Prima Pars · chapter 72 of 117 · ▶ Speed Read

Greco-Christian stream·Opera Omnia Sancti Thomae (Complete Works of Thomas Aquinas)·Summa Theologiae·Prima Pars·Q74. All the seven days in common

Source context
Theme
theological synthesis of the seven days of creation considered as a unified sacred structure

Steiner

not engaged in the GA corpus

Cross-tradition

  • Jewish liturgical tradition (Shabbat)The hebdomadal cycle as a sacred unit recapitulating the seven days of creation is structurally central to Shabbat theology, where the seventh day consecrates the whole week as a cosmological totality — a cross-tradition congruence with Aquinas's treatment of the days as a unified divine act.
  • Neoplatonic cosmology (Proclus, Pseudo-Dionysius)Neoplatonic emanationist schemes articulate a sevenfold unfolding of the One into multiplicity and return, offering a structural parallel to Aquinas's reading of the seven days as both successive and unified in the divine creative will.

Q74. All the seven days in common

Article 2

[I.q.74.a.2.arg.1] It would seem that all these days are one day. For it is written (Genesis 2:4-5): "These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord . . . made the heaven and the earth, and every plant of the field, before it sprung up in the earth." Therefore the day in which God made "the heaven and the earth, and every plant of the field," is one and the same day. But He made the heaven and the earth on the first day, or rather before there was any day, but the plant of the field He made on the third day. Therefore the first and third days are but one day, and for a like reason all the rest.

[I.q.74.a.2.arg.1] Ad secundum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod omnes isti dies sint unus dies. Dicitur enim Gen., II, 4: Istæ sunt generationes cæli et terræ, quando creata sunt, in die quo fecit Dominus cælum et terram, et omne virgultum agri, antequam oriretur in terra. Unus ergo est dies in quo fecit cælum et terram, et omne virgultum agri. Sed cælum et terram fecit in prima die, vel potius ante omnem diem; virgultum autem agri tertia die. Ergo unus est primus dies et tertius; et pari ratione omnes aliis.

[I.q.74.a.2.arg.2] Further, it is said (Sirach 18:1): "He that liveth for ever, created all things together." But this would not be the case if the days of these works were more than one. Therefore they are not many but one only.

[I.q.74.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, Eccli., xviii, 4, dicitur: Qui vivit in xternum, creavit omnia simul. Sed hoc non esset, si dies horum operum essent plures, quia plures dies non sunt simul. Ergo non sunt plures dies, sed unus tantum.

[I.q.74.a.2.arg.3] Further, on the seventh day God ceased from all new works. If, then, the seventh day is distinct from the other days, it follows that He did not make that day; which is not admissible.

[I.q.74.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, die septimo cessavit Deus a novis operibus condendis. Si ergo septima dies est alia ab aliis diebus, sequitur quod illam diem non fecerit; quod est inconveniens.

[I.q.74.a.2.arg.4] Further, the entire work ascribed to one day God perfected in an instant, for with each work are the words (God) "said . . . . and it was . . . done." If, then, He had kept back His next work to another day, it would follow that for the remainder of a day He would have ceased from working and left it vacant, which would be superfluous. The day, therefore, of the preceding work is one with the day of the work that follows.

[I.q.74.a.2.arg.4] 4. Præterea, totum opus quod uni diei adscriptur, in instanti perfecte; cum in singulis operibus dicatur: Dixit et factum est. Si igitur sequens opus in diem alium reservasset, sequeretur quod in residua parte illius diei cessasset ab opere: quod esset superfluum. Non igitur est alius dies sequentis operis a die operis præcedentis. 5. Sed contra est quod Gen., I, dicitur: Factum est vespere et mane dies secundus, dies tertius; et sic de aliis. Secundum autem et tertium dici non potest, ubi est unum tantum. Ergo non fuit unus dies tantum.

[I.q.74.a.2.sc] It is written (Genesis 1), "The evening and the morning were the second day . . . the third day," and so on. But where there is a second and third there are more than one. There was not, therefore, only one day.

[I.q.74.a.2.co] On this question Augustine differs from other expositors. His opinion is that all the days that are called seven, are one day represented in a sevenfold aspect (Gen. ad lit. iv, 22; De Civ. Dei xi, 9; Ad Orosium xxvi); while others consider there were seven distinct days, not one only. Now, these two opinions, taken as explaining the literal text of Genesis, are certainly widely different. For Augustine understands by the word "day," the knowledge in the mind of the angels, and hence, according to him, the first day denotes their knowledge of the first of the Divine works, the second day their knowledge of the second work, and similarly with the rest. Thus, then, each work is said to have been wrought in some one of these days, inasmuch as God wrought in some one of these days, inasmuch as God wrought nothing in the universe without impressing the knowledge thereof on the angelic mind; which can know many things at the same time, especially in the Word, in Whom all angelic knowledge is perfected and terminated. So the distinction of days denotes the natural order of the things known, and not a succession in the knowledge acquired, or in the things produced. Moreover, angelic knowledge is appropriately called "day," since light, the cause of day, is to be found in spiritual things, as Augustine observes (Gen. ad lit. iv, 28). In the opinion of the others, however, the days signify a succession both in time, and in the things produced.

If, however, these two explanations are looked at as referring to the mode of production, they will be found not greatly to differ, if the diversity of opinion existing on two points, as already shown (67, 1; 69, 1), between Augustine and other writers is taken into account.

First, because Augustine takes the earth and the water as first created, to signify matter totally without form; but the making of the firmament, the gathering of the waters, and the appearing of dry land, to denote the impression of forms upon corporeal matter. But other holy writers take the earth and the water, as first created, to signify the elements of the universe themselves existing under the proper forms, and the works that follow to mean some sort of distinction in bodies previously existing, as also has been shown (67, 1,4; 69, 1).

Secondly, some writers hold that plants and animals were produced actually in the work of the six days; Augustine, that they were produced potentially. Now the opinion of Augustine, that the works of the six days were simultaneous, is consistent with either view of the mode of production. For the other writers agree with him that in the first production of things matter existed under the substantial form of the elements, and agree with him also that in the first instituting of the world animals and plants did not exist actually. There remains, however, a difference as to four points; since, according to the latter, there was a time, after the production of creatures, in which light did not exist, the firmament had not been formed, and the earth was still covered by the waters, nor had the heavenly bodies been formed, which is the fourth difference; which are not consistent with Augustine's explanation. In order, therefore, to be impartial, we must meet the arguments of either side.

[I.q.74.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod in hac quæstione Augustinus ab aliis expositoribus dissentit. Augustinus enim vult, Super Genes. ad litt., lib. IV, cap. xxii, col. 312, t. 3, et De civ. Dei, lib. XI, cap. ix, col. 324, t. 7, et Ad Orosium, quæst. xxvi, col. 742, t. 6, quod omnes qui dicuntur septem dies, sunt unus dies septempliciter rebus præsentatus. Alii vero expositores sentiunt quod fuerunt septem dies diversi, et non unus tantum. Hæ autem duæ opiniones, si referantur ad expositionem litteræ Genesis, magnam diversitatem habent. Nam secundum Augustinum, per diem intelligitur cognitio mentis angelicæ; ut sic primus dies sit cognitio primi divini operis; secundus dies, cognitio secundi operis, et sic de aliis: et sic dicitur unumquodque opus esse factum in aliqua die, quia nihil Deus produxit in reum natura quod non impresserit menti angelicæ; quæ quidem multa simul potest cognoscere, praecipue in Verbo, in quo omnis angelorum cognitio perficitur et terminatur. Et sic distinguitur dies secundum naturalem ordinem rerum cognitarum, non secundum successionem cognitionis, aut secundum successionem productionis rerum. Cognitio autem angelica proprie et vere dies nominari potest, cum lux, quæ est causa diei, proprie in spiritualibus, secundum Augustinum, IV Super Genes., cap. xxvii, col. 315, tom. III, inveniatur. Secundum vero alios, per istos dies et successio dierum temporalium ostenditur, et successio productionis rerum. Sed si istæ duæ opiniones referantur ad modum productionis rerum, non invenitur magna differentia; et hoc propter duo, in quibus exponendis diversificatur Augustinus ab aliis, ut ex supra dictis patet. Primo quidem, quia Augustinus per terram et aquam prius creatas intelligit materiam totaliter informem; per factionem autem firmamenti et congregationem aquarum et apparitionem aridæ, intelligit impressionem formarum in materiam corporalem. Alii vero sancti per terram et aquam primo creatas intelligunt ipsa elementa mundi sub propriis formis existentia; per sequentia autem opera aliquam distinctionem in corporibus prius existentibus, ut supra dictum est. Secundo autem differunt quantum ad productionem plantarum et animalium; quæ alii ponunt in opere sex dierum esse producta in actu; Augustinus vero, potentialiter tantum. In hoc ergo quod Augustinus ponit opera sex dierum esse simul facta, sequitur idem modus productionis rerum. Nam secundum utrosque in prima rerum produc- Liber ad Orosium, certum sibi vindicat auctorem. Stylus quidem ab Augustini et Orosii consueta phrasi æque distat; quæstiones congeruntur ex variis locis, aliæ ex Eucherii Commentariis in Genesim, aliæ ex ipso Augustino, etc. tione materia erat sub formis substantialibus elementorum, et secundum utrosque in prima rerum institutione non fuerunt animalia et plantæ in actu. Sed remanet differentia quantum ad quatuor: quia secundum alios sanctos post primam productionem creaturæ fuit aliquod tempus in quo non erat lux; item in quo non erat firmamentum formatum; item in quo non erat terra discooperta ab aquis; et in quo non erant formata cæli luminaria, quod est quartum; quæ non oportet ponere secundum expositionem Augustini. Ut igitur neutri sententiæ præjudicetur, utriusque rationibus respondendum est.

[I.q.74.a.2.ad.1] On the day on which God created the heaven and the earth, He created also every plant of the field, not, indeed, actually, but "before it sprung up in the earth," that is, potentially. And this work Augustine ascribes to the third day, but other writers to the first instituting of the world.

[I.q.74.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod in die in quo creavit Deus cælum et terram, creavit etiam omne virgultum agri non in actu, sed antequam oriretur super terram, id est potentialiter, quod Augustinus adscritit tertiæ diei, alii vero primæ rerum institutioni.

[I.q.74.a.2.ad.2] God created all things together so far as regards their substance in some measure formless. But He did not create all things together, so far as regards that formation of things which lies in distinction and adornment. Hence the word "creation" is significant.

[I.q.74.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod Deus creavit omnia simul quantum ad rerum substantiam quodammodo informem; sed quantum ad formationem, quæ facta est per distinctionem et ornatum, non simul; unde signanter utitur verbo creationis.

[I.q.74.a.2.ad.3] On the seventh day God ceased from making new things, but not from providing for their increase, and to this latter work it belongs that the first day is succeeded by other days.

[I.q.74.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod in die septimo cessavit Deus a novis operibus condendis, non autem a propagandis quibusdam ex aliis; ad quam propagationem pertinet quod post primum diem aliis succedunt.

[I.q.74.a.2.ad.4] All things were not distinguished and adorned together, not from a want of power on God's part, as requiring time in which to work, but that due order might be observed in the instituting of the world. Hence it was fitting that different days should be assigned to the different states of the world, as each succeeding work added to the world a fresh state of perfection.

[I.q.74.a.2.ad.4] Ad quartum dicendum, quod non est ex impotentia Dei quasi indigentis tempore ad operandum, quod omnia non sunt simul distincta et ornata; sed ut ordo servaretur in rerum institutione; et ideo oportuit ut diversis statibus mundi diversi dies deservirent. Semper autem per consequens opus novus perfectionis status mundo est additus.

[I.q.74.a.2.ad.5] According to Augustine, the order of days refers to the natural order of the works attributed to the days.

[I.q.74.a.2.ad.5] Ad quintum dicendum, quod secundum Augustinum ille ordo dierum referendus est ad naturalem ordinem operum quæ diebus attribuuntur.

JSON: /api/sources/opera-omnia-aquinas/summa-theologiae/prima-pars/q074.json

Space: play/pause · ←→: skip · ↑↓: speed · Esc: close
250 wpm