the intellect); whence an angel cannot at the same time bring forth diverse thoughts by means of diverse concreated species. But if those two activities proceed from forms of diverse genera and diverse accounts, one of which is ordered to the other (and such are a subsistent uncreated form and an inhering created form), they can exist simultaneously.

Therefore, since the angel’s knowledge of things in their respective natures, called “evening knowledge,” is exercised by means of a created inhering intelligible species, while his knowledge of things in the Word, called “morning knowledge,” is exercised through the essence of the Word (which is not an inhering essence), and these two are different in genus and account yet one is ordered to the other, it follows that both knowledges can exist at the same time. For a concreated species inhering in the intellect is not opposed to the intellect’s union with the essence of the Word, which actuates the intellect not in respect of being, but only in respect of understanding; for it is not of one account, but it is of a higher order, and this same inherent species—and whatsoever of perfection there is in the created intellect—are, as it were, a material disposition to that union and blessed vision whereby things are seen in the Word.

Hence, just as the disposition to a form and the form itself can exist together in what is actually perfected, so too the inhering intelligible species coexists with the intellect’s union to the essence of the Word, in what is actually perfected. Therefore, a twofold activity issues simultaneously from the intellect of the blessed angel: one by reason of its union to the essence of the Word, and whereby it sees things in the Word (called “morning knowledge”); the other by reason of the species inhering in it, whereby it sees things in their own proper nature (called “evening knowledge”). Neither of these actions is weakened or lessened by attention to the other; rather, it is strengthened, seeing that the one is the type of the other, just as the imagination of a thing one has seen is strengthened when the thing is actually shown to the external eye. For the action whereby the blessed see the Word and things in the Word is the type of each and every action found in them. But when, of two actions, one is the type of the other or is ordered to the other, both of them can exist at once from the same power.

In that case, the one power terminates in different actions in respect of different species, which are mutually ordered to each other not in the same respect, but in different respects. For species that differ in genus and order, or that are of diverse accounts, can be united together in respect of a perfected act, as is clear for color, smell, and taste in fruit.

Now, the divine essence, whereby the angel’s intellect sees things in the Word, is uncreated and self-subsistent; the essence of an angel, whereby he sees always himself and things insofar as they have being in him, is created and self-subsistent by reason of the received being whereby his intellect subsists; and the infused or concreated intelligible species, whereby he sees things in their own proper natures, is inhering to the intellect. Therefore, these three are said to be of different orders and genera, and of different accounts, such that the first is, as it were, the type of the others, and the second, as it were, the type of the third. Consequently, the angelic intellect will be able to have a threefold activity simultaneously in respect of those three forms, just as the soul of Christ simultaneously understands things by the species of the Word, by infused species, and by acquired species.

Reply Obj. 11: Just as, in the opinion of Augustine, the formlessness of matter preceded its formation not in time but in order, as sound and voice precede the song, so the formation of the spiritual nature (signified in the creation of light), since this is of greater dignity than the corporeal nature, preceded the formation of the latter in the order of nature and origin, but not in the order of time. (Augustine, Dialogue of 65 Questions, q. 21 (PL 40:740).) Now, the formation of the spiritual nature consists in its being enlightened so as to adhere to the Word, not indeed by perfect glory, with which it was not created, but by perfect grace, with which it was created. Accordingly, by this light the distinction was made from darkness, that is, from the formless condition of the corporeal creature as yet unformed but, in the order of nature, to be formed afterwards.

For the formation of the spiritual creature may be understood in two ways.

First, as denoting the infusion of grace;

second, as denoting the conservation of glory.

The former, according to Augustine, was vouchsafed to the spiritual creature from the very first instant of its creation, in which case the darkness from which the light was divided does not denote the sin of the wicked angels, but the formlessness of a nature that was not yet formed and yet, in the order of nature, was to be formed in the subsequent works, as is said in The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1. (Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1.5–7 (PL 34:249–51).) Or, as is said in The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 4, day signifies God’s knowledge, night the creature’s, which latter is darkness in comparison with God’s, as is said in the same book. (Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 4.22–23 (PL 34:411–13).) Or, if the darkness be taken to signify the wicked angels, then this distinction refers to their sin not as present but as future, which was within God’s foreknowledge. Hence, he says: God, foreseeing that some of his angels would fall through pride, by the unchangeable order of his foreknowledge divided the good from the wicked, and called the wicked ‘darkness,’ the good, ‘light.’ (Augustine, Dialogue of 65 Questions, q. 25 (PL 40:741).)

The second formation of the spiritual nature does not pertain to the beginning of the institution of things, but rather to the course of things, wherein they are governed by divine providence. Hence, the distinction of light from darkness, if by “darkness” we understand the sins of the demons, must be taken in reference to God’s foreknowledge. Therefore, Augustine says, in On the City of God 11, that he alone could divide light from darkness who before the angels fell could foresee that they would fall. (Augustine, City of God 11.19 (PL 41:332–33).) But if by “darkness” we understand the formlessness of matter yet to be formed, an order is signified, not of time but of nature, between the formations of both natures.

Reply Obj. 12: If we suppose that all things were created at the same time as to both matter and form, then the angel is said to have knowledge of the future creation of the corporeal creature, not because the corporeal creature was future in time but because it was known as future, inasmuch as it was considered in its cause, wherein it existed already as something that could issue therefrom. This is as he who knows a chest in the materials of which it is made may be said to know the chest as a future thing. For the knowledge of things in the Word is called “morning knowledge” whether the thing is already made or is going to be made, and it refers indifferently to present or future things, since it is conformed to the divine knowledge whereby God knows all things simply speaking before they come to be as well as after they have been made.

Nevertheless, all knowledge of a thing in the Word is of that thing as yet to be made, whether the thing be already made or not, insofar as “yet to be made” indicates not time but the issue of the creature from its Creator. This is just as the knowledge of the artwork is within the art, which belongs to it according to its own coming to be, even if the artwork has already been made.

Therefore, although the corporeal creature was made at the same time as the spiritual nature, the angel is nevertheless said to have received knowledge of it in the Word as something yet to be made, for the reason given.

Reply Obj. 13: Just as morning precedes evening, so the morning knowledge precedes the evening knowledge in the order of nature, not as regards one and the same work but as regards different works. But the evening knowledge of a prior work is understood to be prior by order of nature to morning knowledge of a later. For the work of the first day was the creation of light, whereby we understand the formation of the angelic nature by the enlightenment of grace, while the knowledge whereby the spiritual creature naturally knows his very self follows on its being in its own proper nature. Hence, in the order of nature, the spiritual creature knew himself in his own proper nature by evening knowledge, whereby he knew himself as already created, before he knew himself in the Word, in whom he knew God’s work as something yet to be done.

Accordingly, the good angels did not rest in this knowledge whereby they knew themselves, as though making themselves the object of their fruition and their own end; for then they would become night, like the wicked angels, who sinned; rather, they carried their knowledge back to the praise of God. Thus, by his knowledge of himself the good angel was turned to the contemplation of the Word, and this was the beginning of the following day, insofar as in the Word he received knowledge of the following work, namely, the firmament.

Now, just as we see in continuous time that the same “now” belongs to two times (inasmuch as it is the end of the past and the beginning of the future), so too the morning knowledge of the second day terminates the first day and begins the second day, and so on to the seventh day. Consequently, on the first day, evening alone is mentioned since the angel first had evening knowledge of himself, and that evening knowledge went forward to morning knowledge insofar as, from contemplation of himself, he advanced to the contemplation of the Word, in which is the morning of the next day, by receiving in the Word the morning knowledge of the next work. Therefore, morning knowledge of one and the same work after the first work naturally precedes the evening knowledge of the same work, but evening knowledge of a previous work naturally precedes morning knowledge of a later work; therefore, as the first day had only an evening, so the seventh day, which signifies the contemplation of God, holds only morning; for this contains no defect.

Reply Obj. 14: Augustine gives the name “morning knowledge” to that which is in full light, so it includes midday knowledge; in fact, he sometimes calls it “day knowledge,” and sometimes “morning knowledge.” Or it may be said that all knowledge of the angelic intellect has a mixture of darkness on the part of the knower, so no knowledge of any angelic intellect can be called “midday knowledge,” but only that knowledge whereby God knows all things in his very self. Again, since God is full light and no darkness is in him, the knowledge of God himself in himself and absolutely, being full light, may be called “midday knowledge”; but because a creature, being made from nothing, has the darkness of possibility and imperfection, the very knowledge of a creature is mixed with darkness. And this mixture is signified by “morning” and “evening,” insofar as the creature itself can be known in two ways: in the Word, insofar as the creature issues from the divine art—and thus, the knowledge thereof is called “morning knowledge” because as morning is the end of darkness and the beginning of light, so the creature after darkness (namely, after nonexistence) receives a beginning of light from the Word itself. For the creature is knowable as existing in its own proper nature through the created species, and such knowledge is called “evening knowledge,” since as evening is the end of light and tends into night, so the creature subsisting in itself is the end of the activity of the Word, who is light, as made by him, and insofar as of itself it tends to the darkness of non-existence unless it were upheld by the Word.

And yet, this knowledge is called day because just as, in comparison with the knowledge of the Word, it is dark, so too in comparison with ignorance, which is altogether dark, it is called “light”; this is just as the life of the just is called “shadow” as compared with the life of glory, and yet it is called “light” in comparison with the life of sinners. Again, seeing that morning and evening are parts of a day, and that day in the angels is knowledge illumined by the light of grace, it follows that morning and evening knowledge extend only to the gratuitously bestowed knowledge of the good angels; whence the enlightened angel’s very knowledge of God’s works is called day, and the days are distinguished in reference to the various kinds of divine works as known, and are arranged according to their order.

Now, each of those works is known by the enlightened angel in two ways.

First, in the Word, that is, by the species of the Word, and this is called “morning knowledge.”

Second, in its own proper nature, that is, by a created species. In this knowledge, the good angels do not rest as making it their end, because they would become night like the wicked angels, but they carry that knowledge to the praise of the Word and the light of God, in whom they know all things as in their source. Therefore, this knowledge of the creature being carried back to the praise of God is not called night; this would be the case, were they to rest therein, since they would become night through making a creature the object of their fruition.

Accordingly, morning and evening knowledge are divisions of the day, that is, the knowledge which the good, enlightened angels have of the works of creation. Now, the good angels’ knowledge of a creature, whether through a created or an uncreated medium, has always an element of obscurity; therefore it is not called “midday knowledge,” as the knowledge of God in himself is, nor is it called “night,” as that knowledge of a creature that is not referred to the divine light; rather, it is called “morning knowledge” and “evening knowledge,” inasmuch as such evening terminates in the morning. Hence, not all knowledge of things in their own proper natures can be called “evening knowledge,” but only that which is referred to the praise of the Creator. Thus, the knowledge that the demons have of things is not, properly speaking, called either “morning” or “evening knowledge.” For morning and evening, in reference to the angelic knowledge, are taken as regards every likeness, but only as regards the account of beginning and end.

Reply Obj. 15: Although created in grace, the angel was not beatified from the very beginning of his creation, nor did he see God’s Word by its essence; therefore, neither had he morning knowledge of his own self, which signifies knowledge of a thing through the species of the Word. Rather, at first he had evening knowledge of his own self, inasmuch as he knew himself in himself naturally, because in each thing natural knowledge precedes supernatural knowledge as the latter’s foundation, and an angel’s knowledge naturally follows his being in his own proper nature; therefore, when he was first created, he had not morning but evening knowledge of himself. But this knowledge he referred to the praise of the Word, and by so doing he merited coming to morning knowledge.

It is significant, then, that the first day is stated to have had only an evening and not a morning, which evening passed into morning; for the spiritual creature that, we are told, was made on the first day knew itself as soon as it was made, which was evening knowledge, and by referring it to the praise of the Word, it merited the morning knowledge of the next work. For not every knowledge of a thing in its nature can be called “evening knowledge,” but only that which is referred to the praise of the Creator, since evening recedes and ends with the morning.

Hence, the knowledge that the demons have about things from their very selves is neither morning nor evening knowledge; rather, this can only be said of the knowledge gratuitously bestowed on the good angels. Accordingly, the knowledge of things in their respective natures, if it be referred to the praise of the Word, is always evening knowledge, nor does the fact that it is so referred make it morning knowledge, but it makes it terminate at morning knowledge; and by so doing the angel merits to receive morning knowledge.

And just as the first day, which signifies the formation and knowledge of the spiritual creature in its own proper nature, has only an evening, so too the seventh day has only a morning in that it signifies the contemplation of God, which being faultless never wanes, and which corresponds to the angels’ knowledge in reference to God’s rest in himself, while to rest in God is the enlightenment and sanctification of everything. For because God ceased to fashion new creatures, he is said to have completed his work and to have rested in himself from his works. And just as God rests in himself alone and is blessed in the enjoyment of himself, so too we are made blessed by enjoying him alone, and so too he makes us rest in his very self, resting both from his works and from our own.

Accordingly, the first day, which corresponds to the knowledge that the spiritual creature enlightened by the light of grace had concerning itself, has only an evening, while the seventh day, which corresponds to the angelic knowledge in reference to God’s rest and fruition in himself, has only a morning, because in God there is no darkness. For God is stated to have rested on the seventh day inasmuch as he revealed to the angels his own rest, by which he rested in himself from the things he had made. It is the knowledge of this rest that Augustine calls day. (Augustine, Dialogue of 65 Questions, q. 26 (PL 40:741–42).) And since the creature’s rest, by which it stands firm in God, has no end, in like manner God’s rest, by which he rests in himself from the things he has made, in that he needs them not, has no end, for he will never need them; therefore, the seventh day, which corresponds to that rest, has no evening but only a morning, while the other days, which correspond to the angelic knowledge in reference to things, have both morning and evening, as already stated.

Reply Obj. 16: As we have already explained, it is possible to know a thing already made as something to be made, if it be considered in the causes whence it issues; and thus, the angels received knowledge in the Word of things to be made, for the Word is the supreme art of things. For all knowledge of a thing in the Word, which is called “morning,” is said to be of a thing as something to be made, whether or not the thing has already been made, inasmuch as “to be made” indicates not time but the issue of the creature from the Creator, as stated above. (Q. 4, a. 1, ad 14.) Therefore, though the corporeal creature was made at the same time as the spiritual nature, the angel is said, by morning knowledge, to know in the Word the thing as something to be made. Why the first day had no morning but only evening has been explained in the previous reply.

Reply Obj. 17: The spiritual creature does not derive his knowledge from things; rather, he understands them naturally through innate or concreated species. Now, the species in an angel’s mind do not equally refer to the present and the future. For those things that are present are actually like forms that are in the angels, and thus by those forms present things can be known, whereas things that are future are not yet actually like those forms; therefore, by those forms future things cannot be known, since knowledge is effected by an actual assimilation of the knower and the known.

Therefore, since an angel does not know the future as such, he needs the presence of things in order that, by the species implanted in him, he may know things in their own proper nature; for before these things come to be, they are not assimilated to those forms.

Moreover, evening and morning knowledge are differentiated on the part not of the thing known but of the medium of knowledge. For morning knowledge results from an uncreated medium that transcends the nature both of the knower and of the thing known; whence, knowledge of things through the species of the Word is called “morning,” whether the things be already made or remain yet to be made, while evening knowledge is effected by means of a created medium that is proportionate both to the knower and to the thing known, whether the latter be already made or remain yet to be made.

Reply Obj. 18: Although the angel has being in the Word before he has being in his own nature, nevertheless, seeing that knowledge presupposes the existence of the knower, he could not know himself before he existed. Now, his knowledge of himself in his own nature is natural to him, whereas his knowledge of the Word is supernatural. Hence, it behooved him to know himself first in his own nature, before knowing himself in the Word, because in everyone, natural knowledge precedes supernatural as its foundation. Other things, however, by his morning knowledge he knew in the Word by a priority of the natural order before knowing them in their respective natures by his evening knowledge; whence in respect of the subsequent works morning preceded evening, as already stated.

Reply Obj. 19: As one total science embraces under itself various particular sciences by which various conclusions are known, so also the one angelic knowledge itself, which is, as it were, a certain whole, embraces under itself morning and evening knowledge as its parts, just as morning and evening are parts of the day, albeit of diverse accounts. For things that are of diverse accounts, if ordered to each other, can constitute something one; thus, matter and form, which are of diverse accounts, constitute one composite, and flesh, bones, and sinews are parts of one composite. Now, the divine essence, whereby things are known in the Word by morning knowledge, is the type of all the concreated forms in the angelic mind, seeing that these derive from it as from their exemplar, and through them things are known in their own nature by evening knowledge; this is just as even the angel’s essence is the type by which he understands the being that he knows; yet, it is not a perfect type, for which reason he needs other superadded forms.

Consequently, when an angel sees God in his essence, as also himself and other things by means of concreated species, in a certain way he understands one thing, just as, because light is the reason for seeing color, therefore, when the eye sees both light and color, it sees in a certain way one visible thing. And although these activities are distinct in reality, seeing that the activity whereby he sees God always endures and is measured by a participated eternity, the activity whereby he understands himself always endures and is measured by aeviternity, whereas the activity whereby he understands other things through innate species does not endure always, but one succeeds the other. Nevertheless, since one is ordered to the other and one is the formal reason, as it were, of the other, they are in a certain way one thing; for where one thing is on account of another, there is but one thing, as is said in Topics 3; on account of this, when several activities are ordered, the one to the other, they can be simultaneous and constitute one whole. (Aristotle, Topics 3.2, 117a16–24, 118a15–23.)

Reply Obj. 20: Because the intellect is the place of the intelligible species, it follows that the science that implies the order of intelligible species, or some skill and ability of the intellect for using those species, must remain after death, as does the intellect itself, the subject of those species. On the other hand, the mode in which it actually uses such species in the present state of life, namely, by turning to phantasms that are within the sensitive powers, will not remain after death; for, seeing that the sensitive powers are destroyed, the soul will be unable, either by the species acquired here or by the species impressed on it in its very separation, to understand by turning to phantasms, but it will be able to understand by a mode congruent with it according to the mode of being that it will have like the angels. Hence, knowledge will be destroyed not as to the habit nor as to the substance of the cognitive act that is specified by the species of the object, but as to the mode of knowing, which will not be by turning to the phantasms; and this is the meaning intended by the Apostle.

Reply Obj. 21: The light caused in the air by the sun and that produced by a candle are of the same account, and seeing that two forms of the same account cannot coexist in a perfect act in the same subject, it follows that sun and candle together produce one light in the air, not two. Now, the divine essence, whereby things are known in the Word, differs in account from the species whereby an angel knows things in their proper natures; therefore, the comparison fails. For when perfection is present, the opposite imperfection is made void, just as at the presence of the vision of God, faith, which is of things unseen, is made void. But the imperfection of evening knowledge is not opposed to the perfection of morning knowledge, since knowledge of a thing in its very self is not opposed to knowledge of it in its cause; nor again does it involve a contradiction that a thing be known through two media, one of which is more perfect than the other, just as we may hold the same conclusion by a demonstrative medium and a dialectical medium.

In like manner, the same thing may be known by an angel in the uncreated Word and through an innate species, since the one is not opposed to the other; in fact, it stands more as a material disposition to the other, for a perfection, by its presence, removes the opposite imperfection. But the imperfection of nature is not opposed to the perfection of beatitude; rather, it underlies it, just as the imperfection of potency underlies the perfection of form, and the form removes not potency but the privation opposed to it. In like manner, the imperfection of natural knowledge is not opposed to the perfection of the knowledge of glory, but underlies it as a material disposition. Hence, the angel can simultaneously know things by a created medium and in their own proper natures—which pertain to evening and natural knowledge—and by the essence of the Word, which pertains to the knowledge of glory and morning knowledge. And these two knowledges do not hinder each other, since the one is ordered to the other, and is, as it were, a material disposition to the other.

Reply Obj. 22: Augustine holds that, at the very beginning of creation, certain things distinct through their own species were produced in their proper nature, such as the four elements, which were produced from nothing, as well as the heavenly bodies and spiritual substances. (Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 5.12, 5.14, 5.20–23 (PL 34:331–32, 335–38).) For this kind of production requires no matter, either out of which or in which a thing is made. Also, the other things are stated to have been created only in seedlike principles (for example, animals, plants, and men), all of which were subsequently produced in their proper natures in that work by which God, after the six days, attends to nature previously established, of which work it is said: my Father works until now (John 5:17). Moreover, he holds that in the production and distinction of things we should see an order not of time but of nature. For all the works of the six days were wrought simultaneously in the one instant of time, either actually or potentially in their causal principles, in that afterwards they could come to be from preexistent matter, either by the Word or by the active powers impressed on the creature at its very creation.

Therefore, he says that the first man’s soul, rather wondering about it without asserting it, was created actually at the same time as the angels; he does not hold that it was made before the sixth day, although he does hold that on the sixth day the first man’s soul was actually made, and his body as well, as to their causal principles; for God impressed on the earth a passive power such that, through the active power of the Creator, man’s body could be formed from it. Accordingly, in their order to God’s active power, the soul in actuality and the body in its passive potency were made at the same time.

Or, asserting according to the truth that the soul does not possess a species complete in itself, but is united to the body as a form, and is naturally a part of human nature, as Aristotle claims, (Aristotle, On the Soul 2.1, 412a6–b26.) we must say that the first man’s soul was not brought into actual existence before the formation of the body, but was created and infused into the body at the same time as the body was formed, just as Augustine explicitly holds with regard to other souls. (Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10.17–26 (PL 34:420–28).) For God instituted the first things in the perfect state of their nature, according to whatever the species of each one required. Now, since the rational soul is a part of human nature, it does not have its natural perfection except as united to the body. Hence, it naturally has its being in the body, and existence outside the body is outside its nature; whence it would have been incongruous for the soul to be created without the body.

If, then, we adopt the opinion of Augustine on the works of the six days, it may be said that, just as in those six days the first man’s body was not actually formed and produced, but only potentially in its causal principles, so too his soul was not produced then actually and in its very self, but in its like as regards its genus. And thus, it preceded the body during those six days not actually and in itself, but in respect of a certain likeness of genus, inasmuch as it has an intellectual nature in common with the angels. Afterwards, however, in the work whereby God attends to the creature already produced, the soul in actuality was created at the same time as the body was formed.

Reply Obj. 23: The reply is clear from what has been said. For the human body was not brought into actual existence in those six days, just as neither were the bodies of other animals, but only as regards causal principles, since God, in the very creation of the elements, implanted in them a power, that is, certain principles, such that animals could be produced by the power of either God, or the stars, or seeds. Accordingly, those things that were actually produced in those six days were created not successively but at the same time, and the others were brought into existence at the same time according to their seedlike principles in their like.

Reply Obj. 24: As was said in the reply to the sixteenth objection, knowledge of things through implanted species and proportionate to the things is called “evening knowledge,” and is of things in their proper nature, whether already made or yet to be made.

And although those species are related equally to the present or future, the things themselves that are present or future are not equally related to the species themselves; for present things are actually assimilated to the species themselves and thus can be actually known through them, whereas future things are not actually assimilated to them, and thus, it is not necessary that they are known through them. And evening knowledge, which is of things in their own proper nature, is not so called because the angels take from the things themselves the species through which they understand them, but because through the species they received at their creation, they know the things as subsisting in their own proper natures.

Reply Obj. 25: In Augustine’s opinion, the angels from the very beginning saw in the Word the things to be made. (Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 2.8 (PL 34:269–70).) For the things which, we are told, were made in the works of the six days were all made at the same time; therefore, those six days were all right away from the very outset of the creation of things, and consequently, the good angels must have known the Word and creatures in the Word from the very beginning. For created realities have a threefold being, as already stated.

First, they have being within the divine art, which is the Word; this is signified when it is said, God said, Let . . . be made, that is, he begot the Word, in whom such a work existed before it came to be.

Second, they have being within the angelic intelligence; this is signified in the words, it was so done, namely, by the outpouring of the Word.

Third, they have being in things themselves and in their own proper natures.

In like manner, the angel too has a threefold knowledge of things: of things as existing in the Word, as existing in his own mind, and as existing in their own proper natures. The angel also has a twofold knowledge of the Word: a natural knowledge whereby he knows the Word through his likeness shining forth in the angel’s own nature, wherein consists his natural beatitude, and which he can obtain by his own natural power; he also has a supernatural knowledge of the Word, and one belonging to glory, by which he knows the Word in its own essence, and in this his supernatural beatitude consists, which surpasses the capacity of nature.

By either of these the good angel knows things or creatures in the Word; by his natural knowledge, however, he knows things in the Word imperfectly, while by his knowledge of glory he knows things themselves in the Word more fully and perfectly.

The first knowledge of things in the Word was received by the angel at the beginning of his creation; therefore, it is stated in Of Church Doctrine that the angels who persevered in the beatitude wherein they were created possess the good they have, not by nature, but by grace. (Gennadius of Marseilles, Book of Ecclesiastical Dogmas, ch. 59 (PL 58:995).) Again, Augustine says: the angelic spirits received from above the gift of eternity and beatitude when they were created in their spiritual nature. (Augustine, De Fide ad Petrum 3.32 (PL 40:763).) Yet, they were not thereby blessed simply speaking (seeing that they were capable of a greater perfection), but in a qualified way, namely, in relation to that time; as the Philosopher says that some are blessed in this life, not simply speaking, but as men. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1.10, 1101a14–21.)

The second knowledge, that of glory, was present in the angels not from the beginning of their creation—since they were not created in a state of perfect beatitude—but from the moment they were beatified by perfect conversion to the good. Accordingly, all these six kinds of things were created at the same time together with the angels, and in the same instant, the angel by natural knowledge knew in the Word whatsoever afterwards he knew in the Word more fully by supernatural knowledge, which the angels received immediately on their referring their natural self-knowledge to the praise of the Word; this same natural knowledge, being measured by aeviternity, is always coexistent with their supernatural knowledge of the Word himself and with their knowledge through species implanted within them of creatures in their own proper natures. Hence, these three cognitions are coexistent, nor does one properly speaking follow the other. For the knowledge of things in the Word, be they already made or yet to be made, is called “morning knowledge,” while the knowledge of things through a created medium, be they present or future, is called “evening knowledge.”

Reply Obj. 26: It is not possible that an angel see the Word or divine essence as the type of things to be made without also seeing it as the end of the blessed and the object of beatitude; for the divine essence in itself is the object of beatitude and the end of the blessed. But it is not possible to see the divine essence as the type of things to be made and not see it in itself; therefore, the whole argument is granted.

Reply Obj. 27: Some with the object of distinguishing between prophetic knowledge and the knowledge of the blessed contended that the prophets see the divine essence itself, which they call the mirror of eternity, not however in the way in which it is the object of the blessed and the end of the beatitude, but as the type of things to be done, inasmuch as it contains the types of future events, as stated in the argument.

But this is impossible, since God in his very essence is the object of beatitude and the end of the blessed, according to the words of Augustine in Confessions 5: blessed is who knows you, though he know not these, namely, creatures. (Augustine, Confessions 5.4 (PL 32:708).) Now, it is not possible for someone to see the type (Note that “type” and “account” here both translate ratio.) of creatures in the very essence of God without seeing this also, both because the divine essence is the type of all things that come to be (for the ideal type, which is the account of the thing to be made, adds nothing to the divine essence save only reference to the creature), and also because knowledge of a thing in itself (and such is the knowledge of God as the object of blessedness) precedes the knowledge of that thing as related to something else (and such is the knowledge of God as containing the types of things). Therefore, it is impossible for prophets to see God as containing the types of creatures yet not as the object of beatitude.

And since they do not see the divine essence as the object of beatitude—both because vision does away with prophecy, as is said in 1 Corinthians 13:8, and because that vision denotes knowledge of God not as distant but as near, since he is seen face to face), it follows that prophets do not know the divine essence as the type of future events, nor do they see things in the Word as the angels did by morning knowledge. For the prophetic vision is not the vision of the very essence of God, nor do the prophets see in the divine essence itself the things that they do see, as the angels did; rather, they see them in certain likenesses, insofar as they are enlightened by a divine light, as Dionysius says. (Pseudo-Dionysius, The Celestial Hierarchy 4.3 (PG 3:179–82).) These likenesses illumined by the divine light have more of the account of a mirror than does the divine essence, for a mirror is that in which are formed images from other things, and this cannot be said of God. Rather, the prophet’s mind thus enlightened may be called a “mirror” insofar as a likeness of the truth of the divine foreknowledge is reflected therein, and for this reason, the prophet’s mind is called a “mirror of eternity,” as reflecting, by means of those images, the foreknowledge of God, who, in his own eternity, sees all things as present. Hence, the prophet’s knowledge bears a greater resemblance to the angel’s evening than to his morning knowledge, since the morning knowledge is effected through an uncreated medium and the prophet’s through a created medium, that is, by species impressed on him or illumined by the divine light, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 28: In Augustine’s opinion, the words let the earth bring forth the green herb do not signify that plants were actually produced then and in their own nature, but that the earth then received a certain seedbearing power to produce plants by the work of propagation; thus, we may understand that the earth did then bring forth the green herb and the tree yielding fruit, in the sense that then it received the power to bring them forth. This is confirmed by the authority of Scripture where we read: these are the generations of the heaven and the earth when they were created in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth, and every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew (Gen 2:4).

Hence, two conclusions are to be inferred.

First, that all the works of the six days were created on the day when God made heaven and earth and every plant of the field; and thus, the plants, which are stated to have been made on the third day, were produced at the same time as heaven and earth were created by God.

Second, that the plants were brought forth then not into actual existence but only in their causal principles, inasmuch as the earth was given the power to produce them. This is signified when it is stated that God brought forth every plant of the field before it actually sprung up in the earth by the work of administration, and every herb of the ground before it grew. Accordingly, before they actually grew over the earth, they were produced causally in the earth.

It is also confirmed by the following argument. In those first days, God produced the creature in its cause, either in its origin or in actual existence, by a work from which he rested subsequently, and yet afterwards in the administration of things that he had made he continues to work even until now in the work of propagation. Now, the actual production of plants from the earth pertains to the work of propagation, since the power of the heavenly body as father and of the earth as mother suffice for their production. Hence, the plants were produced on the third day not actually but only causally; and after the six days, they were brought into actual existence in their respective species and natures by the work of administration. Consequently, before the plants were produced causally, nothing was produced; rather, they were produced together with the heaven and the earth, and likewise, the fishes, birds, and animals were produced in those six days causally and not actually.

Reply Obj. 29: It belongs to the wisdom of an artificer whose works, like God’s, are all perfect to make neither the whole separate from its chief part, nor the parts separate from the whole; for neither the whole separate from the chief part nor the parts separate from the whole have perfect being. Since, then, the angels in their own species, together with the heavenly bodies and the four elements, are the chief parts constituting the one universe—inasmuch as they have an order to one another and serve each other—it follows that it belongs to God’s wisdom to produce the whole universe, together with all its parts, at the same time and not by degrees. For of one whole together with all its parts there should be but one production, and one is not produced before the other except due to a defect in the agent. Now, God has infinite power without any weakness, and the whole universe is his principal effect. Therefore, he created by one single productive act the whole universe together with all its principal parts.

And although in the production of the universe no order of time was observed, the order of nature and origin was observed. For, according to Augustine, the work of creation preceded the work of distinction by an order of nature, but not by an order of time; likewise, the work of distinction preceded the work of adornment by an order of nature. The work of creation consisted in the making of the heaven and the earth, and by “the heaven,” we are to understand the production of the unformed spiritual nature, and by “the earth,” the unformed matter of corporeal things. These two, as Augustine says, being outside time as considered in their essence, are not subject to the alternations of time; therefore, the creation of both is described as taking place before all days; (Augustine, Confessions 12.8 (PL 32:829).) not that this formlessness preceded formation in time, but only in the order of nature and origin, as sound precedes song.

Nor, in his opinion, does one formation even precede another in duration, but only in the order of nature. According to this order, we must give the first place to the formation of the highest spiritual nature, signified in the making of light on the first day, inasmuch as the spiritual nature surpasses the corporeal in dignity and eminence, and therefore, it behooved it to be formed first; and it is formed by being enlightened, so as to adhere to the Word of God. Now, just as in the natural order spiritual and divine light surpasses the corporeal nature in dignity and eminence, so also do the higher bodies surpass the lower. Hence, on the second day, mention is made of the formation of the higher bodies when it is said, let a firmament be made, by which it is signified that a heavenly form was bestowed on formless matter, which existed already not in time but in origin only.

The third place is given to the impression of the elemental forms on formless matter, existing already by a priority not of time but of origin and order of nature. Hence, by the words, let the waters be gathered together and let the dry land appear, we are to understand that corporeal matter received the substantial form of water so that it could have a certain movement, and also the substantial form of earth, such that it could become visible, because, as he says, water glides and flows away, whereas the earth abides. (Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 2.11 (PL 34:272–73).) Moreover, under the name “water,” according to Augustine, we are to understand that the other higher elements also were formed.

In the following three days, corporeal nature is stated to have been adorned. For it behooved the parts of the world to be first formed and distinguished in the order of nature, and afterwards each part to be adorned by being filled with their respective occupants. On the first day, as stated, the spiritual nature was formed and distinguished; on the second, the heavenly bodies were formed and distinguished, and on the fourth adorned; on the third day, the lower bodies, namely, air, water, and earth, were formed and distinguished, of which the air and water, being of greater dignity, were adorned on the fifth day, and the earth, being the lowest body, was adorned on the sixth day. Thus, the perfection of the divine works corresponds to the perfection of the number six, which is the sum and product of its several factors, one, two, and three, in that one day was deputed to the formation and distinction of the spiritual creature; two days to the formation and distinction of the corporeal nature; and three to its adornment (for: 1+2+3=6, 6x1=6, 2x3=6, and 3x2=6). Since, then, six is the first perfect number, it fittingly denotes the perfection of things and of the divine works. Accordingly, an order of nature, and not one of duration, is preserved in the production of the divine works.

Reply Obj. 30: The luminaries were produced in act, and not merely in power, as the plants were; for the firmament has no power productive of luminaries, as the earth has power enabling it to bring forth plants. Hence, Scripture does not say: “let the firmament produce lights,” as it says: let the earth bring forth the green herb, that is, let it receive the power to produce them. Therefore, the luminaries were actually produced before the plants were actually produced, although the latter were produced in power and causally before the luminaries were produced actually.

Moreover, it has been stated that the order of distinction preceded, in the order of nature, the work of adornment, and the luminaries belong to the adornment of the heavens whereas the plants, especially as regards their virtual existence, do not belong to the adornment of the earth, but rather to its perfection. For it seems that only such things belong to the perfection of the heavens and the earth as are intrinsic to the heavens and earth, while adornment belongs to the things that are distinct from them; for example, a man is perfected by his proper parts and forms but is adorned by his clothes or something of the kind. Now, things are manifested as mutually distinct especially by local movement, by which they are separated from each other. Hence, the work of adornment comprises in a special way the production of those things that are endowed with movement, whether in the heavens or on the earth.

Now, according to Ptolemy, the luminaries are not fixed in the spheres, but have a movement separate from the movement of the spheres, while in the opinion of Aristotle, the stars are fixed in the spheres and in truth do not move except with the movement of the spheres; nevertheless, the movements of the luminaries and stars is perceptible to the senses whereas that of the spheres is not. But Moses, coming down to the level of an uneducated people, described things as they appear to the senses, saying that the luminaries pertain to the adornment of the firmament. But plants are not part of the earth’s adornment; only the animals are, because a thing belongs to the adornment of the place wherein it has real or apparent movement and not where it remains motionless, and the plants cling to the earth by their roots; therefore they are not part of its adornment, but are counted with it and its perfection. However, the stars, although they do not move in the heaven of themselves, do move accidentally and obviously, whereas plants have no movement at all. Consequently, in the order of nature, it behooved the plants which belong to the intrinsic perfection of parts of the universe (that is, of the earth) to be produced before the luminaries, which belong to the adornment of the heavens.

Reply Obj. 31: According to Augustine, the earth and water mentioned at the beginning before the creation of the firmament do not signify the elements of earth and water, but formless prime matter devoid of all species. (Augustine, On Genesis Against the Manichees 1.5, 1.7 (PL 34:177–79).) For Moses, seeing that he was addressing an uneducated people, could not mention prime matter except under the guise of things known to them and most akin to formlessness through having more of matter and less of form. For this reason, he expresses it by combining a twofold likeness, and instead of calling it “earth” only or “water” only, he calls it “earth and water,” lest if he mentioned only one of these, it might be thought that prime matter was really that and nothing else. Yet, it bears a certain likeness to earth inasmuch as it supports and underlies forms, as earth supports plants and other things. Again, earth of all the elements has the least of species, being a more solid element and having much of matter, and having little of form. It also bears a likeness to water in that it has a natural aptitude for receiving various forms, for liquid (which belongs to water) is very receptive and susceptible to boundaries.

Accordingly, the earth is said to be void and empty or invisible and incomposite because matter is known by its form, so that, considered in itself, it is said to be invisible, that is, unknowable, and void inasmuch as the form is the end to which the appetite of matter tends (for a thing is said to be void when it is deprived of its end); or, it is called void in comparison with the composite wherein it subsists, because a void is opposed to firmness and solidity. It is said to be incomposite, because it cannot subsist outside a composite, and lacks the beauty of actual existence. It is said to be empty because matter’s potency is filled by form; hence, Plato identified matter with place, inasmuch as the receptivity of matter is somewhat like to the receptivity of place, in that, while the same matter remains, diverse forms succeed one another just as diverse bodies succeed one another in one place. (Plato, Timaeus 35a–37a; 50b–e; 57c–58a.) Hence, things that belong to place are by a likeness said of matter, such that matter is said to be “empty” because it lacks form, which fills the capacity and potency of matter. Therefore, formless prime matter in the order of nature and origin preceded the formation of the firmament, and the latter in the order of nature preceded the earth and water mentioned on the third day, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 32: Augustine holds that it was not fitting for Moses to omit the production of the spiritual creature, so he contends that in the words in the beginning God created heaven and earth, heaven signifies the spiritual creature as yet unformed, and earth, formless corporeal matter. (Augustine, City of God 11.33 (PL 41:346–47).) And seeing that the spiritual nature is more worthy than the corporeal, it behooved it to receive its formation first. Accordingly, the formation of the spiritual nature is signified in the creation of light, which denotes spiritual light, because the formation of a spiritual nature consists in its being enlightened so as to adhere to the Word of God, not indeed by perfect glory, in which it was not created, but by that which is conferred with the light of grace, in which it was created. And this spiritual light preceded the firmament in the order of nature.

But in the opinion of other holy men, the light created on the first day was corporeal and was produced in the heaven created on the first day together with the substance of the sun, as regards the common nature of light, while on the fourth day it received its definite power for the production of definite effects.

Reply Obj. 33: The order of the production of these animals, since they belong to the adornment of the parts of the universe, depends on the order of the parts they adorn rather than on their own proper dignity. Now, air and water, which are adorned by fishes and birds, are prior and more dignified in the order of nature than earth, which is adorned by the animals that walk on its surface; therefore, it behooved the production of flying creatures and of fishes or swimming creatures to be described before that of the creatures that walk. It might also be said that, in the process of generation, perfection follows imperfection, and is ordered in such wise that the more imperfect things are produced first in the order of nature, because this process requires that the more perfect a thing is and the greater its likeness to the active cause, the later its production in point of time, although in the order of nature and dignity it is prior. For this reason, since man is the most perfect of all animals, it behooved him to be made after all the others and not immediately after the heavenly bodies, which are not ordered with the lower bodies in the order of generation, since they have no matter in common with them, but rather have a matter of a different account.

Reply Obj. 34: Birds and fishes, as regards the matter from which they are produced, have more in common with each other than with terrestrial animals. For fishes and birds are said to be composed of water: the former as regards that which is, in water itself, the more dense, the latter as regards that which is more subtle in it, that is resolved into vapor, as though a mean between air and water; thus, the birds arose into the air while the fishes sank into the deep. Now, animals are assigned to various days or to one day according as their bodies are produced from different matters or from the same matter. Since, then, fishes and birds are said to be produced from the waters inasmuch as, considering their respective constitutions in comparison with the constitution peculiar to the common genus, they have more water in their composition than other animals have, while other animals are said to have been produced from the earth; therefore, one day is assigned to the production of fishes and birds and another day to the production of the terrestrial animals. Moreover, the production of animals is related solely with respect to their being intended for the adornment of parts of the world; therefore, the days on which the animals were produced are distinguished solely with respect to their likeness or difference in the point of adorning some part of the world. As to fire and air, seeing that the common people do not regard them as parts of the world, Moses does not mention them expressly, but comprises them with the intermediate element, namely water, especially as regards the lower parts of the air. Consequently, one day is assigned to the birds and fishes, which adorn the water and the air, as to its lower part, which is akin to water, while one other day is assigned to all the terrestrial animals, which pertain to the adornment of the earth.

If, however, preference be given to the opinion of Gregory and others, the arguments against this view must now be dealt with. These authors hold that, between the days in question, there was a succession of time, and that things were produced by degrees, so that when heaven and earth were created, there was as yet no light, nor was the firmament formed, nor were the waters removed from the face of the earth, nor the heavenly lights produced.

Reply Sed Contra 1: On the day when God created heaven and earth—namely, the heavenly bodies and the four elements with their substantial forms—he also created every plant of the field, not actually or before it sprang up from the earth, but potentially so that afterwards on the third day it was produced into actual existence.

Reply Sed Contra 2: According to Gregory, when God created the angel, he created man also, not actually or in himself but potentially or in his likeness, insofar as he is like the angels in regard to his intellect. (Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job 32.12.17 (PL 76:645–46).) But afterwards, on the sixth day, man was produced actually and in himself.

Reply Sed Contra 3: The disposition of a thing that is already complete is not the same as its disposition while yet in the coming to be; therefore, although the nature of a perfect and complete world requires that all the essential parts of the universe exist together, it could be otherwise when the world was as yet in its beginning; for example, in a complete man there cannot be a heart without his other parts, yet in the formation of the embryo, the heart is fashioned before any other part. Or it may be replied that in this beginning of things, the heavenly bodies and all the elements with their substantial forms were produced together with the angels, all of which are principal parts of the universe, and that on the following days, something was accomplished within the nature already created, and pertaining to the perfection and adornment of the parts already produced.

Reply Sed Contra 4: Although the Greek doctors maintained that the spiritual creature was created before the corporeal, the Latin doctors held that the angels were created at the same time as the corporeal nature, so as to ensure the simultaneous production of the universe in respect of its principal parts. For, seeing that corporeal creatures are one in created matter, and that the matter of corporeal creatures was created at the same time as the angels, it may be said that all things were in a sense created at the same time, either actually or potentially. Now, angels have no matter in common with the corporeal creature; therefore, when the angels were created, corporeal nature would nowise have been created, and consequently, neither the universe itself; therefore, it is reasonable that they should be created together with the corporeal nature. Accordingly, all corporeal things were created at the same time, not actually but in respect of matter in some way formless; and afterwards, by degrees they were brought into actual existence by the distinction and adornment of the already existing creature.

Reply Sed Contra 5: Just as a creature has no being of itself, so neither has it perfection otherwise than from God; therefore, just as to indicate that the creature has being from God and not of itself, it was his will that it should come into existence after non-existence, so too, to indicate that the creature does not have perfection of itself, it was God’s will that it should be at first imperfect, and afterwards, by degrees be perfected by the work of distinction and adornment. Or it may be replied that it behooved the creation of things to show forth not only the might of God’s power, but also the order of his wisdom, so that things having precedence in nature have priority of production; therefore, it was not due to inability on the part of God, as though he needed time for his works, that all things were not produced, distinguished, and adorned at the same time, but rather it was so that the order of wisdom might be observed in the institution of things. Therefore, it was fitting that different days should be assigned to the different states of the world. For after the work of creation, the following work always added a new state of perfection to the world; therefore, in order to indicate this perfection and newness of state, it was God’s will that one day should correspond to each distinction and adornment, and not because he was weak or tired.

Reply Sed Contra 6: The light which, we are told, was made on the first day was the light of the sun, according to Gregory and Dionysius; this, together with the substance of the luminaries, which is the subject of that light, was produced on the first day as regards the common nature of light. On the fourth day, the luminaries were endowed with a definite power for definite effects; thus, we observe that the rays of the sun have a different effect from those of the moon, and so forth. For this reason, Dionysius says that this light was the light of the sun, but as yet formless as regards that which was the sun’s substance, and was endowed with an illuminating power in a general way; (Pseudo-Dionysius, The Divine Names 4.1, 4.4 (PG 3:693–700).) and that afterwards, it was formed on the fourth day, not indeed with the substantial form that it had on the first day, but as regards certain accidental conditions by receiving a definite power, insofar as later a specific and definite power was given it for definite effects. Accordingly, when this light was produced, the light was divided from the darkness in a triple respect.

First, in respect of its cause, since the cause of light was the sun’s substance, while the cause of darkness was the opaqueness of the earth.

Second, in respect of place, since there was light in one hemisphere and darkness in the other.

Third, in respect of time, since in the one hemisphere, there was light at one time, and darkness at another. This is indicated in the words of Genesis 1:5, he called the light day and the darkness night. Therefore, that light neither covered the earth on all sides, since in one hemisphere there was light and darkness in the other, nor was there always light on one side and darkness on the other, but in the same hemisphere there was day at one time and darkness at another.

Reply Sed Contra 7: The heaven has a twofold movement. One is the “diurnal movement,” which is common to the whole heaven and causes day and night. This movement would seem to have been produced on the first day, when the formless substance of the sun and other luminaries was produced. The other is its own peculiar movement, which differs in the different heavenly bodies, whose movements bring about the differences of days, months, and years. On the first day was produced the common division of time into day and night by the diurnal movement, which is common to the whole heaven, and may be said to have begun on the first day. Therefore, on the first day, mention is made only of the distinction of day and night produced by the diurnal movement common to all the heavens. On the fourth day was made the distinction as regards the difference of days and seasons, in that one day is warmer than another, one season warmer than another, and one year warmer than another: all of which result from the special and proper movements of the stars, which movements may be understood to have commenced on the fourth day. Hence it is that on the fourth day mention is made of the difference between days, seasons, and years: and let them be for seasons and for days and for years (Gen 1:14), and this difference results from their respective movements. Accordingly, those first three days that preceded the formation of the luminaries were of the same account as the days that are now regulated by the sun as regards the common division of time into day and night, resulting from the diurnal movement common to the whole heaven, but not as regards the special differences of days resulting from those proper movements.

Reply Sed Contra 8: Some say that the light described as created on the first day was a luminous cloud that subsequently, when the sun was made, was resolved into the surrounding matter. But this is not likely, seeing that in the beginning of Genesis, Scripture relates the establishment of nature in that condition wherein it was to remain, so that it should not be said that anything was made which after a little while ceased to exist. Hence, others say that this luminous cloud still exists, but united to the sun in such a manner that it cannot be distinguished from it. But in this case, this cloud would be superfluous, while nothing in God’s works is void of purpose or superfluous. Therefore, yet others say that the body of the sun was formed from this cloud. But this again is inadmissible, if we suppose the solar body not to be composed of the four elements but actually incorruptible, since in that case its matter is not susceptive of different forms.

Consequently, we have to say, with Dionysius, that this light was the light of the sun yet still formless, insofar as the substance of the sun already existed and had an illuminating power in a general way, and that on the fourth day, it received a specific and definite power for its peculiar and particular effects. (Pseudo-Dionysius, The Divine Names 4.1, 4.4 (PG 3:693–700).) And thus, day and night resulted from the light’s circular movement whereby it approached and receded. Nor is it incongruous that the substances of the spheres, which by their common and diurnal movement caused this light to revolve, existed from the very beginning, whereby subsequently, they received certain powers in the works of distinction and adornment.

Reply Sed Contra 9: The production of light signifies that the property of luminosity and transparency, which is traced back to the genus of light, was then bestowed on all luminous and transparent bodies. And since the sun is the principle and source of light, illuminating both higher and lower bodies, therefore, Dionysius by the light in question understands the formless light of the sun, which by the common diurnal movement divided the day from the night, just as it does now.

Reply Sed Contra 10: And thus, the tenth argument is solved, since that light was not a cloud in its true substance, one that afterwards ceased to be. It might, however, be called a cloud as resembling one in respect of a property, in that as a luminous cloud receives from the sun a light that is less bright than its very source, so too, in those first three days, the substance of the sun had an imperfect and as it were formless light that was afterwards perfected on the fourth day; therefore, the substance of the sun was itself luminous, since from the moment in which it was created it had its substantial form, yet the sun is described as formed from it on the fourth day, not in substance but by the addition of a new power, just as a man from being ignorant of music becomes musical not in substance but in capacity.