Question 70 of Summa Theologica Parse Prima on the Angels and on the Six Days. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Kelly Weiskell. Summa Theologica Parse Prima on the Angels and on the Six Days by St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 70 of the Work of Adornment as regards the Fourth Day. In three articles. We must next consider the work of Adornment, first as to each day by itself, secondly as to all seven days in general. In the first place then, we consider the work of the Fourth Day, secondly that of the Fifth Day, thirdly that of the Six Day, and fourthly such matters as belong to the Seventh Day. Under the first head there are three points of inquiry, one as to the production of the lights, two as to the end of their production, three, whether they are living beings. First article, whether the lights ought to have been produced on the Fourth Day. It would seem that the lights ought not to have been produced on the Fourth Day, for the heavenly luminaries are by nature incorruptible bodies, wherefore their matter cannot exist without their form. But as their matter was produced in the work of creation, before there was any day, so therefore were their forms. It follows then that the lights were not produced on the Fourth Day. Further, the luminaries are, as it were, vessels of light. But light was made on the First Day. The luminaries therefore should have been made on the First Day, not the Fourth. Objection 3 Further, the lights are fixed in the firmament, as plants are fixed in the earth. For the scripture says, he set them in the firmament, but plants are described as produced when the earth, to which they are attached, received its form. The lights therefore should have been produced at the same time as the firmament, that is to say, on the Second Day. Objection 4 Further, plants are in effect of the sun, moon, and other heavenly bodies. Now cause precedes effect in the order of nature. The lights therefore ought not to have been produced on the Fourth Day, but on the Third Day. Objection 5 Further, as astronomers say, there are many stars larger than the moon. Therefore the sun and the moon alone are not correctly described as the two great lights. On the contrary, suffices the authority of scripture. I answer that. In recapitulating the divine works, scripture says, Genesis 2.1, so the heavens and the earth were finished in all the furniture of them, thereby indicating that the work was threefold. In the first work, that of creation, the heaven and the earth were produced, but as yet without form. In the second, or work of distinction, the heaven and the earth were perfected, either by adding substantial form to formless matter, as Augustine holds, or by giving them the order and the beauty due to them, as other holy writers suppose. To these two works is added the work of adornment, which is distinct from perfect. For the perfection of the heaven and the earth regards, seemingly, those things that belong to them intrinsically. But the adornment, those that are extrinsic, just as the perfection of a man lies in his proper parts and forms, and his adornment and clothing are such like. Now just as distinction of certain things is made most evident by their local movement, as separating one from another, so the work of adornment is set forth by the production of things having movement in the heavens and upon the earth. But it has been stated above, in Question 69, that three things are recorded as created, namely the heaven, the water, and the earth, and these three receive their form from three days of work of distinction. So that heaven was formed on the first day, on the second day the waters were separated, and on the third day the earth was divided into sea and dry land. So also is it in the work of adornment, on the first day of this work, which is the fourth of creation, are produced the lights, to adorn the heaven by their movements. On the second day, which is the fifth, birds and fishes are called into being, to make beautiful the intermediate element, for they move in air and water which are here taken as one, while on the third day, which is the sixth, animals are brought forth to move upon the earth and adorn it. It must also here be noted that Augustine's opinion on the production of lights is not at variance with that of other holy writers, since he says that they were made actually and not merely virtually. For the firmament has not the power of producing lights, as the earth has a producing plants. Wherefore scripture does not say, let the firmament produce lights, though it says, let the earth bring forth the green herb. Reply, Objection I. In Augustine's opinion there is no difficulty here, for he does not hold a succession of time in these works, and so there was no need for the matter of the lights to exist under another form. Nor is there any difficulty in the opinions of those who hold the heavenly bodies to be of the nature of the four elements, for it may be said that they were formed out of matter already existing, as animals and plants were formed. For those, however, who hold the heavenly bodies to be of another nature from the elements, and naturally incorruptible. The answer must be that the lights were substantially created at the beginning, but that their substance at first formless is formed on this day by receiving not its substantial form, but a determination of power, as to the fact that the lights are not mentioned as existing from the beginning, but only as made on the fourth day. Chrysostom explains this by the need of guarding the people from the danger of adultery, since the lights are proved not to be gods by the fact that they were not from the beginning. Reply, Objection II. No difficulty exists if we follow Augustine in holding the lights made on the first day to be spiritual, and that made on this day to be corporeal. If however the lights made on the first day is understood to be itself corporeal, then it must be held to have been produced on that day merely as light in general, and that on the fourth day the lights received a definite power to produce determinant effects. Thus we observe that the rays of the sun have one effect, those of the moon another, and so forth. Hence speaking, of such a determination of power, Dionysius says that the sun's light which previously was without form was formed on the fourth day. Reply, Objection III. According to Ptolemy, the heavenly luminaries are not fixed in the spheres, but have their own movement distinct from the movement of the spheres. Wherefore Chrysostom says that he is said to have set them in the firmament, not because he fixed them there immovably, but because he bade them to be there, even as he placed man in paradise to be there. In the opinion of Aristotle, however, the stars are fixed in their orbits, and in reality have no whether movements but that of the spheres, and yet our senses precede the movement of the luminaries and not that of the spheres. But Moses describes what is obvious to sense out of condescension to popular ignorance as we have already said. The Objection, however, falls to the ground if we regard the firmament made on the second day as having a natural distinction from that in which the stars are placed. Even though the distinction is not apparent to the senses, the testimony of which Moses follows is stated above. For all though to the senses there appears to be one firmament. If we admit a higher and lower firmament, the lower will be that which was made on the second day, and on the fourth the stars were fixed in the higher firmament. Reply Objection 4 In the words of Basil, plants were recorded as produced before the sun and moon to prevent idolatry, since those who believe the heavenly bodies to be gods hold that plants originate primarily from these bodies. So as Chrysostom remarks, the sun, moon, and stars cooperate in the work of production by their movements, as the husbandmen cooperate by his labor. Reply Objection 5 As Chrysostom says, the two lights are called great, not so much with regard to their dimensions as to their influence and power. For though the stars be of greater bulk than the moon, yet the influence of the moon is more perceptible to the senses in this lower world. Moreover, as far as the senses are concerned, its apparent size is greater. Second Article Question 70, Article 2 Whether the cause assigned for the production of lights is reasonable. Objection 1 It would seem that the cause assigned for the production of lights is not reasonable, for it is said, Jeremiah 10.2 Be not afraid of the signs of heaven, which the heathens fear. Therefore, the heavenly lights were not made to be signs. Objection 2 Further, sign is contradistinguished from cause, but the lights are the cause of what takes place upon the earth, therefore they are not signs. Objection 3 Further, the distinction of seasons and days began from the first day. For the lights were not made for seasons, days, and years. That is, in order to distinguish them. Objection 4 Further, nothing is made for the sake of that which is inferior to itself, since the end is better than the means. But the lights are nobler than the earth. Therefore they were not made to enlighten it. Objection 5 Further, the new moon cannot be said to rule the night. But such it probably did when first made, for men begin to count from the new moon. The moon, therefore, was not made to rule the night. Objection 5 On the contrary, suffices the authority of Scripture. I answer that. As we have said above, question 65 answer 2, a corporeal creature can be considered as made either for the sake of its proper act, or for other creatures, or for the whole universe, or for the glory of God. Of these reasons only that which points out the usefulness of these things to man is touched upon by Moses, in order to withdraw his people from idolatry. Hence it is written, Deuteronomy 419, lest perhaps lifting up thy eyes to heaven, thou seeest the sun and the moon and all the stars of heaven, and being deceived by air, thou adorn serve them, which the Lord thy God created for the service of all nations. Now he explains this service at the beginning of Genesis is threefold. First the lights are of service to man, in regard to sight, which directs him in his works, and is most useful for perceiving objects. In reference to this he says, let them shine in the firmament and give life to the earth. Secondly, as regards to the changes of the seasons, which prevent weariness, preserve health, and provide for the necessities of food, all of which things could not be secured if it were always summer or winter. In reference to this he says, let them be for seasons and for days and years. Thirdly, as regards the convenience of business and work, in so far as the lights are set in the heavens to indicate fair or foul weather, as favorable to various occupations. And in this respect he says, let them be for signs. Reply Objection 1 The lights in the heaven are set for signs of changes affected in corporeal creatures, but not of those changes which depend upon the free will. Reply Objection 2 We are sometimes brought to the knowledge of hidden effects through their sensible causes, and conversely, hence nothing prevents a sensible cause from being a sign, but he says signs, rather than causes, to guard against idolatry. Reply Objection 3 The general division of time into day and night took place on the first day, as regards the diurnal movement, which is common to the whole heaven and may be understood to have begun on that first day, but the particular distinctions of days and seasons and years, according as one day is hotter than another, one season than another, and one year than another, are due to certain particular movements of the stars, which movements may have had the beginnings on the fourth day. Reply Objection 4 Light was given to the earth for the service of man, who, by reason of his soul, is nobler than the heavenly bodies, nor is it untrue to say that a higher creature may be made for the sake of a lower, consider not in itself, but as ordained to the good of the universe. Reply Objection 5 When the moon is at its perfection it rises in the evening and sets in the morning, and thus it rules the night, and it was probably made in its full perfection as were plants yielding seed, as also were animals in man himself, for although the perfect is developed from the imperfect by natural process, yet the perfect must exist simply before the imperfect. Augustine, however, does not say this, for he says that it is not unfitting that God made things imperfect, which he afterwards perfected. 3rd Article, Question 70, Article 3 Whether the lights of heaven are living beings Objection 1 It would seem that the lights of heaven are living beings, for the nobler a body is the more nobly it should be adorned, but a body less noble than the heavens is adorned with living beings, with fish, birds, and the beast in the field, therefore the lights of heaven as pertaining to its adornment should be living beings also. Objection 2 Further, the nobler a body is the nobler must be its form, but the sun, moon, and stars are nobler bodies than plants or animals and must therefore have nobler forms. Now the noblest of all forms is the soul, as being the first principle of life, hence Augustine says, every living substance stands higher in the order of nature than one that has not life. The lights of heaven, therefore, are living beings. Objection 3 Further, a cause is nobler than its effect, but the sun, moon, and stars are a cause of life, as is especially evidenced in the case of animals generated from putrification, which receive life in the power of the sun and the stars. Much more therefore have the heavenly bodies a living soul. Objection 4 Further, the movement of the heavens and the heavenly bodies are natural, and natural movement is from an intrinsic principle. Now the principle of movement in the heavenly bodies is a substance capable of apprehension and is moved as the desire is moved by the object desired. More seemingly, the apprehending principle is intrinsic to the heavenly bodies, and consequently they are living beings. Objection 5 Further, the first of movables is the heaven. Now, of all things that are endowed with movement the first moves itself, as is proved in Physics 8, Text 34, because what is such of itself precedes that which is by another, but only beings that are living move themselves, as is shown in the same book, Text 27, therefore the heavenly bodies are living beings. On the contrary, Damathene says, let no one esteem the heavens or the heavenly bodies to be living things, for they have neither life nor sense. I answer that, philosophers have differed on this question. Annex Sagoras, for instance, as Augustine mentions, was condemned by the Athenians for teaching that the sun was a fiery mass of stone and neither a god nor even a living being. On the other hand, the Platonist held that the heavenly bodies have life, nor was there less diversity of opinion among the doctors of the church. It was the belief of origin and Jerome that these bodies were alive, and the latter seems to explain that the sense of the words, Ecclesiastics 1.6, the spirit goeth forward, surveying all places round about. But Basil and Damathene maintain that the heavenly bodies are inanimate. Augustine leaves the matter in doubt, without committing himself to either theory, though he goes so far as to say that if the heavenly bodies are really living beings, their souls must be akin to the angelic nature. In examining the truth of this question where such diversity of opinion exist, we shall do well to bear in mind that the union of soul and body exist for the sake of the soul and not of the body, for the form does not exist for the matter, but the matter for the form. Now the nature and power of the soul are apprehended through its operation, which is to a certain extent its end, yet for some of these operations as sensation and nutrition our body is a necessary instrument. Since it is clear that the sensitive and nutritive souls must be united to a body in order to exercise their functions, there are, however, operations of the soul which are not exercised through the medium of the body, though the body ministers, as it were, to their production. The intellect, for example, makes use of the phantasms derived from bodily senses, and thus far is dependent on the body, although capable of existing apart from it. It is not, however, possible that the functions of nutrition, growth, and generation, through which the nutritive soul operates, can be exercised by the heavenly bodies, for such operations are incompatible with the body naturally incorruptible. Equally impossible is it that the functions of the sensitive soul can appertain to the heavenly body since all the senses depend on the sense of touch, which perceives elemental qualities, and all the organs of the senses require a certain proportion in the enmixture of elements, whereas the nature of heavenly bodies is not elemental, it follows then, that of the operations of the soul the only ones left to be attributed to the heavenly bodies are those of understanding and moving, for appetite follows both sensitive and intellectual perception, and is in proportion there too, but the operations of the intellect which does not act through the body, do not need a body as their instrument, except to supply phantasms through the senses. Moreover, the operations of the sensitive soul, as we have seen, cannot be attributed to the heavenly bodies, accordingly the union of a soul to a heavenly body cannot be for the purpose of the operations of the intellect. It remains then, only to consider whether the movement of the heavenly bodies demands a soul as a motive power, not that the soul, in order to move the heavenly body, need be united to the latter as its form, but by contact of power, as a mover is united to that which he moves. Therefore, are a stottle, after showing that the first mover is made up of two parts, the moving and the moved, goes on to show the nature of the union between these two parts. This, he says, is affected by contact which is mutual. Both are bodies, on the part of one only, if one is a body and the other not. The Platonist explained the union of soul and body in the same way, as a contact of a moving power with the object moved, and since Plato holds the heavenly bodies to be living beings, this means nothing else, but that substances of spiritual nature are united to them and act as their moving power, a proof that the heavenly bodies are moved by the direct influence and contact of some spiritual substance, and not, like bodies of specific gravity, by nature. Lies in the fact that whereas nature moves to one fixed end which having attained at rest, this does not appear in the movement of heavenly bodies, hence it follows that they are moved by some intellectual substances. Augustine appears to be the same opinion when he expresses his belief that all corporeal things are ruled by God through the spirit of life. From what has been said then, it is clear that the heavenly bodies are not living beings of the same sense as plants and animals, and that if they are called so it can only be equivocally, it will also be seen that the difference of opinion between those who affirm and those who deny that these bodies have life is not a difference of things but of words. Reply Objection 1 Certain things belong to the adornment of the universe by reason of their proper movement, and in this way the heavenly luminaries agree with others that conduce to that adornment, for they are moved by living substance. Reply Objection 2 One being may be nobler than another absolutely but not in a particular respect. While then it is not conceded that the souls of heavenly bodies are nobler than the souls of animals absolutely, it must be conceded that they are superior to them with regard to their respective forms, since their form perfects their matter entirely, which is not in potentiality to other forms whereas a soul does not do this. Also as regards movement the power that moves the heavenly bodies is of a nobler kind. Reply Objection 3 Since the heavenly body is a mover moved it is of the nature of an instrument, which acts in virtue of the agent, and therefore since this agent is a living substance the heavenly body can impart life and virtue of that agent. Reply Objection 4 The movements of the heavenly bodies are natural, not on account of their act of principle, but on account of their passive principle, that is to say, from a certain natural aptitude for being moved by an intelligent power. Reply Objection 5 The heaven is said to move itself in as far as it is compounded of mover and moved, not by the union of the mover as the form, with the moved as the matter, but by contact with the motive power, as we have said. So far then, the principle that moves it may be called intrinsic and consequently its movement natural with respect to that active principle, just as we say that voluntary movement is natural to the animal as animal. Reply Objection 7 Question 71 of Summa Theologica, Parse Prima, on the Angels and on the Six Days. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Summa Theologica, Parse Prima, on the Angels and on the Six Days, by Saint Thomas Aquinas, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 71, on the work of the Fifth Day, in one article. We must next consider the work of the Fifth Day. Objection 1 It would seem that this work is not fittingly described, for the waters produce that which the power of water suffices to produce. But the power of water does not suffice for the production of every kind of fishes and birds since we find that many of them are generated from sea. Therefore, the words that the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life and the fowl that may fly over the earth do not fittingly describe this work. Objection 2 Further, fishes and birds are not produced from water only, but earth seems to predominate over water in their composition, as is shown by the fact that their bodies tend naturally to the earth and rest upon it. It is not then fittingly said that fishes and birds are produced from water. Objection 3 Further, fishes move in the waters and birds in the air. If them fishes are produced from the waters, birds ought to be produced from the air and not from the waters. Objection 4 Further, not all fishes creep through the waters, for some, as seals, have feet and walk on land. Therefore, the production of fishes is not sufficiently described by the words let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life. Objection 5 Further, land animals are more perfect than birds and fishes, which appear from the fact that they have more distinct limbs and generation of a higher order. For they bring forth living beings, whereas birds and fishes bring forth eggs, but the more perfect has precedence in the order of nature. Therefore, fishes and birds ought not to have been produced on the fifth day before land animals. On the contrary, suffices the authority of scripture. I answer that, as said above in Question 70, Article 1, the order of the work of adornment corresponds to the order of the work of distinction. Hence, as among the three days assigned to the work of distinction, the middle or second day is devoted to the work of distinction of water, which is the intermediate body. So, in the three days of the work of adornment, the middle day, which is the fifth, is assigned to the adornment of the intermediate body by the production of birds and fishes. As then, Moses makes mention of the lights and the light on the fourth day to show that the fourth day corresponds to the first day on which he had said that the light was made. So, on this fifth day, he mentions the waters and the firmament of heaven to show that the fifth day corresponds to the second. It must, however, be observed that Augustine differs from other writers in his opinion about the production of fishes and birds, as he differs about the production of plants. For while others say that fishes and birds were produced on the fifth day, actually, he holds that the nature of the waters produced them on that day potentially. Reply to Objection 1. It was laid down by Avicenna that animals of all kinds can be generated by various mingling of the elements, and naturally, without any kind of seed. This, however, seems repugnant to the fact that nature produces its effects by determinate means, and consequently, those things that are naturally generated from seed cannot be generated naturally in any other way. It ought, then, rather to be said that in the natural generation of all animals that are generated from seed, the active principle lies in the formative power of the seed, but that, in the case of animals generated from petrification, the formative power of is the influence of the heavenly bodies. The material principle, however, in the generation of either kind of animals, is either some element or something compounded of the elements. But at the first beginning of the world, the active principle was the word of God, which produced animals from material elements, either in act, as some holy writers say, or virtually, as Augustine teaches. Not as though the power possessed by water or earth of producing all animals resides in the earth and the water themselves, as Avicenna held, but in the power originally given to the elements of producing them from elemental matter by the power of seed or the influence of the stars. Reply to Objection 2, the bodies of birds and fishes may be considered from two points of view. If considered in themselves, it will be evident that the earthly element must predominant, since the element that is least active, namely the earth, must be the most abundant in quantity in order that the mingling may be duly tempered in the body of the animal. But if considered as by nature constituted to move with certain specific motions, thus they have some special affinity with the bodies in which they move, and hence the words in which their generation is described. Reply to Objection 3, the air as not being so apparent to the senses is not enumerated by itself, but with other things, partly with the water, because the lower region of the air is thickened by watery exhalations, partly with the heaven as to the higher region. But birds move in the lower part of the air, and so are sent to fly beneath the firmament, even if the firmament be taken to mean the region of clouds. Hence the production of birds is ascribed to the water. Reply to Objection 4, nature passes from one extreme to another through the medium, and therefore there are creatures of intermediate type between the animals of the air and those of the water, having something in common with both, and they are reckoned as belonging to that class to which they are most ally, through the characters possessed in common with that class rather than with the other. But in order to include among fishes all such intermediate forms as have special characters like to the airs, the words that the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life are followed by these, God created great whales, etc. Reply to Objection 5, the order in which the production of these animals is given has reference to the order of those bodies which they are set to adorn, rather than to the superiority of the animals themselves. Moreover, in generation also the most perfect is reached through the less perfect. End of Questions 71, Questions 72 of Summa Theologica, Parse Prima, on the Angels and on the Six Days. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Summa Theologica, Parse Prima, on the Angels and on the Six Days by Saint Thomas Aquinas, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Questions 72 on the work of the Sixth Day in one article. We must now consider the work of the Sixth Day. Objection 1, it would seem that this word is not fittingly described, for as birds and fishes have a living soul, so also have land animals. But these animals are not themselves living souls. Therefore the words, let the earth bring forth the living creature, should rather have been. Let the earth bring forth the living four-footed creatures. Objection 2, further, a genus are not to be opposed to its species, but beasts and cattle are quadrupeds. Therefore quadrupeds are not to be enumerated as a class with beasts and cattle. Objection 3, further, as animals belong to a determinate genus and species, so also does men. But in the making of men, nothing is said of his genus and species, and therefore nothing ought to have been said about them in the production of other animals, whereas it is said according to its genus and in its species. Objection 4, further, land animals are more like men, whom God is recorded to have blessed than are birds and fishes. But as birds and fishes are said to be blessed, this should have been said with much more reason of the other animals as well. Objection 5, further, certain animals are generated from putrefaction, which is a kind of corruption, but corruption is repugnant to the first founding of the world. Therefore, such animals should not have been produced at that time. Objection 6, further, certain animals are poisonous and injurious to men, but there ought to have been nothing injurious to men before men sinned. Therefore, such animals ought not to have been made by God at all, since he is the author of good, or at least not until men had sinned. On the contrary, suffices the authority of scripture. I answer that, as on the fifth day, the intermediate body, namely the water, is adorned, and thus that day corresponds to the second day. So, the sixth day, on which the lowest body, where the earth is adorned by the production of land animals, corresponds to the third day. Hence, the earth is mentioned in both places. And here, again, Augustine says, in the little meaning of Genesis 5, that the production was potential and other holy writers, that it was actual. Reply to Objection 1, the different grades of life which are found in different living creatures can be discovered from the various ways in which scripture speaks of them, as Basil says in the Eightth Homily on the Exameron. The life of plants, for instance, is very imperfect and difficult to discern, and hence, in speaking of their production, nothing is said of their life, but only their generation is mentioned, since only in generation is a vital act observed in them. For the powers of nutrition and growth are subordinate to the generative life, as will be shown later on Question 78, Article 2. But amongst animals, those that live on land are generally speaking more perfect than birds and fishes, not because the fish is the void of memory as Basil upholds in the Eightth Homily on the Exameron, and Augustine rejects in the literal meaning of Genesis 3, but because their limbs are more distinct and their generation of a higher order, yet some imperfect animals such as bees and ants are more intelligent in certain ways. Scripture, therefore, does not call fishes living creatures, but creeping creatures having life, whereas it does call land animals living creatures on account of their more perfect life, and seems to imply that fishes are merely bodies having in them something of a soul, whilst land animals from the higher perfection of their life are, as it were, living souls with bodies subject to them. But the life of man, as being the most perfect grade, is not said to be produced by the life of other animals, by earth or water, but immediately by God. Reply to Objection 2. By cattle, domestic animals are signified, which in any way are of service to man, but by beasts, wild animals, such as bears and lions, are designated. By creeping things, those animals are meant which either have no feet and cannot rise from the earth as serpents, or those whose feet are too short to lift them far from the ground as the lizard and tortoise. But since certain animals as deer and goats seem to fall under none of these classes, the word quadrupeds is added, or perhaps the word quadruped is used first as being the genus to which the others are added as species, for even some reptiles, such as lizards and tortoises, are forfeited. Reply to Objection 3. In other animals and in plants, mention is made of genus and species to denote the generation of like from like. But it was unnecessary to do so in the case of man, as what had already been said of other creatures might be understood of him. Again, animals and plants may be said to be produced according to their kinds to signify their remoteness from the divine image and likeness, whereas man is said to be made to the image and likeness of God. Reply to Objection 4. The blessing of God gives power to multiply by generation, and having been mentioned in the preceding account of the making of birds and fishes, could be understood of the beasts of the earth without requiring to be repeated. The blessing, however, is repeated in the case of man, since in him, generation of children has a special relation to the number of the elect, confront Augustine on the literal meaning of Genesis 3.12, and to prevent anyone from saying that there was any sin whatever in the act of begetting children. As to plants, since they experience neither desire of propagation, nor sensation in generating, they are deemed unworthy of a formal blessing. Reply to Objection 5. Since the generation of one thing is the corruption of another, it was not incompatible with the first formation of things that from the corruption of the last perfect, the more perfect should be generated. Hence, animals generated from the corruption of inanimate things, or of plants, may have been generated then. But those generated from corruption of animals could not have been produced then otherwise than potentially. Reply to Objection 6. In the words of Augustine about ungenesis against the many keys, 1. If an unskilled person enters the workshop of an artificer, he sees in it many appliances of which he does not understand the use, and which, if he is a foolish fellow, he considers unnecessary. Moreover, should he carelessly fall into the fire, or wound himself with a sharp-edged tool, he is under the impression that many of the things there are hurtful, whereas the craftsmen, knowing their use, laughs at his folly. And thus some people presume to find fault with many things in this world through not seeing the reasons for their existence. For though not required for the furnishing of our house, these things are necessary for the perfection of the universe. And since man before he sinned would have used the things of this world conformably to the order designed, poisonous animals would not have injured him. End of Question 72. Question 73 of Summa Theologica, Parse Prima, on the Angels and on the Six Days. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Summa Theologica, Parse Prima, on the Angels and on the Six Days, by St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 73 on the things that belong to the Seventh Day. In three articles. We must next consider the things that belong to the Seventh Day. Under this head, there are three points of inquiry. 1. About the completion of the works. 2. About the resting of God. 3. About the blessing and sanctifying of this day. First article. Whether the completion of the divine works ought to be ascribed to the Seventh Day. Objection 1. It would seem that the completion of the divine works ought not to be ascribed to the Seventh Day. For all things that are done in this world belong to the divine works. But the consummation of the world will be at the end of the world. In Matthew chapter 13 verses 39 and 40. Moreover, the time of Christ's incarnation is a time of completion. Wherefore, it is called the time of fullness. In the Vulgate, the fullness of time. Galatians chapter 4 verse 4. And Christ himself, at the moment of his death, cried out, It is consummated. In John chapter 19 verse 30. Hence, the completion of the divine works do not belong to the Seventh Day. Objection 2. Further, the completion of a work is an act in itself. But we do not read that God acted at all on the Seventh Day. But rather that he rested from all his work. Therefore, the completion of the works does not belong to the Seventh Day. Objection 3. Further, nothing is said to be complete to which many things are added, unless they are merely superfluous, for a thing is called perfect to which nothing is wanting that it ought to possess. But many things were made after the Seventh Day, as the production of many individual beings, and even of certain new species that are frequently appearing, especially in the case of animals generated from future faction. Also, God creates daily new souls. Again, the work of the Incarnation was a new work, of which it is said, Jeremiah chapter 31 verse 22. The Lord have created a new thing upon the earth. Miracles also are new works, of which it is said in Ecclesiastes chapter 36 verse 6. Renew thy signs and work new miracles. Moreover, all things will be made new when the saints are glorified, according to Epicalypsy chapter 21 verse 5. And he that sat on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. Therefore, the completion of the divine works ought not to be attributed to the Seventh Day. On the contrary, it is said in Genesis chapter 2 verse 2. On the Seventh Day, God ended his work which he had made. I answer that the perfection of a thing is twofold, the first perfection and the second perfection. The first perfection is that according to which a thing is substantially perfect, and this perfection is the form of the whole, which form results from the whole having its parts complete. But the second perfection is the end, which is either an operation, as the end of the harpist is to play the harp, or something that is attained by an operation, as the end of the builder is the house that he makes by building. But the first perfection is the cause of the second, because the form is the principle of operation. Now, the final perfection, which is the end of the whole universe, is the perfect beatitude of the saints at the consummation of the world. And the first perfection is the completeness of the universe at its first founding, and that is what is ascribed to the Seventh Day. Reply to Objection 1. The first perfection is the cause of the second, as above said. Now, for the attaining of beatitude, two things are required, nature and grace. Therefore, as said above, the perfection of beatitude will be at the end of the world. But this consummation existed previously in its causes, as to nature at the first founding of the world, as to grace in the incarnation of Christ. For grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, in John chapter 1 verse 17. So then, on the Seventh Day was the consummation of nature, in Christ's incarnation the consummation of grace, and at the end of the world will be the consummation of glory. Reply to Objection 2. God did act on the Seventh Day, not by creating new creatures, but by directing and moving his creatures to the work proper to them, and thus he made some beginning of the second perfection. So that, according to our version of the Scripture, the completion of the works is attributed to the Seventh Day, though according to another it is assigned to the Sixth. Either version, however, may stand, since the completion of the universe, as to the completeness of its parts, belongs to the Sixth Day. But its completion as regards their operation to the Seventh. It may also be added that in continuous movement, so long as any movement further is possible, movement cannot be called completed, till it comes to rest, for rest denotes consummation of movement. Now, God might have made many other creatures besides those which he made in the Sixth Days, and hence by the fact that he seized making them on the Seventh Day, he is said on that day to have consummated his work. Reply to Objection 3. Nothing entirely new was afterwards made by God, but all things subsequently made had, in a sense, been made before in the work of the Sixth Days. Some things indeed had a previous experience materially, as the rib from the side of Adam, out of which God formed Eve, whilst others existed not only in matter, but also in their causes, as those individual creatures that are now generated existed in the first of their kind. Species also that are new, if any such appear, existed beforehand in various active powers, so that animals, and perhaps even new species of animals, are produced by putrefaction by the power which the stars and elements received at the beginning. Again, animals of new kinds arise occasionally from the connection of individuals belonging to different species, as the mule is the offspring of an ass and a mare, but even these existed previously in their causes, in the works of the Sixth Days. Some also existed beforehand by way of similitude, as the souls now created. And the work of the Incarnation itself was thus foreshadowed, for as we read in the Philippians, chapter 2, verse 7, the Son of God was made in the likeness of men, and again, the glory that is spiritual was anticipated in the angels by way of similitude, and that of the body in the heaven, especially the Imperian. Hence it is written in Ecclesiastes, chapter 1, verse 10, nothing under the Son is new, for it have already gone before, in the ages that were before us. Second article, whether God rested on the Seventh Day from all His work. Objection 1. It would seem that God did not rest on the Seventh Day from all His work, for it is said in John, chapter 5, verse 17, My Father worketh until now, and I work. God then did not rest on the Seventh Day from all His work. Objection 2. Further, rest is opposed to movement, or to labor, which movement causes. But, as God produced His work without movement and without labor, He cannot be said to have rested on the Seventh Day from His work. Objection 3. Further, should it be said that God rested on the Seventh Day by causing men to rest, against this it may be argued that rest is set down in contra-distinction to His work. Now, the words God created or made this thing or the other cannot be explained to mean that He made men create or make these things. Therefore, the resting of God cannot be explained as His making men to rest. On the contrary, it is said in Genesis, chapter 2, verse 2, God rested on the Seventh Day from all the work which He had done. I answer that rest is, properly speaking, opposed to movement, and consequently to the labor that arises from movement. But, although movement, strictly speaking, is a quality of bodies, yet the word is applied also to spiritual things, and in a twofold sense. On the one hand, every operation may be called a movement, and thus the divine goodness is said to move and go forth to its object and communicating itself to that object, as Dionysus says in the divine names too. On the other hand, the desire that tends to an object outside itself, is said to move towards it. Hence rest is taken in two senses, in one sense meaning a cessation from work, in the other, the satisfying of desire. Now, in either sense, God is said to have rested on the Seventh Day. First, because He seized from creating new creatures on that day. Four, as said above, in the article 1, 3, He made nothing afterwards that had not existed previously in some degree, in the first works. Secondly, because He Himself had no need of the things that He had made, but was happy in the fruition of Himself. Hence, when all things were made, He is not said to have rested in His works, as though needing them for His own happiness, but to have rested from them, as in fact resting in Himself, as He suffices for Himself and fulfills His own desire. And even though from all eternity He rested in Himself, yet the rest in Himself, which He took after He had finished His works, is that rest which belongs to the Seventh Day. And this, says Augustine, is the meaning of God's resting from His works on that day, in the literal meaning of Genesis 4. Reply to Objection 1. God indeed worketh until now by preserving and providing for the creatures He has made, but not by the making of new ones. Reply to Objection 2. Rest is here not opposed to labor or to movement, but to the production of new creatures and the desire tending to an external object. Reply to Objection 3. Even as God rests in Himself alone and is happy in the enjoyment of Himself, so our own soul happiness lies in the enjoyment of God. Thus also, He makes us find rest in Himself, both from His works and our own. It is not then unreasonable to say that God rested in giving rest to us. Still, this explanation must not be set down as the only one, and the other is the first and principal explanation. Third article, whether blessing and sanctifying are due to the Seventh Day. Objection 1. It would seem that blessing and sanctifying are not due to the Seventh Day, for it is usual to call a time blessed or holy for that some good thing has happened in it, or some evil been avoided. But whether God works or seizes from work, nothing accrues to Him or is lost to Him. Therefore, no special blessing or sanctifying are due to the Seventh Day. Objection 2. Further, the Latin Benedictio blessing is derived from Bonitas, goodness. But it is the nature of good to spread and communicate itself, as Dionysus says in Divine Names 4. The days therefore in which God produced creatures deserved a blessing, rather than the day on which He sees producing them. Objection 3. Further, over each creature a blessing was pronounced, as upon each work it was said, God saw that it was good. Therefore, it was not necessary that after all had been produced, the Seventh Day should be blessed. On the contrary, it is written in Genesis chapter 2 verse 3, God blessed the Seventh Day and sanctified it, because in it He had rested from all His work. I answer that, as said above in article 2, God's rest on the Seventh Day is understood in two ways. First, in that He seized from producing new works, though He still preserves and provides for the creatures He has made. Secondly, in that after all His works He rested in Himself. According to the first meaning then, a blessing befits the Seventh Day. Since, as we explain in question 72, the blessing referred to the increase by multiplication, for which reason, God said to the creatures which He blessed increase and multiply. Now, this increase is effected through God's providence over His creatures, securing the generation of like from like. And according to the second meaning, it is right that the Seventh Day should have been sanctified, since the special sanctification of every creature consists in resting in God. For this reason, things dedicated to God are said to be sanctified. Reply to Objection 1. The Seventh Day is said to be sanctified, not because anything can accrue to God or be taken from Him, but because something is added to creatures by their multiplying and by their resting in God. Reply to Objection 2. In the first six days, creatures were produced in their first causes, but after being thus produced, they are multiplied and preserved, and this work also belongs to the Divine Goodness. And the perfection of this Goodness is made most clear by the knowledge that in it alone God finds His own rest, and we may find ours in its fruition. Reply to Objection 3. The good mentioned in the works of each day belongs to the first institution of nature, but the blessing attached to the Seventh Day to its propagation. End of Question 73. Question 74 of Suma Theologica, Paras Prima, on the Angels and on the Six Days. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Suma Theologica, Paras Prima, on the Angels and on the Six Days by Saint Thomas Aquinas, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 74, on all the Seven Days in Common, and three articles. We next consider all the Seven Days in Common, and there are three points of inquiry. One, as to the sufficiency of these days. Two, whether they are all one day or more than one. Three, as to certain modes of speaking, which scripture uses in narrating the works of the Six Days. First article. Whether these days are sufficiently enumerated. Objection 1. It would seem that these days are not sufficiently enumerated, for the work of creation is no less distinct from the works of distinction and adornment than these two works are from one another. But separate days are assigned to distinction and to adornment, and therefore separate days should be assigned to creation. Objection 2. Further, air and fire are nobler elements than earth and water. But one day is assigned to the distinction of water, and another to the distinction of the land. Therefore, other days ought to be devoted to the distinction of fire and air. Objection 3. Further, fish differ from birds, as much as birds differ from the beasts of the earth, whereas men differ more from other animals than all animals whatsoever differ from each other. But one day is devoted to the production of fishes, and another to that of the beasts of the earth. Another day then ought to be assigned to the production of birds, and another to that of men. Objection 4. Further, it would seem, on the other hand, that some of these days are superfluous. Light, for instance, stands to the luminaries in the relation of accident to subject. But the subject is produced at the same time as the accident propered to it. The light and the luminaries, therefore, ought not to have been produced on different days. Objection 5. Further, these days are devoted to the first instituting of the world. But as on the seventh day nothing was instituted, that day ought not to be enumerated with the others. I answer that the reason of the distinction of these days is made clear by what has been said above. Question 70, Article 1. Namely, that the parts of the world had first to be distinguished, and then each part adorned and filled, as it were, by the beings that inhabit it. Now, the parts into which the corporeal creation is divided are three, according to some holy writers. These parts being the heaven, or highest part, the water, or middle part, and the earth, or the lowest part. Thus, the Pythagoreans teach that perfection consists in three things, the beginning, the middle, and the end. The first part, then, is distinguished on the first day, and adorned on the fourth. The middle part distinguished on the middle day, and adorned on the fifth. And the third part distinguished on the third day, and adorned on the sixth. But Augustine, while agreeing with the above writers as to the last three days, differs as to the first three. For, according to him, spiritual creatures are formed on the first day, and corporeal on the two others. The higher body is being formed on the first of these two days, and the lower on the second. Thus, then, the perfection of the divine works corresponds to the perfection of the number six, which is the sum of its eloquent parts, one, two, three. Since one day is assigned to the forming of spiritual creatures, two to that of corporeal creatures, and three to the work of adornment. Reply to Objection One. According to Augustine, the work of creation belongs to the production of formless matter, and of the formless spiritual nature, both of which are outside of time, as he himself says in the Confessions 1212. Thus, then, the creation of either is set down before there was any day. But it may also be said, following other holy writers, that the words of distinction and adornment imply certain changes in the creature which are measurable by time, whereas the work of creation lies only in the divine act producing the substance of beings instantaneously. For this reason, therefore, every work of distinction and adornment is said to take place in a day, but creation, in the beginning, which denotes something indivisible. Reply to Objection Two. Fire and air, as not distinctly known by the unlettered, are not expressly named by Moses among the parts of the world, but reckoned with the intermediate part, or water, especially as regards the lowest part of the air, or with the heaven, to which the higher region of air approaches, as Augustine says in the literal meaning of Genesis 213. Reply to Objection Three. The production of animals is recorded with reference to their adorning, the various parts of the world, and therefore, the days of their production are separated or united, according as the animals adorn the same parts of the world, or different parts. Reply to Objection Four. The nature of light as existing in a subject was made on the first day, and the making of the luminaries on the fourth day does not mean that their substance was produced anew, but that they then received a form that they had not before, as said above, in Question 70, Article I, Answer II. Reply to Objection Five. According to Augustine, in the literal meaning of Genesis 4.15, after all that has been recorded that is assigned to the six days, something distinct is attributed to the seventh, namely, that on it God rested in himself from his works. And for this reason it was right that the seventh day should be mentioned after the sixth. It may also be said, with the other writers, that the world entered on the seventh day upon a new state, in that nothing new was to be added to it, and that therefore the seventh day is mentioned after the sixth, from it's being devoted to cessation from work. Second Article. Whether all these days are one day. Objection One. It would seem that all these days are one day, for it is written in Genesis chapter 4 verses 4 and 5. These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created in the day that the Lord made the heaven and the earth and every plant of the field, before it sprung up in the earth. Therefore the day in which God made the heaven and the earth and every plant on the field is one and the same day. But he made the heaven and the earth on the first day, or rather before there was any day, but the plant of the field he made on the third day. Therefore the first and third days are but one day, and for alike reason all the rest. Objection Two. Further it is said in Ecclesiasticus chapter 18 verse 1, he that liveeth forever created all things together. But this would not be the case if the days of these words were more than one. Therefore they are not many but one only. Objection Three. Further on the seventh day God seized from all new works. If then the seventh day is distinct from the other days, it follows that he did not make that day, which is not admissible. Objection Four. Further the entire work ascribed to one day God perfected in an instant, for with each work are the words God said and it was done. If then he had kept back his next work to another day, it would follow that for the remainder of a day he would have seized from working and left it vacant, which would be superfluous. The day therefore of the preceding work is one with the day of the work that follows. On the contrary, it is written in Genesis 1. The evening and the morning were the second day, the third day and so on. But where there is a second and third there are more than one. There was not therefore only one day. I answer that on this question Augustine differs from other expositors. His opinion is that all the days that are called seven are one day represented in a sevenfold aspect. In the literal meaning of Genesis 4.22, the city of God 11.9 and Ed Eurasium 26. While others consider there were seven distinct days, not one only. Now these two opinions taken as explaining the literal text of Genesis are certainly widely different. For Augustine understands by the word day the knowledge in the mind of the angels and hence according to him the first day denotes their knowledge of the first of the divine works, the second day their knowledge of the second work and similarly with the rest. Thus then each work is said to have been wrought in some one of these days in as much as God wrought nothing in the universe without impressing the knowledge thereof on the angelic mind, which can know many things at the same time, especially in the word in whom all angelic knowledge is perfected and terminated. So the distinction of days denotes the natural order of the things known and not a succession in the knowledge acquired or in the things produced. Moreover, angelic knowledge is appropriately called day since light, the cause of day, is to be found in spiritual things as Augustine observes in the literal meaning of Genesis 4.28. In the opinion of the others however, the day signifies a succession both in time and in the things produced. If however these two explanations are looked at as referring to the mold of production, they will be found not greatly to differ if the diversity of opinion existing on two points as already shown in question 67 article 1 and question 69 article 1 between Augustine and other writers is taken into account. First, because Augustine takes the earth and the water as first created to signify matter totally without form, but the making of the firmament, the gathering of the waters and the appearing of dry land to denote the impression of forms upon corporeal matter. But other holy writers take the earth and the water as first created to signify the elements of the universe themselves existing under the proper forms and the works that follow to mean some sort of form of distinction in bodies previously existing as also has been shown in question 67 articles 1 and 4 question 69 article 1. Secondly, some writers hold that plants and animals were produced actually in the work of the six days. Augustine that they were produced potentially. Now the opinion of Augustine that the works of the six days were simultaneous is consistent with either view of the mold of production. For the other writers agree with him that in the first production of things matter existed under the substantial form of the elements and agree with him also that in the first instituting of the world animals and plants did not exist actually. There remains however a difference as to four points since according to the latter there was a time after the production of creatures in which light did not exist. The firmament had not been formed and the earth was still covered by the waters nor had the heavenly bodies being formed which is the fourth difference which are not consistent with Augustine's explanation. In order therefore to be impartial we must meet the arguments of either side. Reply to objection one. On the day in which God created the heaven and the earth he created also every plant of the field not indeed actually but before it sprung up in the earth that is potentially. And this work Augustine ascribes to the third day but other writers to the first instituting of the world. Reply to objection two. God created all things together so far as regards their substance in some measure formless but he did not create all things together so far as regards that formation of things which lies in distinction and adornment. Hence the word creation is significant. Reply to objection three. On the seventh day God seized from making new things but not from providing for their increase and to this latter work it belongs that the first day is succeeded by other days. Reply to objection four. All things were not distinguished and adorned together not from a want of power on God's part as requiring time in which to work but that due order might be observed in the instituting of the world. Hence it was fitting that different days should be assigned to the different states of the world as each succeeding work added to the world a fresh state of perfection. Reply to objection five. According to Augustine the order of days refers to the natural order of the works attributed to the days. Third article whether scripture uses suitable words to express the work of the six days. Objection one. It would seem the scripture does not use suitable words to express the works of the six days for as light, the firmament and other similar works were made by the word of God so were the heaven and the earth for all things were made by him in John chapter one verse three. Therefore in the creation of heaven and earth as in the other works mentioned should have been made of the word of God. Objection two. Further the water was created by God yet its creation is not mentioned. Therefore the creation of the world is not sufficiently described. Objection three. Further it is said in Genesis chapter one verse 31 God saw all the things that he had made and they were very good. It ought then to have been said of each work God saw that it was good. The omission therefore of these words in the work of creation and in that of the second day is not fitting. Objection four. Further the spirit of God is God himself but it does not be fit God to move and occupy place. Therefore the words the spirit of God moved over the waters are unbecoming. Objection five. Further what is already made is not made over again. Therefore to the words God said let the firmament be made and it was so it is superfluous to add God made the firmament and the like is to be said of other works. Objection five. Further evening and morning do not sufficiently divide the day since the day has many parts. Therefore the words the evening and morning were the second day or the third day are not suitable. Objection seven. Further first not one corresponds to second and third. It should therefore have been said the evening and the morning were the first day rather than one day. Reply to Objection one. According to Augustine in the literal meaning of Genesis one four the person of the sun is mentioned both in the first creation of the world and in its distinction and adornment but differently in either place. For distinction and adornment belong to the work by which the world receives its form but as the giving form to a work of art is by means of the form of the art in the mind of the artist which may be called his intelligible word so the given form to every creature is by the word of God and for this reason in the works of distinction and adornment the word is mentioned but in creation the sun is mentioned as the beginning by the words in the beginning God created since by creation is understood the production of formless matter but according to those who hold that the elements recreated from the first under their proper forms another explanation must be given and therefore Basil says in the first and second homily on the examerun that the words God said signify a divine command such a command however could not have been given before creatures had been produced that could obey it. Reply to Objection two. According to Augustine in the city of God 933 by the heaven is understood the formless spiritual nature and by the earth the formless matter of all corporeal things and thus no creature is omitted but according to Basil in the first homily in the examerun the heaven and the earth as the two extremes are alone mentioned the intervening things being left to be understood since all these move heaven words if light or earth words if heavy and others say that under the word earth scripture is accustomed to include all the four elements as in the Psalm 148 verses 7 and 8 after the words praise the lord from the earth is added fire, hail, snow and ice. Reply to Objection three. In the account of the creation there is found something to correspond to the words God saw that it was good used in the work of distinction and adornment and this appears from the consideration that the holy spirit is love. Now there are two things says Augustine in the literal meaning of Genesis 1 8 which came from God's love of his creatures their existence and their permanence that they might then exist and exist permanently the spirit of God it is said moved over the waters that is to say over that formless matter signified by water even as the love of the artist moves over the materials of his art so that out of them he may form his work and the words God saw that it was good signified that the things that he had made were to endure since they express a certain satisfaction taken by God in his works as of an artist in his art not as though he knew the creature otherwise or that the creature was pleasing to him otherwise than before he made it thus in either work of creation and affirmation the trinity of persons is implied in creation the person of the father is indicated by God the creator the person of the son by the beginning in which he created and the person of the holy ghost by the spirit that moved over the waters but in the formation the person of the father is indicated by God that speaks and the person of the son by the word in which he speaks and the person of the holy spirit by the satisfaction with which God saw that what was made was good and if the words God saw that it was good are not set of the work of the second day this is because the work of distinguishing the waters was only begun on that day but perfected on the third hence these words that are set of the third day refer also to the second or it may be that scripture does not use these words of approval of the second day's work because this is concerned with the distinction of things not evident to the senses of mankind or again because by the firmament is simply understood the cloudy region of the air which is not one of the permanent parts of the universe nor of the principal divisions of the world the above three reasons are given by Rabbi Moses in the guide for the perplexed two and to these may be added a mystical one derived from numbers and assigned by some writers according to whom the work of the second day is not marked with approval because the second number is an imperfect number as receding from the perfection of unity reply to objection four Rabbi Moses in the guide for the perplexed two understands by the spirit of the Lord the air or the wind as Plato also did and says that it is so called according to the custom of scripture in which these things are throughout attributed to God but according to the holy writers the spirit of the Lord signifies the Holy Ghost who is said to move over the water that is to say over what Augustine holds to mean formless matter lest it should be supposed that God loved of necessity the works he was to produce as though he stood in need of them for love of that kind is subject to not superior to the object of love moreover it is fittingly implied that the spirit moved over that which was incomplete and unfinished since that movement is not one of place but of preeminent power as Augustine says in the literal meaning of Genesis one seven it is the opinion however of Basil in the second homily in the examiner that the spirit moved over the element of water fostering and quickening its nature and impressing vital power as the hen broods over her chickens for water has especially a life-giving power since many animals are generated in water and the seed of all animals is liquid also the life of the soul is given by the water of baptism according to John chapter 3 verse 5 unless a man be born again of water and the holy ghost he cannot enter into the kingdom of God reply to objection 5 according to Augustine in the literal meaning of Genesis one eight these three phrases denote the threefold being of creatures first they're being in the world denoted by the command let be made secondly they're being in the angelic mind signified by the words it was done thirdly they're being in their proper nature by the words he made and because the formation of the angels is recorded on the first day it was not necessary there to add he made it may also be said following other writers that the words he said and let be made denote God's command and the words it was done the fulfillment of that command but as it was necessary for the sake of those especially who have asserted that all visible things were made by the angels to mention how things were made it is added in order to remove that error that God himself made them hence in each work after the words it was done some act of God is expressed by some such words as he made or he divided or he called reply to objection 6 according to augustin in the literal meaning of genesis for 22 and 30 by the evening and the morning are understood the evening and the morning knowledge of the angels which has been explained in question 58 articles 6 and 7 but according to basal in the second homily on the exameron the entire period takes its name as is customary from its more important part the day an instance of this is found in the words of jacob the days of my pilgrimage where night is not mentioned at all but the evening and the morning are mentioned as being the ends of the day since they begins with morning and ends with evening or because evening denotes the beginning of night and morning the beginning of day it seems fitting also that where the first distinction of creatures is described divisions of time should be denoted only by what marks their beginning and the reason for mentioning the evening first is that as the evening ends the day which begins with the light the termination of the light at evening precedes the termination of the darkness which ends with the morning but chris's tom's explanation is that thereby it is intended to show that the natural day does not end with the evening but with the morning in the fifth homily on genesis reply to objection seven the words one day are used when day is first instituted to denote that one day is made up of 24 hours hence by mentioning one the measure of a natural day is fixed another reason may be to signify that a day is completed by the return of the sun to the point from which it commenced its course and yet another because at the completion of a week of seven days the first day returns which is one with the eighth day the three reasons assigned above are those given by basal in the second homily on the exam run end of question 74 end of summa theologica pars prima on the angels and on the six days by santomas aquinas translated by the fathers of the english dominican province


Rule number two, and the make Corbin cry handbook. Is that your impression of that was the closest I could get? That was the closest I could get for now. It is I am Corbin with a K. Miles, this is Richard with an R. Seagull. Rule number one. If you're new around China go and smash the like button, subscribe, and ring that little bell, my little notification squad babies. Hashtag notification squad. Hashtag notification squad. Oh, yeah. Hashtag notification squad. And please follow us on MySpace, Instagram. We know they do it with us now. What? They do Instagram and Twitter with us when we go. Please follow us on Instagram. Twitter. It's so juicy. It's so nice to hear from your daughter, especially when she says it's something juicy. Little babies. Today, we are reviewing a film that came out this weekend. And we went to the theaters and saw tariff sales. Yep. We saw the film with Amitaka Bachchan. Better than the first time we tried the last name, it was spot on. Bachchan. And Amitaka Bachchan. Topsy Penu. Look at him, guys. Topsy Penu. Wow. They are reuniting from their first movie, Pink. Pink. Link that right here. We did a review of that one. Fantastic film. Yep. Loved it. So, this is a classic who done it film. Yep. If you want to read the synopsis. Who's the synopsis? A dynamic young entrepreneur finds herself locked in hotel room with the corpse of her dead lover. She hires a prestigious lawyer to defend her. They work together. Now, it's becoming tell you. A dynamic young entrepreneur finds herself locked in hotel room with the corpse of her dead lover. She hires a prestigious lawyer to defend her. And they work together to figure out what actually happened. Picture, if you will, a man in a hotel. A woman accused of something she didn't do. The Twilight Zone. Yes. So, yeah. This film, you went into it. Let's just go straight to the spoilers. Yeah. Okay, go away. Let's just do it. Let's talk about it right now. All out. Let's go. So, if you've never seen it, go away and come back. Spoiler alert. So, ignore what we said earlier. Yeah, let's just go. So, this film, from the trailer, you notice that it's going to be a, you know, this woman is accused. Correct. And you're trying to figure out, the lawyer is trying to figure out how he can unacuse her. Right. Through this whole thing, from basically when it starts off, you, I was trying to figure out who, like what happened. Of course. It's a who done. Yeah. And at first, you're like, okay, this seems like a pretty generic. Yes, it does feel that way. Film. And through the half, up to the halfway point. No, not really half. It was before that. Really? Oh yeah, because when you, yeah, that's true. That's true. It does start to twist a little bit. Yeah.  Right. Yes. But then what you've realized is that you've gone on a roller coaster and you've got quite a few twists and turns that you're about to have happen. It was very similar to a clue. Very similar to a clue. Obviously not funny. No, no, yeah. No. Not with the humor of clue. But twists and turns. Going over these different scenarios that could have happened and they're playing them in front of you, like they actually happened. Yeah. And really you have to decide whether you think it's true or not. And one of the best things about this before we get into all the little twists and turns is that I'm taking it you liked it. Yeah, I did. I did quite enjoy this film. Yep. And it's one of my favorite types of films. It's very actor driven and it's you get to watch. Dialogue driven. You get to watch these people carry the film. And what I told Rick after we left the film, it was kind of like watching, what's his face, Ami... Taku. Amatop. Amatop. Amatop. Amatop Bachchan. And then Tapsi. And Tapsi. Tapsi. Amatop Tapsi. Watching them dialogue together was watching like two heavyweights go like trade blows. Yeah. For actors and everything. It doesn't get any better than watching two great heavyweights. It was fun to watch. Yeah. Like he would say, this happened to you, she's like, no, actually this is actually what happened. And then he'd say, well, yeah, I knew you were going to say that. Yeah. And so you had so many twists and turns in this. Yeah. So many. Once again, spoilers. Yeah. Here come spoilers for sure now. Once the first one when you find out that it's their son, I think that was the first big. Yeah. The big revelation is one Anju, is that his name, the main character, the guy, and he goes there and he looks at the picture and sees the face as the face of the kid in the car. That was great. Yeah. That was one of those. And that's a good place to talk about because throughout, I felt that the score was extremely good in accentuating too many times this kind of a film like a lot of films. The director will overscore the film and they didn't do that. There were moments I noticed the score, but they were at the best times. Yeah. And that was those kinds of moments. Most of the time I didn't notice it, which is exactly what you want. Yeah. Every single time I tried to basically debunk what they were trying to do. Me too, of course. He has his phone. What? What? What? And then they would explain. He explained it a way that he sat on it and I'm like, when was he in their car last? Right. And you've got to pay attention. Do not. I mean, if you get the intermission break, that's when you can go get your food. But if, other than that, you really cannot leave or you'll get lost and you'll miss great stuff. You miss a lot of the twists. Yeah. And the turns. It's like a roller coaster. Yeah. It just starts to do this, especially the last 30 minutes. Yeah. It's just non-stop. Did you see the incoming? Not in a million years. Did you? I predicted from the beginning that he was not who he was. Yes. Really? I didn't predict him tearing off his face until later. It kind of saw that coming. Yeah, I did not. I saw at the beginning when he came in and he was kind of looking at his phone, looking out the window, and then he said, don't worry about it. I was like, I'm wondering. I first thought I was like, I think he's the killer. That's what I thought. Yeah. So I was like, it's something with him is what's going on. I bought him as the lawyer because he was a lawyer in pink. So I was like, same guy. I was like, is this a secret sequel? Yeah. Or a prequel. He came out of retirement. He decided to do another case. He looks a lot better though. His health really improved. To the exact same girl. Yeah. Who has another legal problem. Yeah. And then at the end, I thought it was... I didn't... I did think it was like, wait, is that the dad? But did he just grow a beard? And I was like, no, that doesn't look like him at all. Right, right, right. So I didn't anticipate until the very end when he just started ripping off his face. I'm like, okay. It's the dad. It took so many twists and turns for a split second. I thought it was going to be on June. He actually wasn't dead. Okay. That's how crazy this thing started spinning on you. I think that's one of the best things about this film is that you could have seen it be any person being murdered. Yeah. And I loved... Okay. So now let's get into some of the meatier plot points and moral conundrums of the story for me. I loved how it took us. Let's talk about her. It took us from her as the victim to not just the murderer, but a powerful, strong, conniving, flat out evil person who at the outset you think is just the hapless victim like the character she plays. I'm not saying she's hapless and pink, but she's innocent is what I should say. And it spins it and he saw it come in the whole time because he knew. He knew. He knew her the whole time. And I loved it. When he said that line, he says, no one knows Ronnie better than me. I knew there was more to that. I thought he's saying something and it was exactly that line. I'm showing you the six, but is it because I'm hiding the nine? So good. So that first part. The other one was the moral conundrum about the legal system in any country, especially democracies where the reality is you win a case, not whether or not you're innocent or guilty. You win it based on which legal team can prove you to win the case. It's justice is blind. It's not about right and wrong. It's about who has the best evidence and who can present the best case. Yeah. And how does an attorney like, I thought we were done when he found out she's the murderer and he was going to have this moral conundrum of how do I now take a case and keep my impeccable record when I'm defending somebody I know is guilty and I'm going to try and get him off.  He's done that many times. There's no way he didn't do that before. So that whole moral conundrum I thought was pretty cool. Yeah. Yeah. I loved when they kept replaying. They were like, no, this is what happened. And they would play that out. Yeah. And so they'd show the mom committing the murder. Right. Re-enact it. Re-enact it. I loved that. And I thought I had them for a second when he showed the mother and then she would walk out of the window. Right. And I'm like, well, how did they get locked? How did they get locked?  Right. Dad just came back in. I was looking, once it started doing those turns, I was looking for all the little mistakes. Yeah. And I didn't, there weren't any. Yeah. And obviously that wasn't a true part of it. Sorry, spoiler. Yeah. But it's, I love these two actors. Yeah. Love them. The director, say it for me. Let me see. It's Sujoy Ghosh. Sujoy. Sujoy Ghosh. Sujoy Ghosh. Or Ghosh. Sujoy Ghosh. Did really, really well. I did too. Okay. He was the writer of Bang Bang. Okay. Did he write this as well or did he just direct it? Writer. Yeah. The adapted screenplay from I presume a book. Yeah. And so that looks, so we haven't seen him anything other than. No, but a great, great job. Again, this was one of those movies where there's times where I want things to stand out. I want production design to stand out. I want to pay attention to the cinematography. But when you've got a story that is this much in your head, you need that to all take a back seat. You need to under direct in a way. Yeah. And he did a great job. I mean a lot of the, like you were talking about the little ad-libs that we think they added. I've got to know. If a lot of the lines, a couple of lines were ad-libbed because they would have these really intense parts and then a Bak Chan would jump in with this little quip. Especially the coffee line. Yeah.  Yeah. And I turned to Corb and I said, I hope that's ad-libbed. Yeah. I so hope that he just threw that in there. And his presence man, I mean we've only seen him in a couple of films.  But this guy has the weightiness of presence of an Al Pacino. Yeah. Very Al Pacino-esque. Very Al Pacino. Very D'Niro. Charismatic. Charismatic on screen. Totally she. She is too. For her to hold her own in a film that is the two of them, it's like somebody having to hold their own up against Meryl Streep. Yeah. And you name all the heavyweight actors that are the best of the best. Because he is that good. That guy is just fantastic. Yeah. And I was very pleased with the film. I was sad that I almost called it at the beginning. I would be too. I just wasn't there, thankfully.  It was almost right at the beginning. I was like, I didn't quite call it. So it didn't totally ruin it for me. Because I didn't exactly call what it was.  I don't see it coming most of the time. I was just waiting for him to figure out who this guy was and why he was there. Right. I thought he was a lawyer the whole time. Yeah. So, but I mean, it didn't ruin it at all. That's the only issue I had with it is that it didn't get me as much as I wanted it to get me. The way that it got me. Yeah. The way that it got me. It's not really a gripe with the film. It goes to the makeup team. Oh, yeah. I'm wondering how much of that was a bok chan that had prosthetics and he took it. At the end? Yeah. Because obviously it was, it was him for a while. So he probably took it off for a while and then they switched to that guy. Yeah, but they didn't do the stereotypical just peel the face off on here. I am. They took their time with that and there was a lot of places they could have. I would only see it behind his head. If it was him and those were some amazing prosthetics. Really? That was all him. Yeah. Really good in the eyes. Yeah. Because even at the end he hadn't taken his contacts out yet. So it was his eyes in that guy's face. And just, I can't even count how many twists and turns there are in the story. The only issue I think had is that I don't know how these people, these parents afforded all this stuff. Right. To do all of this. But they did live. He was an engineer. He was an engineer. But who knows? They had a very nice house that was out in, probably had a lot of property. And she did say the lengths that she would go to. So who knows what they did to get the money to do what they need to do? Yeah, I don't know. I just don't know where they got it. I know if somebody murdered my son, I have always said this. If somebody were to hurt my kids, my Rambo switch would flip. Just your son though? No. I thought of him because it was a son who was killed in the film. Just you. But I know me.  I'd go rogue. I would do whatever it took. So I'd find the money. And then I would do whatever I needed to do so I don't touch my kids.  Well, that was fun. Go see the film. Yeah, go see it. Go see it. Highly recommend it. Now that we've spoiled it for everybody, hopefully you have seen it at this point. Yeah, you haven't seen it. Why are you still here? You don't need to see it now. We just told you why we told you the whole film.


Hi, I'm Iverham, and I care for my husband Malcolm. Malcolm has very severe COPD, which is a degenerative disease. It means that his mobility is severely restricted, and so I'm his carer, his main carer. The moment I took on those caring responsibilities for Malcolm, we put in place lasting powers of attorney for both of us. More recently, from West Sussex carers, they've given me and we've organised an emergency care card, which again I'd never heard of before, but if something happens to me, then the people who are looking after me will know that I'm a carer, and they will contact the emergency resolution line, and they will tell my key contacts that something's untoward. But in addition to that, they'll also put in place 48 hours emergency care. They've just been so wonderful in many ways, and if you are a carer, please reach out to them because they've helped us enormously. Firstly, right at the start when I became a carer for Malcolm, they helped with doing the application for PIP. They've also helped with securing equipment, so the key safe they helped provide. It was amazing. I contacted them and within 48 hours we had a key safe. They've also provided an alarm system internally within the house, so Malcolm can call for help if needed. Finally, we've got the emergency contact card which they've supplied and talked me through that process, and importantly for today's discussion, they introduced me to the wonderful world of contingency planning. I'd really encourage other carers who don't have plans in place to think about it. With the greatest will in the world, if anything were to happen to me, I don't think either Malcolm or my family would really be well placed to think about all the things they need to think about in caring for Malcolm. So having it written down just makes their life a lot easier. If other people do have a contingency plan, I think the most important thing to do is to share that with people because I know I'm the worst for knowing exactly what I would want to happen, but that's no good if I haven't told other people. So one of the things that people don't always think about when doing their contingency plans, and I didn't until Chris suggested it to me, was what would happen with their pet. We have a dog and I hadn't thought about that before, but what we'd like to happen is down in the contingency plan. So the people who have the plan know what should happen if anything should happen to me.


Welcome back to Tennis Talk, my name's Cam Williams and with the French Open starting in 24 hours We have a last look at the withdrawal list because we've had some players withdraw since the last time we did one of these videos So big names are not playing and some former finalists are also not playing in this event So let's start with the WTA now the women's withdrawals. Sofia Kenan, the 2020 finalist She's out. Svitolina, she is also out. Last year's finalist Pavlia Cienkova is out. Von Drussever who is the finalist back in 2019 is also out. Tormo, she's out and Tauzen is also out of this event So six names out of the French Open for the women. Having a look at the men's list And there's a lot more players on the men's side that are not playing. Starting with Batista Agu, he's not playing Baratini's not playing who played very well last year and he is actually the highest ranked player Not to be playing the event this year. Shadi, he's also out. Roger Federer we know is also out. Coppa, he's out. Kirios, Mori's out. Montfies, he's also pulled out. Nishikori has also pulled out and Strouf, the final player to pull out of this event So there you have it, a final look at the players that have pulled out and of course French Open starts tomorrow So it's all getting very very real and it's very getting very excited Let me know down in the comments below though. Any of those players really pose a threat? I think Tormo and you know Baratini of course being a top 10 player I think those two players might have done something at the French Open this year had they not have been injured But let me know down in the comments below. What do you think? Do you think any of those players would have actually posed a threat had they been healthy and ready to play?