The Opening of Genesis Part VI. And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”

7/28/2019 The Opening of Genesis Part VI. And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one …

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-opening-of-genesis-part-vi-and-god-said-let-the-waters-under-the-heavens 1/60

The Opening of Genesis Part VI.

And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered

together into one place, and let the dry land appear”

(c) 2013 Bart A. Mazzetti

§

1



TEXTS.

9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and

let the dry land appear.” And it was so.

9 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός συναχθήτω τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰςσυναγωγὴν μίαν καὶ ὀφθήτω ἡ ξηρά καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως καὶ συνήχθη τὸ ὕδωρτὸ ὑποκάτω τοῦ οὐρανοῦ εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν καὶ ὤφθη ἡ ξηρά

9 Dixit vero Deus: Congregentur aquæ, quæ sub cælo sunt, in locum unum: et appareat

arida. Et factum est ita.

1:9. God also said; Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one

place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done.

§

I. ON THE WORK OF THE THIRD DAY.

II. ON GENESIS 1:2.

II. THE WORK OF THE FIRST THREE DAYS AS EMBODYING CERTAIN

NATURAL PRINCIPLES.

§

N.B. Inasmuch as several sections of this paper have been taken from others in this series,

the reader will notice the recurrence in several places of the same witnesses. Rather thanreplace them with an explanatory note, however, for his convenience I have let them standintact, trusting to the reader’s ability to use the Page Down function to skim.

2



I. ON THE WORK OF THE THIRD DAY.

1. Some observations by the Jewish Sages on the work of the third day:

Cf. Midrash: Breisheet I: Creation:

Why is “It was good” not written about the second day [of creation]? R. Samuel bar Nach-man said: Because the disposition of the waters was not yet finished. Consequently, “It was

good” is written twice in connection with the third day, once about the disposition of the

waters and a second time about the work that was begun and completed on that day.

A Roman noblewoman asked R. Yose, “Why is ‘It was good’ not written about the second

day?” He replied, “But in fact, Scripture subsequently does include all the days in the words

‘And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good.’” She said,

“Suppose six men came to you, and you gave to each of five one maneh, but you did not

give one to the sixth, and then you gave a second maneh to all of them together. Would not

each of the first five now have a maneh and one- sixth, while the sixth man would have only

one-sixth of a maneh? I am still baffled.”

At that, R. Yose, retracting his own explanation, explained the matter in the same way as

R. Samuel bar Nachman.

R. Simon, in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi, told the parable of a king who had an

excessively fierce legion, and he said: Since the legion is so fierce, let it not bear my name.

Likewise, the Holy One said: Since the generation of the flood, the generation of Enosh, and

the generation of the dispersion of mankind will be punished by water, let not “It was good”

be set down concerning water.But R. Hanina explained: Because separation [that is to say, disunion] was brought into

being on the second day, as indicated in “Let [the firmament] separate water from water”

(Genesis. 1:6), [the statement “It was good” does not occur]. In this regard, R. Tavyomi

noted: If there is no mention of “It was good” about an act of separation conducive to the

world’s improvement and well-being, all the less should such words occur in describing

occasions leading to the world’s disarray.

Cf. ibid .:

On the third day, the earth was as flat as a plain, and the waters covered the entire surface

of the earth. And when out of the mouth of the Almighty there issued the command “Let

the waters be gathered together . . . and let the dry land appear” (Genesis 1:9), mountains

and hills rising up in different parts of the earth emerged over its entire surface, so that

it became pitted with many valleys. As the core of the earth rose up, the waters rolled

down into the valleys [and became seas] . Forthwith, swelling with pride, the waters rose

in order to cover the earth as at the beginning. But then the Holy One rebuked them,

subdued them, placed them beneath the soles of His feet, and measured out their extent

with His own span, so that they should neither enlarge nor diminish. And as a man makes

a hedge for his vineyard, so He made the sand into a hedge for the seas, so that when the

waters rise and see the sand before them, they turn back and recede. (emphasis added)

Cf. Midrash Rabbah Genesis I Volume I:

GENESIS (BERESHITH) [V. 1-3

2. R. Judan and R. Berekiah observed: The whole world was one mass of water, yet you

actually say, INTO ONE PLACE ! This may be compared to ten inflated wine-skins lying in

3



a chamber. When the king needs their place, what does he do to them? He unties them,

permits their air to escape, and removes them into a corner. Even so did the Holy One,

blessed be He, tread down all the primeval waters 3 and remove them into the Ocean, as it

is written, Behold \ He [consumeth] the waters, and they dry up, also He sendeth them out,

and they overturn the earth (Job xii, 15); it also says, And He treadeth upon the waves of the

sea (ib. IX, 8).

3. R. Levi said: The waters said to each other, 'Let us go and obey the fiat of the Holy One,

blessed be He'; thus it is written, The floods have lifted up their voice, etc. (Ps. xcin, 3). 'Butwhither shall we go/ asked they? 'Let the floods take up (dokyam)/ 4 replied He. R. Levi

said: [' Dokyam '] means, derekyam (to the way of the sea). R. Abba b. Kahana interpretedit: To such and such a place (dok\ to such and such a corner. R. Huna explained: To this sea

(ha-dak yama). R. Joshua b. IJananiah said: To the receptacle (diksa) of the sea. 5 R. Eliezer

said: The sea absorbed them, as you read, Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea (Job

xxxvin, 16)? Which means, into the

1 V, infra, xxm, 7. & It was for this purpose that the waters were to be gathered together at

the Creation.

8 The waters having been hitherto inflated, as it were, and He deflated them.

4 E.V. 'their roaring' ,

6 I.e. to the place specially prepared to receive the waters.

35

V. 3~5] MIDRASH RABBAH

waters absorbed by the sea. Our Rabbis interpreted it: We are crushed (dakkim): receive us;

we are broken: receive us. R. Joshua b. R. Nehemiah said: The waters ascended mountains

and descended into the depths, until they came to the Ocean [Mediterranean], as it is written,They ascended the mountains, they descended into valleys unto the place which Thou hast

founded for them (Ps. civ, 8): which place hast Thou founded for them? The Ocean.

For a witness relevant to my interpretation of the appearance of plant-life at the end of thethird day,1 cf. The Book of Legends (Sefer ha-Aggadah), ed. by H.N. Bialik and Y.H. Rav-nitsky, transl. by William G. Braude. (New York, 1992), Part I, n. 135, p. 11:

35. R. Simon said: There is not one herb without its own constellation (mazzal ) in heaven,

which slaps it and says, “Grow!”12

12 Gen. R. 10:5. On mazzal cf. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.), p. 629, n. 10. Here it is stated that not only

each man but each herb has its own mazzul .

§

1 See Part II below, where I investigate the powers at works in the first three days of creation.

4



2. On the works of the second and third days according to Peter Lombard.

Cf. Peter Lombard. The Second Book of the Sentences (tr. Br. Alexis Bugnolo), Dist. 14,

Part I, Ch. 4:

Magistri Petri Lombardi

Arch. Episc. Parisiensis

Master Peter Lombard

Archbishop of Paris

Sententiarum Quatuor Libri The Four Books of Sentences

LIBER SECUNDUS SENTENTIARUM.

DE RERUM CREATIONE ET FORMATIONE

CORPORALIUM ET SPIRITUALIUM

ET ALIIS PLURIBUS EO PERTINENTIBUS

THE SECOND BOOK OF THE SENTENCES

ON THE CREATION AND FORMATION OF

THINGS CORPORAL AND SPIRITUAL AND

MANY OTHERS PERTAINING TO THIS

DISTINCTIO XIV. DISTINCTION 14

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,

Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 333-335.

Cum Notitiis Editorum Quaracchi

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S.

Bonaventurae,

Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 333-335.

Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

Cap. IV.

Quomodo aquae possint esse super caelum, et quales sint .

« Si quem vero movet, quomodo aquae natura

fluidae et in ima labiles super caelum possint

consistere; de Deo scriptum4 esse meminerit:

Qui ligat aquas in nubibus suis.

Qui enim infra caelum ligat aquas ad tempus

vaporibus nubium retentas, potest etiam super

caeli sphaeram non vaporali tenuitate, sed glaci-

ali soliditate aquas suspendere, ne labantur.

Quales autem et ad quid conditae sint, ipse novit

qui condidit ».

— Ecce ostensum est his verbis, quod caelum

factum sit, scilicet illud in quo fixa sunt sidera,

id est, quod excedit aërem, et de qua materia,

scilicet de aquis, et quales sint aquae, quae

super illud caelum sunt, scilicet ut glacies solid-

atae.

Chapter IV.

In what manner can waters be above the sky,and what kind are they?

« However if it disturbs [movet] someone, in

what manner waters, fluid in nature and able to

fall into the depths [in ima labiles], can even

consist above the (sidereal) heaven; he will re-

member (what has been) written of God:4 Who

binds the waters in His clouds.

For He who binds beneath the sky the waters

retained for a time in the vapors of clouds, can

also suspend waters above the sphere of the sky

not by the tenuousness of vapors [vaporali ten-

uitate], but by the solidity of ice [glaciali solidi-

tate], lest they fall.

Moreover of what kind (they are) and for what

they were founded, He Himself knows whofounded (them) ».

— Behold there is shown with these words,

which heaven was made, namely that in which

are fixed the constellations [sidera], that is, (the

one) which exceeds the air, and from which

matter, that is from waters, (it was made), and

of what kind are the waters, which are above

that heaven, namely (those) solidified as ice.

5



Quidam vero caelum, quod excedit aëris spatia,

igneae naturae dicunt asserentes, super aërem

purum ignem esse, qui dicitur esse caelum, de

quo igne sidera et luminaria facta esse coniec-

tant; quibus Augustinus5 consentire videtur.

Utrum vero nomine firmamenti caelum, quod

excedit aërem, an ipse aër hic intelligatur, idemAugustinus quaerit nec solvit. Magis tamen

approbare videtur, caelum illud hic accipi, quod

spatia aëris excedit.

Aquas autem, quae super illud caelum sunt, dicit

vaporaliter trahi et levissimis suspendi guttis,

sicut aër iste nubilosus exhalatione terrae aquas

vaporaliter trahit et per subtiles minutias sus- pendit, et post corpulentius conglobatas pluvial-

iter refundit.

Si ergo « potest aqua, sicut videmus, ad tantasminutias pervenire, ut feratur vaporaliter super

aërem aquis naturaliter leviorem; cur non

credamus, etiam super illud levius caelum

minutioribus guttis et levioribus imman-arevaporibus »?6

Sed quoquo modo ibi sint, ibi esse non dubi-

tamus.

However certain (authors) say, that the heaven,

which exceeds the spaces [spatia] of the air, (is)

of a fiery nature, asserting, that above the air

there is pure fire, which is said to be the heaven

[caelum], from which fire they conjecture the

stars and luminaries (of heaven) have been

made; with whom (St.) Augustine5 seems to

agree.

However whether there is understood here by

the name of “ firmament ” the heaven, whichexceeds the air, or the air itself, the same (St.)

Augustine asks and does not solve. Yet he

seems to approve more, that there is accepted

here that heaven, which exceeds the spaces of the air.

Moreover the waters, which are above that

heaven, he says, are drawn and suspended in the

lightest drops [levissimis guttis], just as this air,

beclouded with the exhalation of the earth,draws waters in the manner of vapor and sus-

pends (them) through subtle particles [minu-

tias], and pours (them) back (upon the earth) in

the manner of rain [pluvialiter] after they have

condensed together in larger drops [post corpu-

lentius conglobatas].

If, therefore, « water can, just as we see, arriveat particles so small [tantas minutias], as to be

born in the manner of vapor above the air,

(which is) naturally lighter than waters; why do

we not believe, that it remains [immanare]above that lighter heaven in more minute drops

and lighter vapors »?6

But we do not doubt that (waters) are there, in

whatever manner they may be there.

1 Gen. 1, 6. 7. — Testante cod. Erf., haec etsequentia usque ad cap. VII. sumta sunt ex

Gandolpho., Sent. II. c. 57.

2

Hexaëm. ad v. 6. Hic textus, qui excurritusque in cap. IV, habetur in Glossa ordinaria

fere ad verbum. — Locus sequens s. Scripturae

est Ps. 103, 3.

3 Omissa inscriptione capituli, codd. et edd.

vocem quod (i. e. caelum) coniungunt cum

praecedente propositione, quae coniunctio ex eo

explicari potest, quod in antiquis manuscriptis

1 Gen. 1:6,7. — According to the testimony of the Erfurt codex, these and the following up to

chapter VII, have been taken from Gandolphus,

Sent., Bk. II, ch. 57.

2

Hexaëmeron., on v. 6. This text, which runson to chapter IV, is had in the Glossa ordinaria

nearly word for word. — The passage of

Sacred Scripture is Ps. 103:3.

3 Having omitted the title of the chapter, the

codices and editions conjoined the quod to the

preceding proposition, reading which for That ,

which conjunction can be explained from this,

6



tituli capitulorum non raro ad marginem scribe-

bantur. — Verba, quae sequuntur:

Crystallinus . . . de aquis factus est alludere

videntur ad Eccli. 43, 22: et gelavit crystallus ab

aqua. — In initio cap. IV. pro natura, quod edd.

1, 5, 8 exhibent, codd. cum Vat. et ceteris edd.

In-congrue naturae.

4 Iob 26, 8

5 Libr. II. de Gen. ad lit. c. 3. p. 6, et quod

sequitur ibid. c. 4. n. 7. — Paulo post pro solvit

ed. 1 et cod. Erf. absolvit .

6 August., loc. cit. c. 4. n. 8, fere ad verbum, in

quo textu pro immanare Vat. cum nonnullis aliis

edd. emanare, de qua lectione Lexicon For-

cellini annotat: Est qui legit immanare, sed

minus recte (pro immanere), ut habet ed.August.).

that in the ancient manuscripts the titles of the

chapters were written not rarely along the mar-

gin. — The words, which follow: For crystal-

line stone . . . was made from waters [Crystal-

innus . . . de aquis factus est] seem to allude to

Eccli. 43:22: and crystal is frozen from water

[et gelavit crystallus ab aqua]. — At the start of

chapter IV for fluid in nature [natura fluidae],

which editions 1, 5 and 8 exhibit, the codices,together with the Vatican edition and all the

other editions, have incongruously of a fluid

nature [naturae fluidae].

4 Job 26:8.

5 On a Literal Exposition of Genesis¸ Bk. II, ch.

3, p. 6, and what follows is ibid., ch. 4, n. 7. —

A little after this for solve [solvit] edition 1 and

the Erfurt codex have resolve [absolvit]. [Trans.

note: A little below this spaces of the air (aëris

spatia) seems to be said, because according toAristotelian cosmology, the air is contained be-

neath several different concentric heavens.]

6 (St.) Augustine, loc. cit., ch. 4, n. 8, nearly

word for word, in which text for immanare the

Vatican edition, with not a few other editions

has emanates [emanare], concerning which

reading the Lexicon of Forcellinus notes: Thereis the reading immanare, but less rightly (for

im-manere), as is had in the edition of (St.)

Augustine’s (works).

Cf. ibid. The Second Book of the Sentences, Dist. 14, Part II, Ch. 7-8:

PARS II

Cap. VII.

De opere tertii diei, quando aquae congregatae

sunt in unum.

Sequitur: Dixit Deus: Congregentur aquae in

locum unum, et appareat arida. Tertii diei opus

est congregatio aquarum in unum locum. «Congregatae sunt enim omnes aquae caelo

inferiores in unam matricem, ut lux, quae

praeterito biduo aquas clara luce lustraverat, in

puro aëre clarior fulgeat, et appareat terra, quae

cooperta latebat, et quae aquis limosa erat fieret

arida et germinibus apta. Eodem enim die pro-

tulit terra herbam virentem, lignumque faciens

fructum ».4

PART II

Chapter VII.

On the work of the third day, when the waters

were gathered together into one.

There follows: God said: Let the waters be

gathered together into one place, and let the dry

land appear . The work of the third day is thegathering together of the waters into one place.

« For there were gathered together all the waters

below heaven into one matrix, so that light,

which had brightly cleansed [lustraverat] the

waters with clear light in the past two days,

might gleam clearer in the pure air, and (so that)

the land might appear, which (when) covered

had lain hidden, and (so that) what had been

7



Cap. VIII.

Quomodo omnes aquae congregatae sunt inunum locum, cum multa sint maria et flumina.

« Si autem quaeratur, ubi congregatae sunt

aquae, quae totum texerant spatium usque ad

caelum; potuit fieri, ut terra subsidens concavas partes praeberet, ubi fluctuantes aquas rariores

fuisse, quae sicut nebula tegerent terras, sed

congregatione esse spissatas, et ideo facile in

unum posse redigi locum. Cumque multa

constet esse maria et flumina, in unum tamen

locum dicit aquas congregatas propter continu-ationem omnium aquarum, quae in terris sunt,

quia cuncta flumina et maria magno mari iung-

untur. Ideoque cum dixerit aquas congregatas in

unum locum, deinde dicit pluraliter, congregati-

onesque aquarum, propter multifidos sinus

earum, quibus omnibus ex magno mari prin-

cipium est ».

slimy with waters might become dry and apt for

shoots [germinibus]. For on the same day the

earth brought forth the green herb [herbam

virentem], and wood bearing fruit [lignum

faciens fructum] ».4

Chapter VIII.

How all the waters were gathered together intoone place, even though there are many seas and

rivers.

« But if it be asked, where the waters were

gathered together, which had covered the whole

space even unto heaven; it could have come to be, that the earth subsiding proffered (its) hol-

low [concavas] parts, where the fluctuating

waters, which had covered the lands as a ne-

bula, were rarer, but by being gathered together

were thickened, and for that reason were able to

brought down [redigi] into one place. Andthough [it] is established that there are many

seas and rivers, yet (Scripture) says that the

waters (were) gathered together into one place

on account of the continuity [continuationem] of

all the waters, which are among the lands [in

terris], because all the rives and seas are joined

into a great sea. And for that reason when it said

that the waters (were) gathered together into one place, it then says in the plural, and the gather-

ings of the waters [congregationesque aquar-

um], on account of the their many-cloven [mul-

tifidos] gulfs, the beginning of all of which isout of the great sea ».

3. The position of St. Thomas Aquinas on the foregoing matters.

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol., Ia, q. 68, art. 2 (tr. English Dominican Fathers):

Whether there are waters above the firmament?

Objection 1: It would seem that there are not waters above the firmament. For water is

heavy by nature, and heavy things tend naturally downwards, not upwards. Therefore there

are not waters above the firmament.

Objection 2: Further, water is fluid by nature, and fluids cannot rest on a sphere, as exper-

ience shows. Therefore, since the firmament is a sphere, there cannot be water above it.

Objection 3: Further, water is an element, and appointed to the generation of composite

bodies, according to the relation in which imperfect things stand towards perfect. But bodies

of composite nature have their place upon the earth, and not above the firmament, so that

water would be useless there. But none of God’s works are useless. Therefore there are not

waters above the firmament.

8



On the contrary, It is written (Gn. 1:7): “(God) divided the waters that were under the

firmament, from those that were above the firmament.”

I answer with Augustine (Gen. ad lit . ii, 5) that, “These words of Scripture have more

authority than the most exalted human intellect. Hence, whatever these waters are, and

whatever their mode of existence, we cannot for a moment doubt that they are there.” As to

the nature of these waters, all are not agreed. Origen says ( Hom. i in Gen.) that the waters

that are above the firmament are “spiritual substances.” Wherefore it is written (Ps. 148:4):“Let the waters that are above the heavens praise the name of the Lord,” and (Dn. 3:60): “Ye

waters that are above the heavens, bless the Lord.” To this Basil answers ( Hom. iii in

Hexaem.) that these words do not mean that these waters are rational creatures, but that “the

thoughtful contemplation of them by those who understand fulfils the glory of the Creator.”

Hence in the same context, fire, hail, and other like creatures, are invoked in the same way,

though no one would attribute reason to these.

We must hold, then, these waters to be material, but their exact nature will be differently

defined according as opinions on the firmament differ . For if by the firmament we

understand the starry heaven, and as being of the nature of the four elements, for the

same reason it may be believed that the waters above the heaven are of the same nature

as the elemental waters. But if by the firmament we understand the starry heaven, not,however, as being of the nature of the four elements then the waters above the

firmament will not be of the same nature as the elemental waters, but just as, according

to Strabus, one heaven is called empyrean, that is, fiery, solely on account of its

splendor: so this other heaven will be called aqueous solely on account of its trans-

parence; and this heaven is above the starry heaven. Again, if the firmament is held to

be of other nature than the elements, it may still be said to divide the waters, if we

understand by water not the element but formless matter. Augustine, in fact, says

( Super Gen. cont. Manich. i, 5,7) that whatever divides bodies from bodies can be said

to divide waters from waters.

If, however, we understand by the firmament that part of the air in which the clouds

are collected, then the waters above the firmament must rather be the vapors resolved

from the waters which are raised above a part of the atmosphere, and from which therain falls. But to say, as some writers alluded to by Augustine (Gen. ad lit . ii, 4),2 that waters

2 Cf. the following, from the Veritas website:

St. Augustine: “A certain one has laudably tried to explain the waters above the heavens, so that he

might assert the faith proposed by Scripture from visible natures themselves. And first, which was

very easy, he showed that the air is also called heaven, not only in common speech, as when we say‘cloudy’ or ‘clear heavens,’ but even in the custom of our Scriptures themselves, as they say volatilia

cœli (Gen ii. 20., et al.) as it is clear that birds fly in the air: and since the Lord spoke of clouds: You

know then how to discern the face of the sky [of the heavens] (Matt. xvi. 4). Now we often see clouds

accumulate in the air close to the earth, as they rest on the peaks of mountains, so that frequently they

even pass the mountaintops. Since therefore he has proved that the air is called heaven, for no other

cause would he wish the name firmament also to be supposed, unless its space divided between cer-tain water vapors, and those waters that flow more fully on earth. And in fact clouds, in gathering and

accumulating, produce just such a kind of very small drops, as those have experienced who havewalked among them in the mountains; and if these drops become thicker, so that many small drops

become joined in one large one, the air is not able to hold it, but gives way to its greater weight: and

this is rain. Therefore, from the air, which is among the damp vapors, where the higher clouds form,

and the sea poured out below, this man wanted to show there to be a heaven between water and water.

Therefore I consider this diligence and conclusion most worthy of praise …” ( De Gen. ad Lit., II, iv.

7).

9



resolved into vapor may be lifted above the starry heaven, is a mere absurdity. 3 The solid

nature of the firmament, the intervening region of fire, wherein all vapor must be consumed,

the tendency in light and rarefied bodies to drift to one spot beneath the vault of the moon, as

well as the fact that vapors are perceived not to rise even to the tops of the higher mountains,

all to go to show the impossibility of this. Nor is it less absurd to say, in support of this

opinion, that bodies may be rarefied infinitely, since natural bodies cannot be infinitely

rarefied or divided, but up to a certain point only.

Reply to Objection 1: Some have attempted to solve this difficulty by supposing that inspite of the natural gravity of water, it is kept in its place above the firmament by the Divine

power. Augustine (Gen. ad lit . ii, 1), however will not admit this solution, but says “It is our business here to inquire how God has constituted the natures of His creatures, not how far it

may have pleased Him to work on them by way of miracle.” We leave this view, then, and

answer that according to the last two opinions on the firmament and the waters the solution

appears from what has been said. According to the first opinion, an order of the elementsmust be supposed different from that given by Aristotle, that is to say, that the waters

surrounding the earth are of a dense consistency, and those around the firmament of a rarer

consistency, in proportion to the respective density of the earth and of the heaven. Or by the

water, as stated, we may understand the matter of bodies to be signified.

Reply to Objection 2: The solution is clear from what has been said, according to the lasttwo opinions. But according to the first opinion, Basil gives two replies ( Hom. iii in

Hexaem.). He answers first, that a body seen as concave beneath need not necessarily be

rounded, or convex, above. Secondly, that the waters above the firmament are not fluid, but

exist outside it in a solid state, as a mass of ice, and that this is the crystalline heaven of

some writers.

Reply to Objection 3: According to the third opinion given, the waters above the

firmament have been raised in the form of vapors, and serve to give rain to the earth. Butaccording to the second opinion, they are above the heaven that is wholly transparent and

starless. This, according to some, is the primary mobile, the cause of the daily revolution of

the entire heaven, whereby the continuance of generation is secured. In the same way the

starry heaven, by the zodiacal movement, is the cause whereby different bodies are gener-ated or corrupted, through the rising and setting of the stars, and their various influences. But

according to the first opinion these waters are set there to temper the heat of the celestial

bodies, as Basil supposes ( Hom. iii in Hexaem.). And Augustine says (Gen. ad lit . ii, 5) that

some have considered this to be proved by the extreme cold of Saturn owing to its nearness

to the waters that are above the firmament. (emphasis added)

Cf. Quaestiones Disputatae de Potentia Dei. On the Power of God by Thomas Aquinas,

translated by the English Dominican Fathers (1952), q. 4, art. 1, ad 5:

Q. IV: ARTICLE I

Did the Creation of Formless Matter Precede in Duration the Creation of Things?

[Sum. Th. I, Q. lxvi, A. i; QQ lxvii, lxix]

3 In truth, what is “a mere absurdity” is the supposition that the waters need to be “lifted up” above the

firmament in the first place; the plain meaning of the text being that they were already there: the firmament,

so we are told, being “made in the midst of the waters,” from which it follows that the waters divided by the

firmament are already in place at the start of the Second Day. How they got there presents a problem to be

sure; but whatever the explanation one gives, no such difficulty as touched upon by St. Augustine exists.

10



Reply to the Fifth Objection. With regard to the waters that are above the heavens there

have been various opinions. Origen is credited with the view that they denote spiritual

natures. But this cannot be reconciled with the text, since it is not competent to the nature of

a spiritual being to occupy a situation, as though the firmament intervened between them and

the lower corporeal waters, according to the text (i, 6). Hence others hold that the

firmament signifies the neighbouring airy sky above which the waters are raised by

evaporation and become rain-clouds: and then the airy heaven stands between the

higher vaporised waters that float in the space of the mid-air, and the aqueous body

which is seen to be situated on the earth. Rabbi Moses, agrees with this explanation,which nevertheless would seem to be incompatible with the context: since the text goes on to

say (verses 16, 17) that God made two great lights and the stars, and that he set them in thefirmament of the heaven.

Consequently others maintain that the firmament signifies the starry heaven, and that

the waters situated above the heavens are of the same nature as the elemental waters,

but that they are set there by divine providence in order to temper the power of the fire

of which they held the entire heaven to consist, according to Basil. In support of this

view some according to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. ii, 4, 5) advanced two arguments. One was

that since water by means of evaporation can rise into mid-air where the rains are produced,

if it be yet more rarefied and divided into yet smaller particles (for it is indefinitely divisible

like all continuous bodies) it will be able by reason of its rarefaction to rise above the starryheaven, and remain there in a position becoming to its nature. The other argument is that in

the star Saturn, whose heat must be extreme on account of the rapidity of its movement by

reason of the length of its orbit, the effects of cold are observed, and they pretend that this is

occasioned by the neighbourhood of the water which has a cooling effect on this star. But

this explanation we consider to be defective in that it ascribes to the Scriptures statements

that are proved evidently to be false.

—First, as regards position, for it would seem to upset the natural situation of bodies. Be-cause since a body should occupy a higher position according as it is more formal, it would

seem inconsistent with the nature of things that water, which is the most material of all

bodies with the exception of earth, should be set even above the starry heaven. Moreover it

would seem out of keeping that things of the same species should be allotted differentnatural places, which would be the case if the element of water were partly immediately

above the earth and partly above the heavens. Nor is it enough to reply that God by his

omnipotence upholds those waters against their nature, above the heavens, since we are

discussing the nature that God gave to things, and not the miracles that he may have been

pleased to work in them; as Augustine says (ibid . ii, i).

—Secondly, the argument about rarefaction and divisibility of the waters is altogether futile.

For though mathematical bodies are indefinitely divisible, natural bodies have a fixed term

to their divisibility, since every form demands a certain quantity even as other accidents in

accordance with its nature. Hence neither can rarefaction of water continue indefinitely, but

it reaches a fixed term which is the rarity of fire. Moreover, water might continue to be

rarefied until it was no longer water, but air or fire, if the bounds of water’s rarity wereexceeded. Nor would it be possible for water naturally to rise above the positions of air and

fire, unless it lost the nature of water so as to surpass their rarity. Nor again would it be possible for an elemental body which is corruptible to become more formal than the heavens

which are incorruptible, and thus be set above them naturally. Thirdly, the second argument

is utterly trivial. Heavenly bodies as philosophers show are not susceptible to impressions

from foreign bodies. And it was impossible for Saturn to be cooled by those waters, withoutthe stars of the eighth sphere being affected by them in the same way: whereas many of these

stars are observed to have a heating influence. Wherefore one would prefer to offer an

11



explanation which would leave the text of Scripture unassailable, by suggesting that those

waters are not of the same nature as our elemental water, but are of the nature of the Fifth

Essence, being transparent like the waters here below, even as the empyrean shines like our

fire. Some call them crystalline, not that they are frozen into the form of crystals, since

according to Basil ( Hom. iii in Hexam.) only a silly child or an imbecile could imagine such

things about the heavens: but on account of their solidity, even as it is written about all the

heavens (Job xxxvii, 18) that they are strong as though they were made of molten brass. This

heaven according to astronomers is the ninth sphere. Hence Augustine does not adopt any of

these explanations but dismisses them as doubtful; thus he says ( ibid. 5): Howsoever thesewaters may be there and of what kind they may be, one thing is certain, they are there.

Surely the written Word has greater authority than the combined genius of men.

(emphasis added)


Whether the firmament divides waters from waters?

Objection 1: It would seem that the firmament does not divide waters from waters. For bodies that are of one and the same species have naturally one and the same place. But the

Philosopher says (Topic. i, 6): “All water is the same species.” Water therefore cannot be

distinct from water by place.

Objection 2: Further, should it be said that the waters above the firmament differ in species

from those under the firmament, it may be argued, on the contrary, that things distinct in

species need nothing else to distinguish them. If then, these waters differ in species, it is not

the firmament that distinguishes them.

Objection 3: Further, it would appear that what distinguishes waters from waters must be

something which is in contact with them on either side, as a wall standing in the midst of a

river. But it is evident that the waters below do not reach up to the firmament. Therefore the

firmament does not divide the waters from the waters.

On the contrary, It is written (Gn. 1:6): “Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters;and let it divide the waters from the waters.”

I answer that, The text of Genesis, considered superficially, might lead to the adoption of atheory similar to that held by certain philosophers of antiquity, who taught that water was a

body infinite in dimension, and the primary element of all bodies. Thus in the words,

“Darkness was upon the face of the deep,” the word “deep” might be taken to mean the in-

finite mass of water, understood as the principle of all other bodies. These philosophers also

taught that not all corporeal things are confined beneath the heaven perceived by our senses,

but that a body of water, infinite in extent, exists above that heaven. On this view the firma-

ment of heaven might be said to divide the waters without from those within–-that is to say,

from all bodies under the heaven, since they took water to be the principle of them all.

As, however, this theory can be shown to be false by solid reasons, it cannot be held to bethe sense of Holy Scripture. It should rather be considered that Moses was speaking to ignor-

ant people, and that out of condescension to their weakness he put before them only such

things as are apparent to sense. Now even the most uneducated can perceive by their senses

that earth and water are corporeal, whereas it is not evident to all that air also is corporeal,

for there have even been philosophers who said that air is nothing, and called a space filled

with air a vacuum. Moses, then, while he expressly mentions water and earth, makes no

express mention of air by name, to avoid setting before ignorant persons something beyond

their knowledge. In order, however, to express the truth to those capable of understanding it,

12



he implies in the words: “Darkness was upon the face of the deep,” the existence of air as

attendant, so to say, upon the water. For it may be understood from these words that over the

face of the water a transparent body was extended, the subject of light and darkness, which,

in fact, is the air.

Whether, then, we understand by the firmament the starry heaven, or the cloudy

region of the air, it is true to say that it divides the waters from the waters, according as

we take water to denote formless matter, or any kind of transparent body, as fittingly

designated under the name of waters. For the starry heaven divides the lower trans-parent bodies from the higher, and the cloudy region divides that higher part of the air,

where the rain and similar things are generated, from the lower part, which is con-

nected with the water and included under that name.

Reply to Objection 1: If by the firmament is understood the starry heaven, the waters above

are not of the same species as those beneath. But if by the firmament is understood thecloudy region of the air, both these waters are of the same species, and two places are

assigned to them, though not for the same purpose, the higher being the place of their

begetting, the lower, the place of their repose.

Reply to Objection 2: If the waters are held to differ in species, the firmament cannot be

said to divide the waters, as the cause of their destruction, but only as the boundary of each.

Reply to Objection 3: On account of the air and other similar bodies being invisible, Moses

includes all such bodies under the name of water, and thus it is evident that waters are found

on each side of the firmament, whatever be the sense in which the word is used. (emphasis

added)


Whether it was fitting that the gathering together of the waters should take place, as re-

corded, on the third day?

Objection 1: It would seem that it was not fitting that the gathering together of the watersshould take place on the third day. For what was made on the first and second days is

expressly said to have been “made” in the words, “God said: Be light made,” and “Let there

be a firmament made.” But the third day is contradistinguished from the first and the seconddays. Therefore the work of the third day should have been described as a making not as a

gathering together.

Objection 2: Further, the earth hitherto had been completely covered by the waters,

wherefore it was described as “invisible” [*Question [66], Article [1], Objection [1]]. There

was then no place on the earth to which the waters could be gathered together.

Objection 3: Further, things which are not in continuous contact cannot occupy one place.

But not all the waters are in continuous contact, and therefore all were not gathered together into one place.

Objection 4: Further, a gathering together is a mode of local movement. But the waters

flow naturally, and take their course towards the sea. In their case, therefore, a Divine

precept of this kind was unnecessary.

Objection 5: Further, the earth is given its name at its first creation by the words, “In the

13



beginning God created heaven and earth.” Therefore the imposition of its name on the third

day seems to be recorded without necessity.

On the contrary, The authority of Scripture suffices.

I answer that, It is necessary to reply differently to this question according to the different

interpretations given by Augustine and other holy writers. In all these works, according to

Augustine (Gen. ad lit . i, 15; iv, 22,34; De Gen. Contr. Manich. i, 5, 7), there is no order of

duration, but only of origin and nature. He says that the formless spiritual and formlesscorporeal natures were created first of all, and that the latter are at first indicated by the

words “earth” and “water.” Not that this formlessness preceded formation, in time, but onlyin origin; nor yet that one formation preceded another in duration, but merely in the order of

nature.

Agreeably, then, to this order, the formation of the highest or spiritual nature is recorded inthe first place, where it is said that light was made on the first day. For as the spiritual nature

is higher than the corporeal, so the higher bodies are nobler than the lower. Hence the

formation of the higher bodies is indicated in the second place, by the words, “Let there be

made a firmament,” by which is to be understood the impression of celestial forms on

formless matter, that preceded with priority not of time, but of origin only. But in the third

place the impression of elemental forms on formless matter is recorded, also with a priorityof origin only. Therefore the words, “Let the waters be gathered together, and the dry land

appear,” mean that corporeal matter was impressed with the substantial form of water, so as

to have such movement, and with the substantial form of earth, so as to have such an

appearance.

According, however, to other holy writers [*Question [66], Article [1]] an order of

duration in the works is to be understood, by which is meant that the formlessness of matter

precedes its formation, and one form another, in order of time. Nevertheless, they do nothold that the formlessness of matter implies the total absence of form, since heaven, earth,

and water already existed, since these three are named as already clearly perceptible to the

senses; rather they understand by formlessness the want of due distinction and of perfect

beauty, and in respect of these three Scripture mentions three kinds of formlessness. Heaven,the highest of them, was without form so long as “darkness” filled it, because it was the

source of light.4 The formlessness of water, which holds the middle place, is called the

“deep,” because, as Augustine says (Contr. Faust . xxii, 11), this word signifies the mass of

waters without order.5 Thirdly, the formless state of the earth is touched upon when the earth

is said to be “void” or “invisible,” because it was covered by the waters. 6 Thus, then, the

formation of the highest body took place on the first day. And since time results from the

movement of the heaven, and is the numerical measure of the movement of the highest body,

from this formation, resulted the distinction of time, namely, that of night and day. On the

second day the intermediate body, water, was formed, receiving from the firmament a sort of

distinction and order (so that water be understood as including certain other things, as

explained above (Question [68], Article [3])). On the third day the earth, the lowest body,

received its form by the withdrawal of the waters, and there resulted the distinction in thelowest body, namely, of land and sea. Hence Scripture, having clearly expresses the manner

in which it received its form by the equally suitable words, “Let the dry land appear.”

4 That is, the transparent body of the heaven was without form until light was created; light being the act of

the transparent, and therefore a form.5 The ‘deep’ was without form until its waters were gathered together into ‘Seas’, which is one common

place. But that place, signified by the common name ‘Seas’, reveals that they are numerically many; for if

they were not, the use of the plural would be inaccurate.6 The earth was without form until its veil of waters was withdrawn from it and it became visible.

14



Reply to Objection 1: According to Augustine [*Gen. ad lit . ii, 7,8; iii, 20], Scripture does

not say of the work of the third day, that it was made, as it says of those that precede, in

order to show that higher and spiritual forms, such as the angels and the heavenly bodies, are

perfect and stable in being, whereas inferior forms are imperfect and mutable. Hence the

impression of such forms is signified by the gathering of the waters, and the appearing of the

land. For “water,” to use Augustine’s words, “glides and flows away, the earth abides” (Gen.

ad lit . ii, 11). Others, again, hold that the work of the third day was perfected on that day

only as regards movement from place to place, and that for this reason Scripture had no

reason to speak of it as made.

Reply to Objection 2: This argument is easily solved, according to Augustine’s opinion ( De

Gen. Contr. Manich. i), because we need not suppose that the earth was first covered by the

waters, and that these were afterwards gathered together, but that they were produced in this

very gathering together. But according to the other writers there are three solutions, which

Augustine gives (Gen. ad lit . i, 12). The first supposes that the waters are heaped up to agreater height at the place where they were gathered together, for it has been proved in

regard to the Red Sea, that the sea is higher than the land, as Basil remarks ( Hom. iv in

Hexaem.). The second explains the water that covered the earth as being rarefied or

nebulous, which was afterwards condensed when the waters were gathered together. The

third suggests the existence of hollows in the earth, to receive the confluence of waters. Of

the above the first seems the most probable.7

Reply to Objection 3: All the waters have the sea as their goal, into which they flow by

channels hidden or apparent, and this may be the reason why they are said to be gathered

together into one place. Or, “one place” is to be understood not simply, but as contrasted

with the place of the dry land, so that the sense would be, “Let the waters be gathered

together in one place,” that is, apart from the dry land. That the waters occupied more places

than one seems to be implied by the words that follow, “The gathering together of the waters

He called Seas.”

Reply to Objection 4: The Divine command gives bodies their natural movement and by

these natural movements they are said to “fulfill His word.” Or we may say that it was

according to the nature of water completely to cover the earth, just as the air completelysurrounds both water and earth; but as a necessary means towards an end, namely, that plants

and animals might be on the earth, it was necessary for the waters to be withdrawn from a

portion of the earth. Some philosophers attribute this uncovering of the earth’s surface to the

action of the sun lifting up the vapors and thus drying the land. Scripture, however, attributes

it to the Divine power, not only in the Book of Genesis, but also Job 38:10 where in the

person of the Lord it is said, “I set My bounds around the sea,” and Jer. 5:22, where it is

written: “Will you not then fear Me, saith the Lord, who have set the sand a bound for the

sea?”8

Reply to Objection 5: According to Augustine ( De Gen. Contr. Manich. i), primary matter

is meant by the word earth, where first mentioned, but in the present passage it is to be taken

for the element itself. Again it may be said with Basil ( Hom. iv in Hexaem.), that the earth ismentioned in the first passage in respect of its nature, but here in respect of its principal

property, namely, dryness. Wherefore it is written: “He called the dry land, Earth.” It mayalso be said with Rabbi Moses, that the expression, “He called,” denotes throughout an

7 Would not a better explanation be one supposing God to have so formed the surface of the earth that a body

that of its very nature has no shape, namely, water, would thereby have one imparted to it? If so, it is hard to

see how any other interpretation could be judged superior to the view that by producing some sort of ‘basins’

in the surface of the earth God distributed “the mass of waters without order” into ‘Seas’.8 Cf. also Psalm 33:7: “He gathers the waters of the sea into jars; he puts the deep into storehouses.” (NIV)

15



equivocal use of the name imposed. Thus we find it said at first that “He called the light

Day”: for the reason that later on a period of twenty-four hours is also called day, where it is

said that “there was evening and morning, one day.” In like manner it is said that “the

firmament,” that is, the air, “He called heaven”: for that which was first created was also

called “heaven.” And here, again, it is said that “the dry land,” that is, the part from which

the waters had withdrawn, “He called, Earth,” as distinct from the sea; although the name

earth is equally applied to that which is covered with waters or not. So by the expression “He

called” we are to understand throughout that the nature or property He bestowed corres-

ponded to the name He gave.

4. On the breaking out of the waters.

Proverbs 3:19-20:

Douay-Rheims Version:

19 The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth, hath established the heavens by prudence.

20 By his wisdom the depths have broken out, and the clouds grow thick with dew.

King James Version:

19 The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the

heavens.

20 By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew.

Revised Standard Version:

19 The LORD by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding he established the heavens;

20 by his knowledge the deeps broke forth, and the clouds drop down the dew.

Proverbs 8:22-24:


22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made any thing from the

beginning. 23 I was set up from eternity, and of old before the earth was made. 24 The

depths were not as yet, and I was already conceived; neither had the fountains of waters as

yet sprung out:

King James Version:

22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding

with water.


22 The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his works of old.

23 Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.

16



24 When there were no depths I was brought forth; when there were no springs abounding

with water.

Psalm 103:


Benedic, anima. God is to be praised for his mighty works, and wonderful providence.

1 For David himself. Bless the Lord, O my soul: O Lord my God, thou art exceedingly great.

Thou hast put on praise and beauty: 2 And art clothed with light as with a garment. Who

stretchest out the heaven like a pavilion: 3 Who coverest the higher rooms thereof with

water. Who makest the clouds thy chariot: who walkest upon the wings of the winds. 4 Who

makest thy angels spirits: and thy ministers a burning fire. 5 Who hast founded the earth

upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever. 6 The deep like a garment is its

clothing: above the mountains shall the waters stand. 7 At thy rebuke they shall flee: at the

voice of thy thunder they shall fear. 8 The mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the

place which thou hast founded for them. 9 Thou hast set a bound which they shall not pass

over; neither shall they return to cover the earth

Psalm 104, King James Version:

1 Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with

honour and majesty. 2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out

the heavens like a curtain: 3 Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who

maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind: 4 Who maketh hisangels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire: 5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it

should not be removed for ever. 6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the

waters stood above the mountains. 7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they

hasted away. 8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place

which thou hast founded for them. 9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that

they turn not again to cover the earth.


1 Bless the LORD, O my soul! O LORD my God, thou art very great! Thou art clothed with

honor and majesty, 2 who coverest thyself with light as with a garment, who hast stretched

out the heavens like a tent, 3 who hast laid the beams of thy chambers on the waters, who

makest the clouds thy chariot, who ridest on the wings of the wind, 4 who makest the winds

thy messengers, fire and flame thy ministers.

5 Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken. 6 Thou didst

cover it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. 7 At thy

rebuke they fled; at the sound of thy thunder they took to flight. 8 The mountains rose, the

valleys sank down to the place which thou didst appoint for them. 9 Thou didst set a boundwhich they should not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth,

4. On the envelope of water called the sea.

Cf. Archibald Geikie, Elementary Lessons in Physical Geography (1886), pp. 103-105:

CHAPTER III.

17



THE SEA.

LESSON XII. — The Great Sea-basins.

1. From the outer envelope of air which encloses the earth we now pass to the underlying

envelope of water called the Sea. At the outset some obvious differences between these two

coverings may be noticed. For example, while the atmosphere completely wraps round the

whole planet, rising to a height of many miles above its general surface, the water envelope

is pierced in many places by masses of the underlying solid part of the earth, which riseabove it to form land. As already mentioned (Lesson V. Art. 2), the sea covers not quite

three quarters, and the land a little more than one quarter, of the entire surface of the earth.

2. Again, we know nothing about the upper surface of the atmosphere, and cannot say

precisely how far it lies above us, but the surface of the sea forms a great plain, and the line

between it and the air is sharply defined. Though we speak of the sea as forming a plain, weknow this apparent plain to be really curved, and that from its wide extent and its freedom

from inequalities, it shows the curvature of the earth's surface better than can be seen on

land. (Lesson I. 2.) The amount of the curvature is about eight inches in a statute mile; that

is, an object eight inches high above the sea-level sinks out of sight when looked at from the

same level at a distance of more than a mile. The line of meeting between the [103-104] sky

and the surface of the earth is termed the horizon. Its distance from us evidently dependsupon the elevation at which we may happen to stand. Thus, at the seashore with our eyes

exactly six feet above the sea-level, our horizon out to sea is three miles off. If we ascend so

that our eyes are about ten feet and a half above the sea-level, our horizon is extended to four

miles. If we climb to some adjoining height, say to a lighthouse top, about ninety-six feet

above the sea, our horizon is increased to a distance of twelve miles.1

3. Another evident contrast between the air and the sea lies in the fact that while every

inhabitant of the earth is familiar with the one, only a comparatively small part of mankindhas ever seen the other. Even in an island like Britain, a large proportion of the inland

population has never been within sight of the sea. On the continents the proportion is

necessarily much greater, for, except the people dwelling along the sea-margin, the great

mass of the inhabitants, having little or no communication with the coasts, have noacquaintance with any larger sheet of water than their own native river or lake.

4. One who has not seen it can hardly realise what the sea is from descriptions in books.

Let us suppose, however, that some intelligent dweller in the inland regions were taken for

the first time to the sea-coast, and, after recovering from his first impression of wonder and

admiration, were to begin to look attentively at those features which would be most likely to

attract his notice. He would observe that the solid ground, with which he had been familiar

all his life, gives place to a seemingly boundless plain of water, at first sight level and

motion-

1 In estimating the extent of the visible horizon, however, when the distance exceeds half a mile, we

need to take into account the effect of atmospheric refraction which tends to make distant objectsseem higher than they are. The allowance to be made for this effect varies from day to day; it com-

monly requires a deduction of about one-seventh from the apparent height of an object.

[104-105]

less, but soon found to be in a state of perpetual unrest, and answering to all the movements

of the air above, heaving or rippling when the air is gently stirred, but rising into waves and

foam-crested breakers along the shore when the wind blows strongly. Should he taste some

18



of this blue sparkling water he would find it salt and undrinkable, even though clearer

perhaps than his own river at home. Gathering the shells and other remains of the living

things of the sea from the sands of the shore, he would find every one of them different from

anything he had ever found on the land or in fresh water. Were he to watch by the shore

from day to day, he would notice that twice every day the water advances slowly and as

slowly retreats, and that this regular movement takes place whether the water be smooth or

rough. Were he to set sail upon the seemingly boundless plain of water, he would watch the

land behind him gradually sinking, as it were, into the water, till at last its highest point had

disappeared, and the same long level line of meeting between sea and sky would then sweeparound him on every side. With no land in sight and no other vessel perhaps to be descried;

with only the sky overhead and the heaving water beneath and around, he would learn better than from any map or description the vastness and solitude of the great deep. And yet from

the deck, or even from the mast-head of his ship, only a comparatively small patch of the sea

could be seen at once. The horizon or sky-line, which he thinks so immeasurably distant, is

only a few miles off (Art. 2). And he might sail for weeks together, passing over thousandsof miles, with all the time the same limited horizon and the same monotony of sea and sky.

§

N.B. With respect to the correspondence the work of the third day has with embryogenesis,cf. the following excerpt from my paper, THE PARADIGM OF GENESIS:

19



II. ON GENESIS 1:2.

19. On the separation of “the watery parts” from “the earthy ones”:

Cf. John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible (1748), on Genesis 1:2:

Ver. 2. And the earth was without form, and void ,.... It was not in the form it now is,

otherwise it must have a form, as all matter has; it was a fluid matter, the watery parts were

not separated from the earthy ones; it was not put into the form of a terraqueous globe it is

now, the sea apart, and the earth by itself, but were mixed and blended together, it was, as

both the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem paraphrase it, a waste and desert, empty and destitute of both men and beasts; and it may be added, of fishes and fowls, and also of trees,

herbs, and plants. It was, as Ovid {k} calls it, a chaos and an indigested mass of matter;

and Hesiod {l} makes a chaos first to exist, and then the wide extended earth, and so

Orpheus {m}, and others; and this is agreeably to the notion of various nations. The

Chinese make a chaos to be the beginning of all things, out of which the immaterial being

(God) made all things that consist of matter, which they distinguish into parts they call

Yin and Yang, the one signifying hidden or imperfect, the other open or perfect {n}: and

so the Egyptians, according to Diodorus Siculus {o}, whose opinion he is supposed to give,

thought the system of the universe had but one form; the heaven and earth, and the

nature of them, being mixed and blended together, until by degrees they separated and

obtained the form they now have:9 and the Phoenicians, as Sanchoniatho {p} relates,

supposed the principle of the universe to be a dark and windy air, or the blast of a dark

air, and a turbid chaos surrounded with darkness, as follows; and darkness was upon the

face of the deep: the whole fluid mass of earth and water mixed together. This abyss isexplained by waters in the next clause, which seem to be uppermost; and this was all a dark

turbid chaos, as before expressed, without any light or motion, till an agitation was made by

the Spirit, as is next observed….

{k} “Quem dixere chaos, rudis indigestaque moles”, Ovid Metamorph. l. 1. Fab. 1. {l} htoi men

protista caov &c. Hesiodi Theogonia. {m} Orphei Argonautica, ver. 12. {n} Martin. Sinic. Hist. l. 1.

p. 5. {o} Bibliothec. l. 1. p. 7. {p} Apud Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. l. 2. c. 10. p. 33. (emphasis added)

Cf. idem, on Genesis 1:10:

Ver. 10. And God called the dry land earth,.... The whole chaos, that was a turbid fluid, a

mixture of earth and water, a rude unformed mass of matter, was called earth before; but

now that part of the terraqueous globe, which was separated from the waters, and they

from it, is called “earth” : which has its name in the Arabic language from its being low and

depressed; the lighter parts having been elevated, and moved upwards, and formed the

atmosphere; the grosser parts subsiding and falling downwards, made the earth, which is low

with respect to the firmament, which has its name in the same language from its height {f},as before observed.

9 Cp. Eusebius, Praep. Evang . III. xiv: “In fact Anaxagoras alone is mentioned as the first of the Greeks whodeclared in his discourses about first principles that mind is the cause of all things.… ‘For in the beginning,’

he said, ‘all things were mingled together in confusion: but mind came in, and brought them out of confusion

into order.’” Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol ., IIIa q. 74, art. 2, obj. 2, ad 1: “Now the separation of

the parts of the world from one another at the world’s beginning was effected by God’s power alone, for the

work of distinction was carried out by that power: wherefore Anaxagoras asserted that the separation was ef-

fected by the act of the intellect which moves all things (cf. Aristotle, Phys. viii, 9).” That is, simple privation

came first, then Mind came in.

20



{f} Mymv “a verbo”, hmv “sublimis, elatus, altus fuit”; Ura “lingua Arabica, humilis, depressus fuit

significat”, Bottinger. Thesaur, Philolog. l. 1. c. 2. sect. 6. p. 234. (emphasis added)

Cf. Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible: Containing the Old and the New Testaments (New

York, 1811), on Gen 1:10:

An eminent chemist and philosopher, Dr. Priestley, has very properly observed that it seems

plain that Moses considered the whole terraqueous globe as being created in a fluid state, the

earthy and other particles of matter being mingled with the water.

Cf. also Matthew Henry on Gen 1:1-2, infra, speaking of the earth: “[I]t is also called thedeep, both for its vastness and because the waters which were afterwards separated from

the earth were now mixed with it.” Now it is apparent that the “turbid”, “fluid”, and

“mixed” state of the earth and mass of waters on the first day corresponds to the similar state of the material furnished by the female in generation prior to its being worked on by

the seed of the male, as we have seen Aristotle describe it in his work on animal gener-

ation:

When the material secreted by the female in the uterus has been fixed by the semen of the

male (this acts in the same way as rennet acts upon milk, for rennet is a kind of milk containing vital heat, which brings into one mass and fixes the similar material, and the

relation of the semen to the catamenia is the same, milk and the [25] catamenia being of the

same nature)— when, I say, the more solid part comes together, the liquid is separated off

from it, and as the earthy parts solidify membranes form all round it ….”10 (emphasisadded)

Accordingly, just as the vital heat of the male seed causes the embryonic mass to become

firm, with the solid parts coming together and the fluid parts being separated off, so, too,

with the matter of creation as the result of the second work of distinction.

The following correspondences between the divine works and the stages in embryogenesis have now become apparent: (1) to the informing of the heaven by light on the

first day corresponds the first step in the compaction and solidification of the fetal body,the formation of its first principal part , which is its “nucleus and origin”; while (2) to the

formation of the firmament on the second corresponds the formation of a membrane (called

the ‘chorion’) separating the fetus from the fluids surrounding it; while (3) to the with-drawal of the waters from the surface of the earth by their conformation on the third day

corresponds the process of articulation and organization determining the conceptus in

outline form, as explained in our treatment of the formation of man on the sixth day.

N.B. On the conformation of the surface of the earth, cf. also the following excerpt from

The Opening of Genesis Part II:

10 On the Generation of Animals II. 4 (739b 20-31) (tr. Arthur Platt). Cp. Hippocrates, Regimen 9: “ As it sol-

idifies, a dense outer crust is formed, and then the fire inside cannot any more draw in sufficient nourish-

ment and does not expel the air because of the density of the surrounding surface. It therefore consumes the

interior humidity. In this way parts naturally solid being up to a point hard and dry are not consumed to

feed the fire but fortify and condense themselves the more the humidity disappears—these are called

bones and nerves.” (emphasis added) See also Gill on Gen. 1:24 on the Egyptian account as reported by

Diodorus Siculus, excerpted above.

21



3. That the form of the earth is irregular:

That Scripture itself understands the gathering of the waters into one place to involve de-

pressions producing basins and elevations producing hills and mountains is well expressed

by the following comment from John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible (1748), on Gen-esis 1:9:

Ver. 9. And God said, let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one

place,.... Which are before called the waters under the firmament; and which were either on

the surface of the earth, or in the bowels of it, or mixed with it, which by the compressure of

the expanse or air were separated from it and these, by apertures and channels made, were

caused to flow as by a straight line, as the word {e} used signifies, unto the decreed place

that was broke up for them, the great hollow or channel which now contains the waters of

the ocean: this was done by the word of the Lord, at his rebuke; and when it seems

there was a clap thunder, and perhaps an earthquake, which made the vast cavity for

the sea, as well as threw up the hills and mountains, and made the valleys; see Job 38:10:

<…>

{e} wwqy “congregentur tanquam ad amussim et regulam”, Fagius; “recto et equabili cursu

contendant et collineant”, Junius. (emphasis added)

Cf. ibid., on Job 38:10-11:

Verse 10. And brake up for it my decreed [place],.... Or, as Mr. Broughton translates it, “and

brake the earth for it by my decree”: made a vast chasm in the earth to hold the waters of

the sea, which was provided as a sort of cradle to put this swaddled infant in; God cleaved

the earth, raised the hills and sank the valleys, which became as channels to convey the

waters that ran off the earth to their appointed place, which beautifully expressed in

Psalm 104:7; and refers there, as here, to the work of creation on the second day, Genesis

1:9 {h};

and set bars and doors; to keep it in its decreed appointed place, that the waters might not go

over the earth; these are the shores, as the Targum, the cliffs and rocks upon them, the

boundaries of the sea; to which may be added, and what is amazing, the sand upon the

seashore is such a boundary to it that it cannot pass, Jeremiah 5:22; but these would be

insufficient was it not for the power and will of God, next expressed.

{h} Or determined, that is, appointed for it its convenient, proper, and fixed place; so David de Pomis,

Lexic. fol. 203. 1.

Verse 11. And said, hitherto shalt thou come, but no further ,.... The waters of the sea shall

spread themselves to such and such shores, and wash them, but go no further; its rolling tides

shall go up so far in rivers that go out of it, and then return, keeping exactly to time and

place; this is said by Jehovah, the Word of God, and through his almighty power is tendedto;

and here shall thy proud waves be stayed ; so high and no higher shall they lift up them-

selves; so far and no farther shall they roll on, than to the boundaries fixed for them; and

though they may toss up themselves as proud men toss up their heads, for which, reason

pride is ascribed to them, yet they shall not prevail, Jeremiah 5:22; all this may be accom-

modated to the afflictions of God’s people, which are sometimes compared to the waves and

22



billows of the sea, Psalm 42:7; and these issue out of the womb of God’s purposes and de-

crees, and are not the effects of chance; they are many, and threaten to overwhelm, but God

is with his people in them, and preserves them from being overflowed by them; he has set

the bounds and measures of them, beyond which they cannot go; see Isaiah 27:8; and also to

the world, and to the men of it, who are like a troubled sea, Daniel 7:2; and who rise, and

swell, and dash against the people of God, being separated from them who were originally

mixed with them; but the Lord restrains their wrath and fury, and suffers them not to do his

people any harm; whom he has placed in the munition of rocks out of their reach, that those

proud waters cannot go over them as they threaten to do; see Psalm 76:10. (emphasis added)

Cf. Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible (1721), on Job 38:8:

II. Concerning the limiting of the sea to the place appointed for it, v. 8, etc. [sc. Or who

shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?] This

refers to the third day’s work, when God said (Gen. 1:9), Let the waters under the heaven be

gathered together unto one place, and it was so.

1. Out of the great deep or chaos, in which earth and water were intermixed, in obedience

to the divine command the waters broke forth like a child out of the teeming womb, v. 8.

Then the waters that had covered the deep, and stood above the mountains, retired with

precipitation. At God’s rebuke they fled, Ps. 104:6, 7 . (emphasis added)

Cf. Psalm 104 (103): 6-9:

6 The deep like a garment is its clothing: above the mountains shall the waters stand. 7 At thy rebuke they shall flee: at the voice of thy thunder they shall fear. 8 The mountains

ascend, and the plains descend into the place which thou hast founded for them. 9 Thou

hast set a bound which they shall not pass over; neither shall they return to cover the earth.

(emphasis added)

Cf. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary (Hartford, 1871) on Gen 1:9-13:

Ge 1:9-13. Third Day. 9. let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one

place —The world was to be rendered a terraqueous globe, and this was effected by a vol-

canic convulsion on its surface, the upheaving of some parts, the sinking of others, and the

formation of vast hollows, into which the waters impetuously rushed , as is graphically

described (Ps 104:6-9) [Hitchcock]. Thus a large part of the earth was left “dry land,” and

thus were formed oceans, seas, lakes, and rivers which, though each having its own bed, or

channel, are all connected with the sea (Job 38:10; Ec 1:7). (emphasis added)

For a modern take on the sorts of changes at issue here, cf. Ernst Haeckel. History of Crea-tion, 2nd ed., (New York, 1876), Vol. I., pp. 360-62:

The history of the earth’s development shows us that the distribution of land and wateron its surface is ever and continually changing. In consequence of geological changes of

the earth’s crust, elevations and depressions of the ground take place everywhere, some-

times more strongly marked in one place, sometimes in another . Even if they happen so

slowly that in the course of centuries the seashore rises or sinks only a few inches, or

even only a few lines, still they nevertheless effect great results in the course of long

periods of time. And long – immeasurably long – periods of time have not been wanting

in the earth’s history. During the course of many millions of years, ever since organic

life existed on the earth, land and water have perpetually struggled for supremacy.

23



Continents and islands have sunk into the sea, and new ones have arisen out of its bosom.

Lakes and seas have been slowly raised and dried up, and new water basins have arisen by

the sinking of the ground. Peninsulas have become islands by the narrow neck of land

which connected them with the mainland sinking into the water. The islands of an archi-

pelago have become the peaks of a continuous chain of mountains by the whole floor of

their sea being considerably raised . Thus the Mediterranean at one time was an inland sea,

when in the place of the Straits of Gibraltar, an isthmus connected Africa with Spain.

England even during the more recent history of the earth, when man already existed, has re-

peatedly been connected with the European continent and been repeatedly separated from it. Nay, even Europe and North America have been directly connected. The South Sea at one

time formed a large Pacific Continent, and the numerous little islands which now lie scat-tered in it were simply the highest peaks of the mountains covering that continent. The

Indian Ocean formed a continent which extended from the Sunda Islands along the southern

coast of Asia to the east coast of Africa. This large continent of former times Sclater, an

Englishman, has called Lemuria, from the monkey-like animals which inhabited it, and it isat the same time of great importance from being the probable cradle of the human race,

which in all likelihood here first developed out of anthropoid apes.

<…>

Thus, ever since liquid water existed on the earth, the boundaries of water and land have eternally changed, and we may assert that the outlines of continents and islands

have never remained for an hour, nay, even for a minute, exactly the same . For the waves

eternally and perpetually break on the edge of the coast, and whatever the land in these

places loses in extent, it gains in other places by the accumulation of mud, which condenses

into solid stone and again rises above the level of the sea as new land. Nothing can be more

erroneous than the idea of a firm and unchangeable outline of our continents, such as is

impressed upon us in early youth by defective lessons on geography, which are devoid of a

geological basis. (emphasis added)

For a classical explanation of the forces at work in the foregoing process, cf. Aristotle,

Meteorology, I. 14 (351a 19-353a26) (tr. E. W. Webster):

The same parts of the earth are not always moist or dry, but they change [20] according as

rivers come into existence and dry up. And so the relation of land to sea changes too and a

place does not always remain land or sea throughout all time, but where there was dry land

there comes to be sea, and where there is now [25] sea, there one day comes to be dry land.

But we must suppose these changes to follow some order and cycle. The principle and

cause of these changes is that the interior of the earth grows and decays, like the bodies of

plants and animals. Only in the case of these latter the process does not go on by parts, but

each [30] of them necessarily grows or decays as a whole, whereas it does go on by parts in

the case of the earth. Here the causes are cold and heat, which increase and diminish on

account of the sun and its course. It is owing to them that the parts of the earth come to

have a different character, that some parts remain moist for a certain time, and then dry up

and grow old, while other parts in their turn are filled with life and moisture. Now when places become drier the springs necessarily give out, and when [351b] this happens the rivers

first decrease in size and then finally become dry; and when rivers change and disappear inone part and come into existence correspondingly in another, the sea must needs be affected.

If the sea was once pushed out by rivers and encroached upon the land anywhere, it [5]

necessarily leaves that place dry when it recedes; again, if the dry land has encroached on the

sea at all by a process of silting set up by the rivers when at their full, the time must come

when this place will be flooded again.

24



But the whole vital process of the earth takes place so gradually and in periods of

time which are so immense compared with the length of our life, that these [10] changes

are not observed, and before their course can be recorded from beginning to end whole

nations perish and are destroyed. Of such destructions the most utter and sudden are due

to wars; but pestilence or famine cause them too. Famines, again, are either sudden and

severe or else gradual. In the latter case the disappearance of a nation is [15] not noticed be-

cause some leave the country while others remain; and this goes on until the land is unable to

maintain any inhabitants at all. So a long period of time is likely to elapse from the first

departure to the last, and no one remembers and the [20] lapse of time destroys all recordeven before the last inhabitants have disappeared. In the same way a nation must be sup-

posed to lose account of the time when it first settled in a land that was changing from amarshy and watery state and becoming dry. Here, too, the change is gradual and lasts a long

time and men do not [25] remember who came first, or when, or what the land was like

when they came.

This has been the case with Egypt. Here it is obvious that the land is continually getting

drier and that the whole country is a deposit of the river Nile. But because the [30] neigh-

bouring peoples settled in the land gradually as the marshes dried, the lapse of time has

hidden the beginning of the process. However, all the mouths of the Nile, with the single

exception of that at Canopus, are obviously artificial and not natural . And Egypt was

nothing more than what is called Thebes, as Homer, too, shows, modern [35] though he is inrelation to such changes. For Thebes is the place that he mentions; which implies that

Memphis did not yet exist, or at any rate was not as important as [352a] it is now. That this

should be so is natural, since the lower land came to be inhabited later than that which lay

higher. For the parts that lie nearer to the place where the river is depositing the silt are

necessarily marshy for a longer time since the water always lies most in the newly formed

land. But in time this land changes its [5] character, and in its turn enjoys a period of

prosperity. For these places dry up and come to be in good condition while the places that

were formerly well-tempered some day grow excessively dry and deteriorate. This happenedto the land of Argos and Mycenae in Greece. In the time of the Trojan wars the Argive land

was marshy [10] and could only support a small population, whereas the land of Mycenae

was in good condition (and for this reason Mycenae was the superior).

But now the opposite is the case, for the reason we have mentioned: the land of Mycenae has become completely dry and barren, while the Argive land that was formerly barren owing to

the water has now become fruitful. Now the same process that has taken [15] place in this

small district must be supposed to be going on over whole countries and on a large scale.

Men whose outlook is narrow suppose the cause of such events to be change in the

universe, in the sense of a coming to be of the world as a whole . Hence they say [20] that

the sea [is] being dried up and is growing less, because this is observed to have happened in

more places now than formerly. But this is only partially true. It is true that many places are

now dry, that formerly were covered with water. But the opposite is true too: for if they look

they will find that there are many places where [25] the sea has invaded the land. But we

must not suppose that the cause of this is that the world is in process of becoming. For it is

absurd to make the universe to be in process because of small and trifling changes, when the

bulk and size of the earth are surely as nothing in comparison with the whole world. Rather we must take the [30] cause of all these changes to be that, just as winter occurs in the

seasons of the year, so in determined periods there comes a great winter of a great year andwith it excess of rain. But this excess does not always occur in the same place.

The deluge in the time of Deucalion, for instance, took place chiefly in the Greek world

and in it especially about ancient Hellas, the country about Dodona [352b] and the Achelous,

a river which has often changed its course. Here the Selli dwelt and those who were formerlycalled Graeci and now Hellenes. When, therefore, such an excess of rain occurs we must

suppose that it suffices for a long time. (emphasis added)

25



Cf. Richard L. Meehan, Ignatius Donnelly and the End of the World , “Aristotle”:11

As Aristotle saw it, the wetting and drying was, in the bigger picture, part of a long term

cycle, for just as there is a winter among the yearly seasons so at fixed intervals there is a

great winter and an excess of rain. Aristotle thought that these rare pluvial events were not

necessarily world-wide but might be confined to certain geographies, much as the great

flood of Deucalion had been mostly confined to the River Achelous in Old Hellas (Met. p.

115) ( Meteorologica, I, xiv) In this Aristotle accepted the view of Plato who had concluded

that the flood of Deucalion must have been an event confined to river valleys and that not allhumanity had perished in that great flood. Thus Aristotle’s description of the geographic

process differs little from what one might read today in stratigraphic descriptions of the non-uniform, quasi-rhythmic character of deltaic microstratigraphy.

Cf. J. B. Frazer, Folk-lore in the Old Testament . 3 vols. (London, 1918):

§ 4. Ancient Greek Stories of a Great Flood

According to Aristotle, writing in the fourth century B.C., the ravages of the deluge inDeucalion’s time were felt most sensibly “in ancient Hellas, which is the country about

Dodona and the river Achelous, for that river has changed its bed in many places. In those

days the land was inhabited by the Selli and the people who were then called Greeks ( Grai-koi) but are now named Hellenes.”7 Some people thought that the sanctuary of Zeus at Do-

dona was founded by Deucalion and Pyrrha, who dwelt among the Molossians of that

country.1 In the fourth century B.C. Plato also mentions, without describing, the flood which

took place in the time of Deucalion and Pyrrha, and he represents the Egyptian priests as

ridiculing the Greeks for believing that there had been only one deluge, whereas there had

been many.2

The Parian chronicler, who drew up his chronological table in the year 265 B.C., 3 dated

Deucalion’s flood one thousand two hundred and sixty-five years before his own time; 4

according to this calculation the cataclysm occurred in the year 1539 B.C.

7 Aristotle, Meteorolog . i. 14, p. 352, ed. Im. Bekker (Berlin, 1831).1 Plutarch, Pyrrhus, I.2 Plato, Timaeus, pp. 22A, 238.3 L. Ideler, Handbuch der mathemetischen und technischen Chronologie, (Berlin, 1825-1826), i. 380 sqq.4 Marmor Parium, 6 sqq., in Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, ed. C. Muller, i. 542.

N.B. The gathering of the waters into the several seas, then, implies the imparting of anirregular shape to the surface of the earth, inasmuch as a fluid body has no boundary of its

own, and so must be contained by something else.

To sum up, by the three works of distinction certain shapes must be understood to have been communicated to the elements heaven, water, and earth: to the heavens, the shape of a

sphere; to the waters, by virtue of the formation of the firmament made in their midst, the

shape of an elliptical arch flattened at the top; and to the surface of the earth, elevationsand depressions. One therefore observes in these several works a progression from the

most perfect shape to a shape that is most irregular.

11 (http://www.stanford.edu/~meehan/donnelly/aristot.html [5/27/03])

26



§

N.B. Having sufficiently treated of the work of the third day, it is convenient here to lay

out certain correspondences which are discoverable by reason between the works of thefirst three days and certain natural principles. It should be noted that our first section

begins from what I take to be the last work of adornment, the production of the woman

from the side of the man, which work shall be treated in a later paper in this series.

27



II. THE WORK OF THE FIRST THREE DAYS AS EMBODYING CERTAIN NATUR-

AL PRINCIPLES.

1. Supplement. The powers manifested on the first three days.

As we have argued in an earlier paper, 12 the second work of distinction can be accounted

for by supposing the light of the first day to have begun the process of generation and

corruption called “the hydrological cycle”. But if so, it is reasonable to look for similar agencies in the subsequent works: that is to say, if the second work of distinction is due toa power afterward determined to the sun, it is reasonable to look for a correlation of the

next work in order, the third work of distinction, with the power of the moon, and the next,

the first work of adornment, with that of the stars. On the source of such powers in relationto the constitution of the world, cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol., Ia, q. 68, art. 2, ad

3 (tr. English Dominican Fathers):

Reply to Objection 3: According to the third opinion given, the waters above the firmament

have been raised in the form of vapors, and serve to give rain to the earth. But according to

the second opinion, they are above the heaven that is wholly transparent and starless. This,

according to some, is the primary mobile, the cause of the daily revolution of the entire

heaven, whereby the continuance of generation is secured. In the same way the starryheaven, by the zodiacal movement, is the cause whereby different bodies are generated or

corrupted, through the rising and setting of the stars, and their various influences ….

(emphasis added)

For an account of such motions, cf. Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle by Tho-

mas Aquinas, translated by John P. Rowan (Chicago, 1961), Book XII, Lesson 6, nn. 2511-2522:

2511. But that which always acts in the same way only causes something that is always in

the same state; and obviously those things which are generated and destroyed do not

remain in the same state, for at one time they are generated and at another destroyed . Thisbeing so, if generation and destruction are to occur in the realm of lower bodies, it is

necessary to posit some agent which is always in different states when it acts. He says that

this agent is the body which is moved in the oblique circle called the zodiac . For since this

circle falls away on either side of the equinoctial circle, the body which is moved circularly

through the zodiac must be at one time nearer and at another farther away; and by reason of

its being near or far away it causes contraries. For we see that those things which are

generated when the sun comes closer to the earth are destroyed when the sun recedes (for

example, plants are born in the spring and wither away in the autumn); for both the sun and

the other planets are moved in the circle of the zodiac. But the fixed stars are also said to be

moved over the poles of the zodiac and not over the equinoctial poles, as Ptolemy proved.

And the coming to be and ceasing to be of everything which is generated and destroyed is

caused by the motion of these stars, but more evidently by the motion of the sun.

2512. Therefore this mover which acts in different ways must be one that “acts in one way

of itself,” i.e., by its own power, inasmuch as it causes the diversity found in generation

and destruction. And it must act “in another way in virtue of something else,” i.e., by the

power of some other agent, inasmuch as it causes eternal generation and destruction. Hence

this second agent must act either “in virtue of some third agent,” i.e., by the power of some

12 The Opening of Genesis. Preliminaries III: On the Apparent Structure of the World (Exegetical Principles

III).

28



other agent, “or of the first,” i.e., by the power of the first agent, which always acts in the

same way. And since it is not possible to assign some other agent by whose power this first

agent brings about the eternal motion of things, it is therefore necessary according to this

“that it act in the same way”; that is, that by its power it causes the eternal generation and

destruction of things. For it—the first agent—which always acts in the same way, is the

cause of that which acts in different ways. For that which acts in different ways acts

eternally, and that which acts in the same way is the cause of the eternality of any motion.

Hence it is the cause of the eternality of that which acts in different ways inasmuch as the

latter acts eternally in this way; and it is also the cause of that which is produced by it,namely, eternal generation and destruction. From this it is also evident that the second

agent, which acts in different ways, acts by the power “of the first agent,” i.e., the first

heaven or first orb, which always acts in the same way. (emphasis added)

We see, then, that the diurnal rotation of the outermost heaven is responsible for the eter-

nity and continuity of change, but that the differences observed here below are due to theapproach and withdrawal of the heavenly bodies: cf. On Generation and Corruption, II. 10

(336a 14-336b 15), where he explains that “the eternal motion, by causing the generator to

approach and retire, will produce coming-to-be uninterruptedly.” He goes on to state that

“[t]his explains why it is not the primary motion that causes coming-to-be and passing-away, but the motion [sc. of the sun and the other celestial bodies] along the inclined

circle: for this motion not only possesses the necessary continuity, but includes a duality of

movements as well.” And again, that

the continuity of this movement is caused by the motion of the whole: but the approachingand retreating of the moving body are caused by the inclination. For the consequence of the

inclination is that the body becomes alternately remote and near; and since its distance is

thus unequal, its movement will be irregular. Therefore, if it generates by approaching and

by its proximity, it—this very same body—destroys by retreating and becoming remote: and

if it generates by many successive approaches, it also destroys by many successive retire-

ments. For contrary effects demand contraries as their causes; and the natural processes of

passing-away and coming-to-be occupy equal periods of time.

But to return to our consideration, once it is recognized that the second work of dis-tinction arises from the substance of the sun assisted by the wind, but that, as noted above,

the moon and the stars were also produced in substance on the first day, it is quite naturalto consider whether the next two works are to be attributed to the power of the former and

to that of the latter. That is to say, with respect to the third work of distinction, can the

movement of a mass of waters across the surface of the earth be attributed to the power of

the moon? And does the power of the stars play a role in the production of plant-life?While the answer to these questions is quite obvious, we shall proceed by laying out our

understanding of the entire matter as follows:

(a) The second work of distinction, understood as presupposing the appearance of

waters above the surface of the earth: the power of the sun, assisted by the move-ment of air we call ‘wind”: the hydrological cycle causing the transmutation of theelement water: rarefaction, followed by condensation, in our experience a work of

nature resulting from the passage overhead of the sun, assisted by the wind.13

13 Cf. Archibald Geikie, Elementary Lessons in Physical Geography (1886), CHAPTER III. LESSON X. —

The Moisture of the Air, sec. 4, p. 65: “Evaporation, therefore, takes place chiefly during the day, especially

the warm parts of the day, and more actively in summer than in winter. It is feeble in amount when the air is

moist and still, but goes on briskly when a fresh wind blows . It takes place far more copiously in warm

29



(b) The third work of distinction, involving the movement of a mass of waters across

the surface of the earth: the power of the moon:14 the gravitational pull of the latter causing the tides, as well as the sculpting of the surface of the earth resulting in its

elevations, the mountains, its valleys and basins for the sea, assisted by the wind

and related phenomena.15 But, as was known even to the ancients, the sun alsoexerts a pull on the waters, so its power must also be adduced to explain this

effect.16

(c) The first work of adornment : the production of plant-life: the power of the stars,where the latter are understood as the constellations of the zodiac: the stars, to-

gether with climactic factors, being the cause of the seasons of the year, producing

the seeding of plants on earth.17 But as with the previous work, as we have seen inthe text from St. Thomas’ Commentary excerpted just above, not only the power of

the sun, which is manifest to everyone, but also that of the moon also plays a role in

the aforementioned production, and so must also be adduced to account for theentirety of this work.18 And note that, inasmuch as this work precedes the deter-

tropical regions than in those with a temperate or polar climate.” (emphasis added) Cf. also St. Thomas

Aquinas, Commentary on the Book of Job, ch. 38, lect. 2: “Vapors bearing rain arise especially from humid

places, and so if the clouds and rains were not set in motion by the winds it would follow that it would never

rain in dry places.”14 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Meteorology, Book II, lect. 1, n. 145: “Now the water of the sea is often moved back and forth, especially as a consequence of the movement of the moon, whose

proper nature it is to agitate the moist ….” See the related texts below, as well as our edition of the De Motu

Cordis.15 Cf. Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1910), p. 654, s.v. “Geology”, speaking of the atmosphere: “Of the

vapours contained in it by far the most important is that of water which, although always present, varies

greatly in amount according to variations in temperature. By condensation the water vapour appears in

visible form as dew, mist, cloud, rain, hail, snow and ice, and in these forms includes and carries down some

of the other vapours, gases and solid particles present in the air. The circulation of water from the

atmosphere to the land, from the land to the sea, and again from the sea to the land, forms the great

geological process whereby the habitable condition of the planet is maintained and the surface of the land

is sculptured (Part IV.).” (emphasis added) Hence we observe that the third work involves both the tidal pullof the moon as well as the ‘sculpturing’ effect of the hydrological cycle.16 Cf. de Pot., q. 4, art. 1, ad 20: “That the heavenly bodies should exercise an active influence on the ele-

ments is not contrary to nature, as the Commentator says ( De Coel. et Mund. iii): thus the ebb and flow of the

sea, although it is not the natural movement of water as a heavy body, since it is not towards the centre,

nevertheless is natural to water as moved by a heavenly body instrumentally. [cf. also Commentary on the

Meteorology, Book II, lect. 8, n. 188 (B.A.M.)] Much more truly may this be said of the divine action on the

elements whose whole nature subsists thereby. As regards the point at issue both these actions would seem toconcur in the gathering together of the waters, the divine action principally, and that of the heavenly body in

a subordinate degree. Hence immediately after the formation of the firmament the text refers to the gathering

of the waters together.”17 Cf. S.Th, Ia, q. 4, art. 2, c.: “In like manner the starry heaven by its zodiacal movement causes diversity in

generation and corruption, by approaching to or receding from us and by the varying power of the stars.” Cf.

also ibid , Ia, 70, 2, c. (tr. English Dominican Fathers), explaining that the celestial bodies of the fourth daywere created for “the service of man”, gives three reasons, of which the second is relevant here: “Secondly,

[these lights are of service to man] as regards the changes of the seasons, which prevent weariness, preservehealth, 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.’” (emphasis

added) Of course, that the propagation of plant-life is dependent on the seasons of the year, which, in turn,

follow on the movement of the heavens and its bodies, is too evident to need corroboration.18 Cf. Ken Taylor, Astrology: Roots & Branches: “Once you have mapped the stars it is easy to envisage the

Sun passing through the constellations of the Zodiac bringing, as it does so, the changing Seasons. This link,

between the position of the Sun in relation to the Zodiac, and the perpetual cycle of vegetation’s growth, de-

30



mination of the powers of the lights of heaven on the fourth day, one must suppose

the plants produced to stand to all others subsequently produced as universal causesto particular effects.

5. Among the acts of creation, what is to be attributed to divine power exclusively andwhat to the workings of nature.

It is evident that the members of the foregoing division all result from a unitary cause inthe same way in which the members of per se division of a genus result from one and thesame principle; that is to say, to conclude that the presence of waters above the surface of

the earth is to be ascribed to the power of the sun, and that of the movement of waters

across the surface of the earth to the power of the moon, etc., demands that the causality atwork be univocally the same. But were we to accept the assignation of agent causality re-

garding the third work of distinction that St. Thomas proposes, namely, that the gathering

of waters was due to the “Divine command” exclusive of natural agent causes, then theevident unitary of our division would be destroyed.19 Clearly, in accordance with the un-

derstanding of the Work of the Six Days according to an order of time, the Angelic Doctor

recognizes the presence of waters above the surface of the earth to be due to the agency of natural, or second, causes,20 but each subsequent work to derive from God’s agent causality

alone. Now there would be no difficulty for our position if we were to read the text ac-

cording to an interpretive principle St. Thomas Aquinas himself recognized as elsewhere

applicable to Scripture: cf. The Literal Exposition of Job: A Scriptural Commentary Con-cerning Providence, trans. by Anthony Damico (Atlanta, 1989), cap. 10:

But he consequently touches on the making of man with respect to the work of propagation

insofar as man is generated from man. And here one must consider that he attributes every

work of nature to God, not in order to exclude the working of nature, but in the way in which

the things worked by second causes are attributed to the principle agent, as the working of a

saw to the craftsman: for the very work done by nature it has from God, who instituted it for

this (purpose).

Now inasmuch as it is hardly likely that the order we have discovered with regard to theseworks is coincidental, we must show that the second and third works of distinction as well

as the first of adornment involve second causes operating through the first cause, a subject

I treat in a subsequent division below.

N.B. On the workings of nature in relation to the divine will, cf. St. Thomas Aquinas,

Summa Contra Gentiles Book III: Providence Part II. Translated, with an Introduction and Notes by Vernon J. Bourke (Notre Dame, 1975), c. 97, nn. 16-17:

[16] However, there are some texts of Scripture that seem to attribute all things to the pure

divine will. These are not expressed in order that reason may be removed from the dispen-sation of providence, but to show that the will of God is the first principle of all things, as we

have already said above. Such a text is that of the Psalm (134:6): “All things whatsoever theLord hath willed, He hath done”; again in Job (9:12): “Who can say to Him: Why dost You

cay and regeneration, is anything but imaginary….”

(http://www.joulestaylor.com/nonfic/astrorb.html [12/1/09])19 Cf. S.Th, Ia, q. 69, art. 1, ad 4 and the other texts referenced above.20 Cf. ibid., where he denies the hydrological cycle could be the cause of “the uncovering of the earth’s

surface”.

31



so?” Also in Romans (9:19): “Who resists His will?” And Augustine says: “Nothing but the

will of God is the first cause of health and sickness, of rewards and punishments, of graces

and retributions.”

[17] And so, when we ask the reason “why,” in regard to a natural effect, we can give a

reason based on a proximate cause; provided, of course, that we trace back all things to the

divine will as a first cause. Thus, if the question is asked: “Why is wood heated in the

presence of fire?” it is answered: “Because heating is the natural action, of fire”; and this is

so “because heat is its proper accident.” But this is the result of its proper form, and so on,until we come to the divine will. Hence, if a person answers someone who asks why wood is

heated: “Because God willed it,” he is answering it appropriately, provided he intends totake the question back to a first cause; but not appropriately, if he means to exclude all other

causes.

6. Supplement. On the several species of change.

Cf. “Change”, Mortimer J. Adler, The Syntopicon, Chapter 10:

WE HAVE SO FAR used the words “change” and “motion,” as well as “becoming,” as if all

three were interchangeable in meaning. That is somewhat inaccurate, even for the ancients

who regarded all kinds of change except one as motions; it is much less accurate for themoderns who have tended to restrict the meaning of “motion” to local motion or change of

place. It is necessary, therefore, to examine briefly the kinds of change and to indicate the

problems which arise with these distinctions.

In his physical treatises, Aristotle distinguishes four kinds of change. “When the change

from contrary to contrary is in quantity,” he writes, “it is ‘growth and diminution’; when

it is in place, it is ‘motion’; when it is .. . in quality, it is ‘alteration’; but when nothing

persists of which the resultant is a property (or an ‘accident’ in any sense of the term), it is

‘coming to be,’ and the converse change is ‘passing away.’ “ Aristotle also uses other

pairs of words – “generation” and “corruption,” “becoming” and “perishing” – to name

the last kind of change.

Of the four kinds of change, only the last is not called “motion.” But in the context of

saying that “becoming cannot be a motion,” Aristotle also remarks that “every motion is akind of change.” He does not restrict the meaning of motion to change in place, which is

usually called “local motion” or “locomotion.” There are, then, according to Aristotle’s

vocabulary, three kinds of motion: (1) local motion, in which bodies change from place to place; (2) alteration or qualitative motion, in which bodies change with respect to such

attributes as color, texture, or temperature; (3) increase and decrease, or quantitative motion,

in which bodies change in size. And, in addition, there is the one kind of change which is not

motion – generation and corruption. This consists in the coming to be or passing away of a

body which, while it has being, exists as an individual substance of a certain sort.

Becoming and perishing are most readily exemplified by the birth and death of living

things, but Aristotle also includes the transformation of water into ice or vapor as

examples of generation and corruption. One distinctive characteristic of generation and

corruption, in Aristotle’s conception of this type of change, is their instantaneity. He thinksthat the other three kinds of change are continuous processes, taking time, whereas things

come into being or pass away instantaneously. Aristotle thus applies the word “motion” only

to the continuous changes which time can measure. He never says that time is the measure of

change, but only of motion.

But the contrast between the one mode of change which is not motion and the three kinds

of motion involves more than this difference with regard to time and continuity. Aristotle’s

analysis considers the subject of change – that which undergoes transformation – and the

starting point and goal of motion. “Every motion,” he says, “proceeds from something and to

32



something, that which is directly in motion being distinct from that to which it is in motion

and that from which it is in motion; for instance, we may take the three things `wood,’ ‘hot,’

and ‘cold,’ of which the first is that which is in motion, the second is that which to which the

motion proceeds, and the third is that from which it proceeds.”

In the alteration which occurs when the wood changes quality, just as in the increase or

decrease which occurs with a body’s change in quantity and in the local motion which

occurs with a body’s change of place, that which changes persists throughout the change as

the same kind of substance. The wood does not cease to be wood when it becomes hot or

cold; the stone does not cease to be a stone when it rolls from here to there, or the organisman animal of a certain kind when it grows in size. In all these cases, “the substratum” – that

which is the subject of change – “persists and changes in its own properties . . . The body,although persisting as the same body, is now healthy and now ill; and the bronze is now

spherical and at another time angular, and yet remains the same bronze.”

Because the substance of the changing thing remains the same while changing in its pro-

perties – i.e., in such attributes or accidents as quality, quantity, and place – Aristotle groupsthe three kinds of motion together as accidental change. The changing thing does not come

to be or pass away absolutely, but only in a certain respect. In contrast, generation and

corruption involve a change in the very substance of a thing. “When nothing perceptible

persists in its identity as a substratum, and the thing changes as a whole,” then, according to

Aristotle, “it is a coming-to-be of one substance, and the passing-away of another.”

In such becoming or perishing, it is matter itself rather than a body or a substance which istransformed. Matter takes on or loses the form of a certain kind of substance. For example,

when the nutriment is assimilated to the form of a living body, the bread or corn becomes the

flesh and blood of a man. When an animal dies, its body decomposes into the elements of

inorganic matter. Because it is a change of substance itself, Aristotle calls the one kind of

change which is not motion substantial change, and speaks of it as “a coming-to-be or

passing-away simply” – that is, not in a certain respect, but absolutely or “without quali-

fication.” (emphasis added)

Cf. ibid.:

When mechanics dominates the physical sciences (as has been so largely the case in

modern times), there is a tendency to reduce all the observable diversity of change of variousappearances of local motion. Newton, for example, explicitly expresses this desire to

formulate all natural phenomena in terms of the mechanics of moving particles. In the

Preface to the first edition of his Mathematical Principles, after recounting his success indealing with celestial phenomena, he says, “I wish we could derive the rest of the phenol-

mena of Nature by the same kind of reasoning from mechanical principles, for I am induced

by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend upon certain forces by which the

particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards

one another, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from one another.”

The notion that all change can be reduced to the results of local motion is not, however, of

modern origin. Lucretius expounds the theory of the Greek atomists that all the phenomena

of change can be explained by reference to the local motion of indivisible particles coming

together and separating. Change of place is the only change which occurs on the level of theultimate physical reality. The atoms neither come to be nor pass away, nor change in quality

or size.

But though we find the notion in ancient atomism, it is only in modern physics that the

emphasis upon local motion tends to exclude all other kinds of change. It is characteristic of

what William James calls “the modern mechanico-physical philosophy” to begin “by saying

that the only facts are collocations and motions of primordial solids, and the only laws the

changes of motion which changes in collocation bring.” James quotes Hermann von

Helmholtz to the effect that “the ultimate goal of theoretic physics is to find the last un-

33



changing causes of the processes of Nature.” If, to this end, “we imagine the world com-

posed of elements with unalterable qualities,” then, Helmholtz continues, “the only changes

that can remain in such a world are spatial changes, i.e., movements, and the only outer

relations which can modify the action of the forces are spatial too, or, in other words, the

forces are motor forces dependent for their effect on spatial relations.”

In the history of physics, Aristotle represents the opposite view. No one of the four kinds

of change which he distinguishes has for him greater physical reality than the others. Just as

quality cannot be reduced to quantity, or either of these to place, so in his judgment the

motions associated with these terms are irreducible to one another. Yet Aristotle does assignto local motion a certain primacy. “Motion in its most general and primary sense,” he writes,

“is change of place, which we call locomotion.” He does not mean merely that this is the primary sense of the word, but rather that no other kind of motion can occur without local

motion being somehow involved in the process. Showing how increase and decrease

depends on alteration, and how that in turn depends on change of place, he says that “of the

three kinds of motion . . . it is this last, which we call locomotion, that must be primary.”

Cf. ibid.:

Even though Aristotle differs from Plato in thinking that change and the changing can be

objects of scientific knowledge, he, too, holds becoming to be less intelligible than being,

precisely because change necessarily involves potentiality. Yet becoming can be understoodto the extent that we can discover the principles of its being – the unchanging principles of change. “In pursuing the truth,” Aristotle remarks – and this applies to the truth about change

as well as everything else – “one must start from the things that are always in the same state

and suffer no change.”

For Aristotle, change is intelligible through the three elements of permanence which are its

principles: (1) the enduring substratum of change, and the contraries – (2) that to which, and

(3) that from which, the change takes place. The same principles are sometimes stated to be

(1) matter, (2) form, and (3) privation; the matter or substratum being that which both lacks a

certain form and has a definite potentiality for possessing it. Change occurs when the matter

undergoes a transformation in which it comes to have the form of which it was deprived by

the possession of a contrary form. Neither of the contrary forms changes. Only the thing

composite of matter and form changes with respect to the forms of its matter. Hence these principles of change are themselves unchanging. Change takes place through, not in, them.

As constituents of the changing thing, they are the principles of its mutable being, principles

of its being as well of its being mutable.

Cf. “Matter”, Mortimer J. Adler, The Syntopicon, Chapter 53:

When matter is nothing more than a body’s potentiality for change, and when neither what

the body is nor how it changes can be explained by reference to its matter alone, physical

theory seems to be constructed in other than mechanical terms. Its concepts and principles

resemble those of biology. It finds natural tendencies or desires, and ends or final causes, inthe motion of inert as well as animate bodies.

Central to Aristotle’s physics are his theory of the four causes, discussed in the chapter onCAUSE, and his theory of the four types of change, discussed in the chapter on CHANGE.

But even more fundamental is his definition of motion as the actualization of that which is

potential in a respect in which it is potential. With motion so defined, the principles of

physics must include the correlative factors of potentiality and actuality which Aristotle

conceives in terms of matter and form. Remove matter entirely from a thing and, according

to Aristotle, you remove its capacity for physical change. Remove form, and you remove its

existence, for nothing can exist without being actual or determinate in certain respects. When

34



a thing changes physically, it loses certain determinate characteristics and acquires others.

The determinations it acquires it had previously lacked, yet all the while it must have had a

capacity for acquiring them. The thing is “capable both of being and of not being,” Aristotle

says, “and this capacity,” he goes on to say, “is the matter in each.” The matter of an existing

substance is thus conceived as that which has certain forms (the respects in which the

substance is actually determinate), and lacks certain forms which it can assume (the respects

in which the substance is both indeterminate and potential).

As the chapter on ART indicates, Aristotle frequently uses artistic production to afford a

simple illustration of his theory of matter and form as principles of change. When a man setsout to make a bed, he chooses material, such as wood, which can be shaped in a certain way.

The same wood could have been made into a chair or a table. With respect to these various possible determinations in structure, the wood is itself indeterminate and determinable.

Before the artist has worked on it productively, the wood is in a state of both privation and

potentiality with regard to the form of a bed, a chair, or a table. The transformation which

the artist effects consists in his actualizing certain potentialities in the material for forms or determinations which the material at the moment lacks. When the bed is made, the wood or

matter which is now actually in the form of a bed may still have the potentiality for being

remade into a chair or table.

The wood, of course, remains actually wood throughout these artificial changes, as it does

not when it suffers the natural change of combustion. This indicates that though the wood

may be called matter or material by the artist, it is not matter, but a substance, a thingcomposite of matter and form; for when the wood is reduced to ashes by fire, the matter

which had the form of wood assumes another form.

In the analysis of accidental change, which artistic production illustrates, it suffices to treat

a composite substance, like wood or iron or bronze, as the material principle. But in the

analysis of substantial change, when matter itself changes from being one kind of matter to

being another in the coming to be or perishing of composite substances, the material

principle must be pure matter – matter totally devoid of form. Where a whole substance can

be regarded as the matter or substratum of accidental change (in quality, quantity, or place)the substratum of substantial change, which Aristotle calls “generation and corruption,” must

be matter in condition of absolute indeterminacy and pure potentiality.

Referring to this ultimate substratum as “the underlying nature,” Aristotle says that it “is

an object of scientific knowledge by analogy. For as the bronze is to the statue, the wood tothe bed, so is the matter and the formless before receiving form to anything which has form,

and so also is the underlying nature to substance, i.e., the actually existing.”

7. On generation and alteration.

Cf. Commentary on Aristotle’s Generation and Corruption by Thomas Aquinas, tr. by

Pierre Conway & R. F. Larcher (Columbus, 1964), lect. 2, nn. 11-16:

Lecture 2

The basic reason for these differing opinions on generation and alteration.

11. In the preceding lecture Aristotle stated that the reason some ancient philosophers

posited generation as differing from alteration, and others did not, was that some postulatedone material principle and others more than one. He clarified above the root of this reason,

showing how some posited many principles—for in the case of those proposing one

principle, the exposition is more unqualified. Now he intends to elucidate this reason in

itself. Concerning this he does two things:

35



First, he manifests the reason;

Secondly, he objects to it, at 14.

About the first he does two things:

First, he elucidates the aforesaid reason as to those who posit one principle;

Secondly, as to those who posit several principles, at 13.

12. He says therefore first [11] that all the philosophers who assert that all things areproduced from one material principle are forced to say that generation and corruption

are the same as alteration. For they posited their one material principle to be some actual

being, such as fire or air or water; they also posited it to be the substance of all things

generated from it. And just as the matter always persists in things made from matter, so

they said, that this subject remains one and the same. Now we say that a thing is altered

when, with the substance of the thing in act remaining, some variation occurs with respect

to the form. Hence it follows that there can be no change called simple generation and

corruption, but only alteration.

We, on the other hand, declare that there is of all generable and corruptible things one

first subject, which, however, is not a being in act but in potency. Therefore when its

first subject acquires a form through which it becomes a being in act, this is called simple generation. But it is said to be altered when, after being made a being in act, it acquires

any additional form.

13. Then [12], he elucidates the aforesaid reason as to those who posited several principles.

And he says that those, mentioned above, who assign many kinds of material princi-

ples, must say that generation differs from alteration. For according to those philo-

sophers generation comes about when those material principles combine into one;

when they are separated, corruption occurs. Hence Empedocles asserts that the

“nature,” i.e., the form, of a body composed of elements is none of the elements (for it is

not of the nature of fire or of water or of the other elements), but it is solely a

“mixture,” i.e., it consists solely in a certain “mixed” nature, and the opposite privation

consists in the separation of what was mixed. And since something is said to be generated when it acquires its appropriate nature, they posited that generation resulted

from aggregation, and corruption from separation. But alteration, they said, takes place

only through transmutation, as will be explained later. Therefore, since this explanation

fits their supposition, and they do indeed speak thus, it is plain that they so speak of the

difference between generation and alteration, as has been said.

14. Then [13] he disproves what has been stated, with respect to those who posit several

principles, for those who posit but one principle reach the conclusion with necessity once itsroot is supposed. Concerning this he does two things:

First, he proposes what he intends, and says that those who posit many principles must admit

that generation is different from alteration, as has been said. Nevertheless, this is impossibleto maintain in consistency with what they say, as will easily be seen from what follows.

Secondly [14], he elucidates his proposition with two arguments. In regard to the first, he

presents an analogy and says that, just as, while the substance “rests,” i.e., remains, we

see a change occur in it as to size, called “growth” and “decrease,” so too with alter-

ation, which is a motion according to quality. For just as quantity is based on sub-

stance, so too is quality. But according to what is posited by those philosophers who

assume many principles, it is impossible for alteration to occur in this manner. For they say

36



that the “passions,” i.e., the passible qualities, with respect to which we state this,

namely, alteration to occur, are the proper differences of the elements, namely, hot and

cold, white and black, dry and moist, soft and hard, and so on. For example, Empedocles

stated that the “sun,” i.e., fire, since he posited the sun to be of the nature of fire, is seen as

white and hot; “rain,” i.e., water, is seen always as dark, cold and cloudy, as is evident from

the darkening of the air when it rains. He explained the other passions in a similar way,

attributing them to the elements.

They said that it was not possible for water to be produced from fire, or earth fromwater, or for any one of the elements to be converted into another in any way what-

soever. For they did not posit such elements as composed of matter and form, so that

out of the corruption of one, another could be generated. Rather they posited them as

first matters that would not be resolved into some first subject. But whatever is to be

converted into something else must be resolved into some first subject. Now it is im-

possible for the proper accidents of a thing to be anywhere but in their proper subject.Hence, if “hot” is the proper accident of fire, and “cold” of water, “hot” can be found only in

fire and “cold” only in water, and so on for the others.

If, therefore, fire cannot come to be from water, nor one element from another, then

black cannot come to be from white or hard from soft. And the same goes for all other

such qualities. Consequently, since alteration occurs only when one or another of thesequalities varies in one and the same subject, there is no such thing as alteration. Therefore

they have no grounds to posit a difference between generation and alteration.

15. He presents the second argument [15] and says that it is necessary in any motion to

suppose one nature for the contraries which are the termini of the motion, namely, whether

something is being transmuted with respect to place, or growth and decrease. Likewise, this

must be so in alteration, namely, that if there is alteration, there be one subject and one

matter for all the things having such a mutual change, and that if those have one sub-

ject when alteration is looked for, it follows that there be alteration. But since the

aforesaid thinkers do not posit one subject for all the qualities involved in alteration, but

several, they cannot posit alteration. Consequently, they groundlessly say alteration to be

different from generation. his argument differs from the first in that it states the universalcause of the middle term used in the first one.

16. Then [16] he disputes against Empedocles in particular, with two arguments. In the first

of these he declares that Empedocles seems to be at odds not only with what our sensesreveal, namely, the fact that we see that air comes to be from water and fire from air, but

he seems to contradict himself also. For, on the one hand, he says that no element is

generated from another, but all other “elemented” bodies are composed of them; and, on the

other hand, he says that before this present world was generated, all the nature of things wasassembled by Friendship into one, minus Strife, and that each of the elements and also each

of the other bodies came to be out of that one through the influence of Strife, separating

things. From this it is plain that through certain differences and passions of the various

elements it was brought about by Strife out of that one that one thing be water andanother fire.

And he gives an example of the “differences and passions”—thus he [Empedocles] says

that the “sun,” i.e., fire, is white and hot and light, but earth is heavy and hard. From

this, it is evident that such differences are newly acquired by the elements. Now whatever is

newly acquired can be removed. Therefore, since these differences are removable inas-

much as they are newly engendered, it is plain that, once removed, it is necessary that

37



water be made from earth, and earth from water, and, in general, each element from

some other—and this not only “then,” i.e., in the beginning of the world, but also now,

coming about through the change of the passions. (emphasis added)

8. The several species of change as entering into the works of distinction and adornment.

For the species of change in sum, cf. Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption, I. 4 (319b

34-320a 2) (tr. H. H. Joachim):

When the change from contrary to contrary is in quantity, it is ‘growth and diminution’;

when it is in place, it is ‘motion’; when it is in property, i.e. in quality, it is ‘alteration’: but,

when nothing persists, [320a] of which the resultant is a property (or an ‘accident’ in any

sense of the term), it is ‘coming-to-be’, and the converse change is ‘passing-away’.

Presupposed to the last of these, however, is creation, the production of the entire sub-

stance of a thing, which production constitutes a work of its own, as we have seen. Now inthe exposition of the Six Days, each of the aforementioned species will be seen to occur in

the exact, though reverse, order just given. Taking as our starting-point the very last work

of adornment, the production of the woman from the side of the man, we observe that

growth belongs to it as follows: Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol ., Ia, q. 92, art. 3, ad2 (tr. Alfred J. Freddoso):

Reply to objection 1: Some claim that the woman’s body was formed by the multiplication

of the matter without the addition of anything else, in the way in which our Lord multiplied

the five loaves. But this is altogether impossible. For the multiplication of the loaves

occurred either through a transformation of the substance of the matter itself or through a

transformation of its dimensions. But it did not occur through a transformation of the

substance of the matter itself, both because (a) matter, considered in itself, is wholly unable

to change as long as it exists in potentiality and has only the character of a subject, and also

because (b) multitude and magnitude lie outside of the essence of matter itself. And so the

multiplication of matter is not in any way intelligible as long as the same matter remains

without addition —unless the matter takes on bigger dimensions. But as the Philosopher explains in Physics 4, for the matter to be rarefied is just for it to take on bigger dimensions.

Therefore, to claim that the matter is multiplied without rarefaction is to posit contradictories

simultaneously, viz., the definition without the thing defined. Hence, since rarefaction does

not seem to be present in the multiplications under discussion, it is necessary to posit an

addition to the matter, either through creation or—what is more probable—through

conversion. Hence, in Super Ioannem Augustine says, “Christ satisfied the five thousand

men with the five loaves in the way that from a few seeds He produces a field full of corn”—

which happens through the conversion of nutrients. Yet we still say, “He fed the five

thousand with five loaves,” or “He formed the woman from the man’s rib,” because the

addition was made to the preexisting matter of the loaves or the rib. (emphasis added)

Now conversion, in which nourishment consists—“for the food is converted into thesubstance of what is nourished and increased” (Commentary, op. cit ., lect. 14, n. 103)—

and growth are the same in subject, but differ in account, as St. Thomas explains: Cf.

Commentary on Aristotle’s Generation and Corruption by Thomas Aquinas, tr. byPierre Conway & R. F. Larcher (Columbus, 1964), lect. 17, n. 117:

117. Then [117] he shows the difference between growth and nourishment. And he says that

nourishment is the same thing as growth, but they differ in being—as if to say: they are the

38



same as to subject but differ in notion. For in so far as the acceding thing is in potency to

both, i.e., to quantity and to flesh, in this respect there is growth of flesh; but in so far as it is

in potency only to flesh, it is nourishment or food, as was explained above.

So much, then, for growth. The remaining species occur as follows:

Third day: a change of place resulting from change of quality with respect to shape or

figure (= the fourth species of quality), and hence visibility, inasmuch as contours were imparted to the surface of the earth (= topography).

Second day: alteration, inasmuch as the element ‘water’ may be supposed to have been

formed into the firmament in the manner of ice, which is water congealed .

First day, substantial change, inasmuch as light may be supposed to have proceeded from

a luminary formed out of the appropriate element; the reason being that, as we concludedfrom our discussion of pneuma in relation to the formative virtue in Part III, “since like is

generated by like, the power to cause motion and generation having been imparted to it, we

must suppose the heaven to have received its form and species, and so to have undergone asubstantial change”.

It will also be apparent from a careful consideration of the changes under dis-

cussion that, in a way, each one is continuous with the one presupposed to it:

(1) Subsequent to change of place comes growth: That growth involves a change of

place is manifest:

For the mode of the aforesaid changes differs in that what is altered does not necessarily

undergo a change of place and neither does a thing that is generated. But anything that is

augmented or diminished must undergo a change in place.21 (emphasis added)

(2) Subsequent to alteration comes change of place: As we have seen, this changeresults from the conformation of the earth and the waters below; but a change in shape is achange in quality, which is a species of alteration.

(3) Subsequent to substantial change comes alteration: That waters congeal to formice can happen only if their moisture is overcome by heat; but to be overcome is to pass

away, which is a species of substantial change.22

(4) Subsequent to creation comes substantial change, which is involved in the production of light . Now is quite evident that substantial change as such in no way pre-

supposes an act of creation, yet there is one special case where it does: the soul of man,

possessing the faculties of reason and will, which are immaterial operations, make it impossible that such a form be educed from pre-existent matter . But light, standing to the

world as the generative principle stands to the body of a man, and therefore presupposing a

21 Cf. Commentary on Aristotle’s Generation and Corruption by Thomas Aquinas, translated by. Pierre Con-

way & R. F. Larcher, lect. 11, n. 84.22 Cf. Commentary on the Book of Causes by Thomas Aquinas, translated by Vincent A. Guagliardo, O.P.,

Charles R. Hess, O.P., Richard C. Taylor, commentary on Prop. II: “…as the Philosopher says in Book 8 of

the Physics, in every motion there is some corruption and generation, inasmuch as something begins to be

and something ceases to be….”; but alteration is a motion; therefore, etc.

39



separated substance as the mover of the heavens informed by it, could not have been so

educed, making its immediate creation by God inescapable.

So much, then, for our argument. But there is another agreement between the two:

The appearance of light being, as it were, instantaneous, with no material cause specifiedin the account, one could argue that, there being no prejacent matter in evidence, creation

ex nihilo is intimated, seeing that at first there was nothing and then there was something.

This is not to say, of course, that no element is thereby presupposed in its coming to be butonly that none is specified, so that the account presents the imagination with a picture, soto speak, of the producing in being of something out of nothing. In this regard compare the

second creation account of man (Gen 2:7), in which it is said that God formed man of the

slime of the earth; in the present instance, no such material is put before the eyes. Consider also the implication of Aristotle, De Anima II. 7 (418b 21-27):

Empedocles (or anyone else who may have said the same) was wrong when he said that light

was borne along and extended between the earth and its envelope, unperceived by us. This is

in contradiction alike to sound reasoning and to appearance. Such a thing might happenunobserved over a small space: but that it should remain unnoticed from the, east to the west

is a very extravagant postulate. (Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima by Thomas Aquinas,

translated by Kenelm Foster, O.P. and Sylvester Humphries, O.P., 1951)

In other words, with the rising of the sun, Aristotle could not observe the transit of lightacross the sky, from which he concluded that, its propagation being instantaneous, it was

not a body. For St. Thomas’ view on this matter (sc. that light cannot be a body), cf. Sum-

ma Theol ., Ia, q. 67, art. 2, c. (excerpt) (tr . English Dominican Fathers):

The second reason is from movement. For if light were a body, its diffusion would be the

local movement of a body. Now no local movement of a body can be instantaneous, as

everything that moves from one place to another must pass through the intervening space

before reaching the end: whereas the diffusion of light is instantaneous. Nor can it be argued

that the time required is too short to be perceived; for though this may be the case in shortdistances, it cannot be so in distances so great as that which separates the East from the

West. Yet as soon as the sun is at the horizon, the whole hemisphere is illuminated from end

to end. It must also be borne in mind on the part of movement that whereas all bodies have

their natural determinate movement, that of light is indifferent as regards direction, working

equally in a circle as in a straight line. Hence it appears that the diffusion of light is not the

local movement of a body.23

We see, then, how this observation reveals that the first work of distinction is in away continuous with the work of creation. Accordingly, we are left to consider that prior

to each day was the creation of the heaven and earth from nothing, and thus every species

of ‘change’ is manifest in the Mosaic narrative.

9. Summary: The species of change according to Aristotle.

The several species of change:

1. coming to be (generation)

2. passing away (corruption)

23 See also his commentary on the passage excerpted from Aristotle (= n. 420).

40



3. motion

The first two are change according to substance; the last, according to accident. (Cf. In V

Phys., lect. 2; cf. lect. 3, n. 660)

Motion, however, is divided into

a) locomotion (change according to place) b) alteration (change according to quality)c) growth and decrease (change according to quantity)

Cf. Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption, I. 4 (319b 4-320a 8) (tr. H. H. Joachim):

Next we must state what the difference [5] is between coming-to-be and ‘alteration’—for

we maintain that these changes are distinct from one another.

Since, then, we must distinguish (a) the substratum, and (b) the property whose nature it is

to be predicated of the substratum; [10] and since change of each of these occurs; there is

‘alteration’ when the substratum is perceptible and persists, but changes in its own

properties, the properties in question being opposed to one another either as contraries or as

intermediates. The body, e.g. although persisting as the same body, is now healthy and nowill; and the bronze is now spherical and at another time angular, and yet remains the same

[15] bronze. But when nothing perceptible persists in its identity as a substratum, and the

thing changes as a whole (when e.g. the seed as a whole is converted into blood, or water

into air, or air as a whole into water), such an occurrence is no longer ‘alteration’. It is a

coming-to-be of one substance and a passing-away of the other—especially if the change

proceeds from an imperceptible something to something perceptible (either to touch or to all

the senses), as when [20] water comes-to-be out of, or passes-away into, air: for air is pretty

well imperceptible. If, however, in such cases, any property (being one of a pair of contraries) persists, in the thing that has come-to-be, the same as it was in the thing which

has passed-away—if, e.g. when water comes-to-be out of air, both are transparent or cold 40

—

40 Aristotle is not saying that water and air are in fact ‘cold’, but is only quoting a common

view in illustration.

the second thing, into which the first changes, must not be a property of this persistent

identical something. Otherwise the change will be ‘alteration.’

Suppose, e.g. that the musical man passed-away and an unmusical [25] man came-to-be,

and that the man persists as something identical. Now, if ‘musicalness and unmusicalness’

had not been a property essentially inhering in man, these changes would have been a

coming-to-be of unmusicalness and a passing-away of musicalness: but in fact ‘musicalness

and unmusicalness’ are a property of the persistent identity, viz. man. (Hence, as regards

man, these changes are ‘modifications’; though, as regards musical man and unmusical man,

they [30] are a passing-away and a coming-to-be.) Consequently such changes are‘alteration.’

When the change from contrary to contrary is in quantity , it is ‘growth and di-

minution’; when it is in place , it is ‘motion’; when it is in property, i.e. in quality , it is

‘alteration’: but, when nothing persists, [320a] of which the resultant is a property (or an

‘accident’ in any sense of the term), it is ‘coming-to-be’, and the converse change is

‘passing-away’.

‘Matter’, in the most proper sense of the term, is to be identified with the substratum which

is receptive of coming-to-be and passing-away: but the substratum of the remaining kinds of

41



change is also, in a certain sense, ‘matter’, because all these substrata are receptive of [5]

‘contrarieties’ of some kind. So much, then, as an answer to the questions (i) whether

coming-to-be ‘is’ or ‘is not’—i.e. what are the precise conditions of its occurrence and (ii)

what ‘alteration’ is: but we have still to treat of growth.41

41 Cf. above, 315a 26-28. (emphasis added)


Pierre Conway & R. F. Larcher (Columbus, 1964), Bk. I, lect. 10 complete:

Lecture 10

The difference between generation and alteration

73. After showing why there is a certain absolute generation and a certain qualifiedgeneration, the Philosopher here inquires into the difference between generation and

alteration.

First, he states his intention [71] and says that we must discuss generation and alteration and

indicate how they differ, for we have stated above that these are different types of change;

Secondly, he carries out his intention, at 74.

First he shows the difference between generation and alteration with respect to that

according to which both are changes;

Secondly, with respect to the subject of each, at 79.

Regarding the first he does two things:

First, he shows the difference between generation and alteration;

Secondly, he removes a difficulty, at 77.

About the first he does two things:First, he shows in what things alteration occurs;

Secondly, in what things generation occurs, at 75.

74. With respect to the first [72] he supposes two things. The first is that the subject is

one thing and the passion which is apt to be said of a subject is another, just as in the

case of substance and accident. The second is that change occurs in both of these; for

sometimes the change is in the very substance of the subject and sometimes in the acci-

dents.

With these suppositions in mind he says that it is alteration when the same perceptible

subject remains, i.e., when, with no change having taken place in the substance, a

change occurs in its passions, i.e., in its qualities. And it makes no difference whether thechange involves contrary extremes or intermediates—for example, whether it is from white

to black or from red to pale. He gives two examples: the first is when the body of an animal,

while remaining the same, is first healthy and then sick; the second is when bronze or some

other metal, while remaining the same, is now round and now angular, or possessing angles.

And it should be noted that the first of these examples pertains to the first species of quality

and the second example to the fourth species. Yet the Philosopher proved in Physics VII that

there is no motion of alteration in the first and fourth species of quality but only in the third,

42



which is called “passion or passible quality”—for which reason he perhaps advisedly said

that alteration is a change in the “passions.”

But it should be said that alteration is primarily and per se in the qualities of the third

species, through which alteration subsequently occurs also in the other species. For

example, by reason of some change within the sphere of hot and cold a man is changed from

healthy to sick, or vice versa; and through a change within the sphere of soft and hard a body

is brought to some shape.

75. Then [73] he shows when generation occurs. About this he does two things:

First, he states when there is generation;Secondly, when there is generation par excellence, at 76.

He says therefore first [73] that when a change affects not only the passions but the

entire substance of a thing, in so far, namely, as the matter acquires another

substantial form so that nothing perceptible remains as though the being in act were

the same subject as to number— for example, when from the whole seed, there is

generated what is wholly blood , or when from what is wholly air there is generated what

is wholly water, without any gatherings or separatings playing a part as Democritus

posited—such a change is the generation of one thing and the corruption of another.

76. Then [74] he explains when there is generation in the highest degree. And he says that

according to the third way laid down above and which is taken according to the opinion of

many, above all is something said to be generated when the change proceeds from something

not easily perceptible to something clearly perceptible, either to touch, which, among the

senses, is more gross and material (hence among the people it is according to this sense

above all that something is judged as perceptible—in so far as it may be felt), or to the other

senses —as, when water is generated from air, there seems to be according to this

outlook, generation which is absolute, or when it is corrupted into air there seems to be

absolute corruption. For air is only slightly perceptible, both because it is so rarified and

because it has no excelling active quality, but only a passive one, namely, moistness; while

in fire, which is more rarified than air, an active quality, heat, does excel. But water isboth denser than air and there excels in it an active quality, coldness; earth, finally, is the

densest of all the elements.

77. Then [75] he removes a difficulty. For since he had said that the subject remains when a

change has taken place with respect to its passions, someone could believe that in the case of

everything with respect to which something is changed while something other remains, that

which is changed is a passion of that which remains. [i.e. one might think that water and air

are passions of the transparent, since the latter remains throughout the change.] But heexcludes this when he says that in those bodies that are reciprocally changed one from the

other, sometimes there remains some one and the same passion in the generated and in the

corrupted thing, as when from air is produced water—for both are “diaphanous,” i.e.,

transparent, or cold (although air is not cold by nature but accidentally); yet this does notmean that the other thing, in which the change takes place, namely, the air or the water, is a

passion of that which remains, namely, the diaphanous or the cold. If what we now say were

not so, it would follow that when water comes to be from air, it would be alteration; for we

always see that when that which is changed is a passion of what remains, we have alteration,

but when that which is changed is not a passion of what remains, it is generation. He shows

this by means of an example. We say that “musical man” has been corrupted when man loses

the habit of music, at which time “unmusical man,” i.e., man having the privation of music is

43



generated. The reason for this is that music is not a passion of “musical man,” since it is of

its notion; likewise, unmusical is of the notion of “unmusical man.” Hence musical man does

not remain; but the same numerical man does remain. Therefore, if music and “lack of

music” were not passions of “this,” i.e., of man, but were part of his notion, then the change

of “musical” and “unmusical” would constitute the generation of one thing and the

corruption of another. But because this is not so, therefore music and “lack of music” are

passions of man. But there is a generation and corruption of musical and unmusical man; and

because man remains, as is evident, it follows that music is a passion of that which remains

[namely, man]. Therefore alteration occurs with respect to “such,” i.e., the passions of thingsthat are permanent. If, therefore, water and air were passions of the transparent, as of

something permanent, it would follow that the change of water from air would be alteration.

78. But there is a problem as to whether the same numerical passion which is at one extreme

of a set of contraries could exist in the generated and in the corrupted, as was said above. For

if it does not remain the same, then the transition into each other of things that are similar will not be easier, since on both sides it will be necessary to remove everything. Similarly, it

seems to follow that like is destroyed by like, for the generator destroys that which

previously was present. But if one supposes the same numerical passion to remain, it follows

that even though that which was prior, namely, the subject, has been removed, that which

was subsequent, namely, the passion, remains. Moreover, the same numerical accident

would be in two subjects.

It should be answered, therefore, that the same numerical passion does not remain, but that

what existed previously is corrupted per accidens with the corruption of the subject, when

the form which was the principle of that accident departed, and that a similar accident

comes, following on the newly-arriving form. And because, with respect to this accident,

there was no conflict between agent and patient, the change was easier. Nor is it

unacceptable for like to destroy like per accidens, i.e., by reason of corrupting the subject or

matter—this is the same way in which a larger flame consumes a smaller.

79. Then [76] he shows, from the side of the subject, how generation differs from alteration

and from other changes.

First, he shows how all of them are related to the subject which is a being in act;

Secondly, how related to the subject which is a being in potency, at 81.

He says therefore first [76] that, as was said, alteration is according to the passions of something that remains. And this same thing occurs in other changes, which take place with

respect to accidents which occur to a subject existing in act. When, therefore, a change is

from contrary to contrary according to quantity—for example, from large to small, or vice

versa—we have “growth” or “decrease” of the same permanent subject, since quantityoccurs to a subject existing in act. But when the change is with respect to contrariety of place

—for example, up or down—it is “latio,” i.e., local motion, of the same remaining body,

since “where” accrues to a body existing in act. When the change is with respect to a

contrariety in passions (i.e., primarily in passible qualities, and in other qualities as aconsequence), we have “alteration” of the same permanent being, because quality too

accrues to a subject existing in act. But when nothing remains existing in act, of which that

which is changed might be a passion or some accident, it is universally “generation and

corruption,” since the substantial form, with respect to which generation and corruption

occur, does not accrue to a subject existing in act.

44



80. Hence it is evident that the opinion is false which Avicebron handed down in the book

Font of Life, namely, that in matter there is an order of forms, in the sense that first matter

acquires a form making it a substance, and then another that makes it a body, and then

another which makes it living body, and so on. For since it is one and the same thing to

constitute a substance and to make a “this something,” which pertains to particular sub-

stance, it would follow that the first form, which constitutes the substance, would also make

it a “this something”, which is a subject existing in act. Consequently, the subsequent forms

would accrue to a permanent subject, and with respect to them there would be alteration

rather than generation, according to the doctrine which Aristotle here transmits. Thereforeone should say, as was said above, that substantial forms differ according to more and less

perfect. But the more perfect can do all that the less perfect can do, and more; hence themore perfect form that makes a thing “living” can also make it “body,” as does the more

imperfect form of non-living body. Consequently, no substantial form accrues to a subject

existing in act, nor does it presuppose some other common form really distinct from it,

which would be the object of Natural Philosophy, but only one distinct according to reason,and which pertains to the consideration of Logic.

81. Then [77] he compares all the above-mentioned changes to the subject which is only

being in potency. And he says that it is above all “hyle,” or first matter, which is the

proper subject of generation and corruption, because, as has been said, it immediately

underlies the substantial forms, which come and go by generation and corruption. But ina certain sense, i.e., consequently and mediately, it also underlies all the other changes,

because all the subjects of the other changes are susceptible of certain contrarieties

which are reduced to the first contrariety, which is that of form and privation, whose

subject is first matter, as is said in Physics I. And therefore all the other subjects

partake in some sense of first matter in so far as they are composed of matter and

form. In summary [78] he concludes that so much, then, has been determined concerning

absolute generation, as to whether it exists or not, and what are the precise conditions of its

occurrence, and in a like manner concerning alteration. (emphasis added)

N.B. In addition to the foregoing correspondences, it can be shown that each of the worksof distinction correlate to the several species of change as follows:

10. The order among the species of change: Certain presuppositions.

(a) That local motion precedes alteration: The comparison of the motion of the universe

with that of the heart:

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, De Motu Cordis (On the Motion of the Heart ), nn. 8-10 (tr.

B.A.M.):

8. Others therefore say that the principle of this motion in animals is heat itself, which being

generated by spirit moves the heart. But this is irrational. For that which is most principal in

a thing must be the cause. Now the most principal thing in an animal, and more contem- poraneous with life, seems to be the motion of the heart rather than any alteration involving

heat. Therefore an alteration involving heat is not the cause of the heart’s motion; rather the

heart’s motion is the cause of such an alteration as involving heat. And so the Philosopher in

On the Movement of Animals (ch. 10, 703a 24-25) says: “what is about to initiate movement,

not by alteration, is of this kind”.

9. Again, a perfect animal, which is one that moves itself, most approaches to a likeness of

the whole universe: and so man, who is the most perfect of animals, is by some called a

45



“microcosm”. Now in the universe the first motion is local motion, which is the cause of

alteration as well as the other motions, for which reason even in animals the principle of

alteration appears to be local motion. And so the Philosopher in the eighth book of the

Physics (ch. 1, 250 b 14-15), pursuing this resemblance, says that motion is “like a kind of

‘life’ existing in all things”.24

10. What is more, what is per se is prior to what is per accidens.25 But the first motion of an

animal is the motion of the heart; but heat does not move locally except accidentally: for it

belongs to heat to alter per se, but per accidens to move something in place. It is thereforeridiculous to say that “heat is the principle of the motion of the heart;” rather one must assign

a cause which can be an intrinsic cause of motion in place per se.

Now with the work of the first day we have the diurnal rotation of the outermost heaven,

which is local motion; but with the second, we may infer an alteration involving heat inso-

far as the waters above would have been produced by evaporation caused by the passage

overhead of the body of the sun.

(b) That subsequent to alteration comes generation, whereas growth is subsequent to gen-

eration:


Pierre Conway & R. F. Larcher (Columbus, 1964), Prologue, n. 1:

Among these motions, generation and corruption obtain the primacy. For alteration is dir-

ected to generation as to its end, and the end is by nature more perfect than what leads to it.

Growth, likewise, is subsequent to generation, for growth does not take place without a

certain particular generation, namely, that by which food is converted into the thing fed.

Thus the Philosopher says in On the Soul II that food nourishes in so far as it is potentially

flesh, but it produces increase inasmuch as potentially it is quantified flesh. Therefore, since

these motions are in a certain way consequent upon generation, they must be studied along

with generation and corruption.

(c) That certain species of alteration are analogous to growth:

Cf. Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption, I. 5 (320a 8-24) (tr. H. H. Joachim):

24 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol., Ia, q. 18, art. 1. obj. 1, ad 1 (tr. Alfred J. Freddoso):

Objection 1: In Physics 8 the Philosopher says that motion is, as it were, a sort of life in all things that

exist by nature. But all natural things participate in motion. Therefore, all natural things participate in

life. <…>

Reply to objection 1: This passage from the Philosopher can be understood to apply either to the first

motion, viz., the movement of the celestial bodies, or to motion in general. And in both senses motionis said to be like the life of natural bodies according to a certain likeness and not properly speaking.

For the motion of the celestial bodies in the universe of corporeal natures is like the motion of theheart by which life is conserved in an animal. Similarly, every natural motion is, as it were, a certain

likeness of a vital operation in natural things. Hence, if the whole corporeal universe were a single

animal, so that (as some have claimed) its motion were from an intrinsic mover, then it would follow

that its motion is the life of all natural bodies. [N.B. For St. Thomas, the motion of the heavens comes

from a conjoined mover; cf. ST , Ia, q. 70, art. 3.]

25 That is to say, the essential comes before the accidental.

46



[B]ut we have still to treat of growth. We must explain (i) wherein growth differs from

coming-to-be and from ‘alteration’, and (ii) what is the process of growing and the process

of diminishing in each and all of the things that grow and diminish. [10] Hence our firstquestion is this: Do these changes differ from one another solely because of a difference in

their respective ‘spheres’? In other words, do they differ because, while a change from this

to that (viz. from potential to actual substance) is coming-to-be, a change in the sphere of

magnitude is growth and one in the sphere of quality is ‘alteration’—both growth and

‘alteration’ being changes from what is-potentially to what is-actually magnitude and qualityrespectively? Or is there also a difference in [15] the manner of the change, since it is

evident that, whereas neither what is ‘altering’ nor what is coming-to-be necessarily changes

its place, what is growing or diminishing changes its spatial position of necessity, though

in a different manner from that in which the moving thing does so? For that which is being

moved changes its place as a whole: but the growing [20] thing changes its place like a

metal that is being beaten, retaining its position as a whole while its parts change their

places. They change their places, but not in the same way as the parts of a revolving globe.

For the parts of the globe change their places while the whole continues to occupy an equal

place: but the parts of the growing thing expand over an ever-increasing place and the

parts of the diminishing thing contract within an ever-diminishing area . (emphasis

added)

But a similar explanation is applicable to the third work: Cf. Commentary on Aristotle’s

Generation and Corruption by Thomas Aquinas, tr. by Pierre Conway & R. F. Larcher (Columbus, 1964), Bk. I, lect. 11, n. 85:

He says therefore first [82] that a thing which is increased or decreased changes place differ-

ently from that which is “carried,” i.e., moved with a rectilinear motion. For in the case of

that which is carried, namely, in rectilinear motion, the thing “universally,” i.e., in its whole-

ness, changes place. But something changes its place “like that which is drawn out,” for

example, like metal by beating or also something liquid as poured into a receptacle, or

any other body of this sort . In these cases, while the object remains in the same place, its

parts are changed with respect to place either by extension or in some other way. (emphasis

added)

Bearing in mind, then, that “[i]n the first account of the creation (Gen., i) we read that God

created a firmament to divide the upper or celestial from the lower or terrestrial waters…”,

we note that “[t]he Hebrew word means something beaten or hammered out, and thus ex-tended …..26 Now on the analogy that “the growing thing changes its place like a metal that

is being beaten, retaining its position as a whole while its parts change their places” ( Gen.

et Corr., I. 5, 320 19-20), insofar as the firmament suggests beaten metal , its formation ismanifestly analogous to growth. Note also that the further comparison St. Thomas makes

with a liquid being poured into a receptacle suggests the same for the third work of distinc-

tion.

(d) That alteration, which is a change with respect to passions, implies generation:

Cf. Commentary on Aristotle’s Generation and Corruption by Thomas Aquinas, tr. byPierre Conway & R. F. Larcher (Columbus, 1964), lect. 2, n.16:

26 James F. Driscoll, “Firmament,” The Catholic Encyclopedia (emphasis added).

47



16. Then [16] he disputes against Empedocles in particular, with two arguments. In the first

of these he declares that Empedocles seems to be at odds not only with what our senses

reveal, namely, the fact that we see that air comes to be from water and fire from air, but

he seems to contradict himself also. For, on the one hand, he says that no element is

generated from another, but all other “elemented” bodies are composed of them; and, on the

other hand, he says that before this present world was generated, all the nature of things

was assembled by Friendship into one, minus Strife, and that each of the elements and

also each of the other bodies came to be out of that one through the influence of Strife,

separating things. From this it is plain that through certain differences and passions of the various elements it was brought about by Strife out of that one that one thing be

water and another fire.

And he gives an example of the “differences and passions”—thus he [Empedocles] says

that the “sun,” i.e., fire, is white and hot and light, but earth is heavy and hard. From

this, it is evident that such differences are newly acquired by the elements. Now whatever isnewly acquired can be removed. Therefore, since these differences are removable inas-

much as they are newly engendered, it is plain that, once removed, it is necessary that

water be made from earth, and earth from water, and, in general, each element from

some other—and this not only “then,” i.e., in the beginning of the world, but also now,

coming about through the change of the passions. (emphasis added)

In sum, given a confusion of the elements where they lack their proper passions, when one

or another is separated out of the mixture the said element has come to be. So, too, with thework of the third day, when earth is separated out of the water allowing the dry land to ap-

pear, there is such a coming-to-be.

11. The species of change in sum:

(1) local motion followed by (2) an alteration (involving heat) followed by (3) substantial

change followed by (4) growth

12. The foregoing changes as found in the three works of distinction:

(a) In the first work:

(1) the Spirit of God moving over the waters (= local motion)

(2) imparting the generative principle by means of heat (= alteration)(3) resulting in light coming to be, thereby producing the world’s first form, which is

as a substantial form, and so is substantial change (= coming-to-be)

(4) but the appearance of light, inasmuch as it may increase in intensity, is a sort of growth (even though the propagation of light is apparently instantaneous, we

nevertheless speak of it “growing light”, etc.) (= growth, in a manner of speaking)

48



On the first work of distinction, cf. the following taken from the Internet:27

2. The universe was stretched out from its original size after God created it. Two verses that

describe this stretching compare it to a curtain being stretched. A curtain is clearly a finite

object....

[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as

grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to

dwell in:- Isaiah 40:22

Who coverest [thyself] with light as [with] a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a

curtain:

Psalms 104:2

That is to say, God produces light and the heavens “like that which is drawn out”.

(b) In the second work:

(1) the revolution of the celestial sphere (= local motion)

(2) causing evaporation and condensation, producing the waters above (= alteration)

(3) resulting in the formation of the firmament in their midst (which must be a sub-

stantial change, for if it were merely another alteration it would not endure whenthe sun returns to its vicinity) (= coming-to-be)

(4) but in agreement with the etymology of the Hebrew word raqia, the firmament is

like a metal that has been beaten out (= growth, in a manner of speaking)

(c) In the third work:

(1) the movement of waters across the surface of the earth (= local motion)

(2) imparting of a shape to the surface of the earth (= alteration)

(3) resulting in the separation of the wet from the dry with respect to earth and water

implies an instance of generation: what was potentially earth became earth in act,and the same with water (= coming-to-be)

(4) thereby causing the movement of the waters into receptacles (= growth, in a man-

ner of speaking)

13. Two stages in development:

• the work of the second day = a first determination (the more earthy parts are separ-

ated off from the fluid, accompanied by the formation of a ‘membrane’)

•

the work of the third day = a second determination (what is potentially dry is separ-ated from what is wet in act and vice versa; the parts acquire their respective na-tures and so are perfected)

Notice also that in the Work of the Six Days, the four primary qualities, hot and cold , wet

and dry, are manifested in the following order:

27 (http://www.creationists.org/universe-is-finite-in-size.html [12/1/09])

49



• First day: hot , inasmuch as vital heat is understood to underlie the generative power

of the heavens informed by light.

• Second day: cold in relation to the congealing of water to ice, thereby producing

the firmament of Heaven.

• Third day: wet and dry insofar as the waters below are gathered into one place let-

ing the dry land appear; all the wet going to the one, the dry to the other.

14. The work of formation with respect to the ‘elements’. Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol ., Ia, q. 68, art. 1, c. (tr . English Dominican Fathers):

According to the first opinion, it may, strictly speaking, be granted that the firmament was

made, even as to substance, on the second day. For it is part of the work of creation to pro-

duce the substance of the elements, while it belongs to the work of distinction and

adornment to give forms to the elements that pre-exist . (emphasis added)

15. The work of distinction on the first day.

The Scripture we have before us, being entitled ‘Genesis’ from the Greek, it is fitting thatthe Work of the Six Days be disposed in the manner of a coming into being. Now ‘genesis’has both a proper and a common meaning: properly, it means the coming into being of a

living thing; but commonly, the coming into being of anything whatsoever, such as an

artifact. Now the nature of such generation is best preserved in an account wheresomething is given in the manner of a passive principle to be formed into a new being, and

something in the manner of an active principle imparting motion to what is passive, and

consequently, the form of the generator. Accordingly, with respect to the work of the firstday (for which, see Part IV), may we not suppose that, by the divine fiat, the appearance of

light implies a luminous body producing it (light being understood here as an active quality

of the luminous body, cf. In II De Anima. lect. 14, n. 420), and so presupposes a first form-

ation of some unformed element, such as aither , into that otherwise unmentioned lumin-ary? And would not such a substance also possess, like the sun, the active quality of heat

driving the processes of generation which takes place here below?28 Now by means of light

both the body of air existing under the privation called ‘darkness,’ as well as the heaven or heavens above it “on high” within which the luminary may be presumed to revolve, are

given a form, namely, that of illumination (light being understood in this latter case as the

act of the transparent, cf. idem, n. 405). But they are also given a formative virtue, con-

28 As we have noted elsewhere, it must be recognized that while certain ‘elements’ are named as existing

from the start, namely earth and water, but others, such as air, are implied, as St. Thomas explains, so one

might also suppose the others to have also existed from the start, even if unnamed. Cf. Summa Theol., Ia, q.

68, art. 3, c.: “It should rather be considered that Moses was speaking to ignorant people, and that out of

condescension to their weakness he put before them only such things as are apparent to sense. Now even themost uneducated can perceive by their senses that earth and water are corporeal, whereas it is not evident to

all that air also is corporeal, for there have even been philosophers who said that air is nothing, and called aspace filled with air a vacuum. Moses, then, while he expressly mentions water and earth, makes no express

mention of air by name, to avoid setting before ignorant persons something beyond their knowledge. In

order, however, to express the truth to those capable of understanding it, he implies in the words: “Darkness

was upon the face of the deep,” the existence of air as attendant, so to say, upon the water. For it may be

understood from these words that over the face of the water a transparent body was extended, the subject of

light and darkness, which, in fact, is the air.” (emphasis added) For the heavens above the air, cf. footnote on

the next page.

50



sisting in the power of generation. Following upon this institution, with the naming of the

light ‘Day’ and the darkness ‘Night’, and with the subsequent succession of evening andmorning, the first work of distinction—described universally as the separation of light

from darkness—is seen to result in the alternation of day and night produced by the diurnal

movement of the luminous body through the heaven, which alternation is the first work of distinction in particular. We have, then, to understand the formation of the heavens by light

to be analogous to the reception of a subject by a substantial form, as the body its soul, a

point which I have developed at length in preceding parts of this series.

Corollary:

Accordingly, inasmuch as the diurnal movement of a heavenly body is the first efficientcause of motion and generation (as the ancients believed to be the case with that body, as

well as with the sun, the moon, and the stars),29 may we not also suppose this process to

have begun with the production of light? But if so, must we not understand that motion to be due to a separated substance conjoined to it as its mover, as has been touched on

above?30

17. The work of distinction on the second day.

As I explain more fully elsewhere, the work of the second day, consisting in the bringing

into being of the firmament (prior to its adornment by ‘lights’), imparts to whatever matter we may presume to underlie it—most likely the waters in which it was produced—a

certain form, thereby dividing the part of the waters above it from the part below it; a form

that appears to the observer to be that of a dome or a sphere, as the apparent motions of theheavenly bodies makes clear. The firmament, then, being manifestly in that shape, we must

recognize that the work of the second day principally consists in this accomplishment, so

that the order placed in the element of water on the second day. In sum, the imparting of ashape to the entire corporeal universe clearly counts as a principal work of formation. It is

not enough, then, to speak merely of the waters being formed when it is the firmament

itself which is ‘made’. Moreover, the formation of the waters is an effect of the latter, not

its cause, and so should not be treated as principal, but rather as secondary.

18. The work of distinction on the third day.

29 Cf. Summa Theol ., Ia q. 65, art. 4, c.: “But since the composite agent, which is a body, is moved by acreated spiritual substance, as Augustine says ( De Trin. iii, 4,5), it follows further that even corporeal forms

are derived from spiritual substances, not emanating from them, but as the term of their movement.”. Cf. also

idem., Ia, q. 70, art. 3, c.: “A proof that the heavenly bodies are moved by the direct influence and contact of

some spiritual substance, and not, like bodies of specific gravity, by nature, lies in the fact that whereas

nature moves to one fixed end which having attained, it rests; this does not appear in the movement of

heavenly bodies. Hence it follows that they are moved by some intellectual substances.” The entire article isdevoted to this subject.30 Cf. ibid., q. 67, art. 1, ad 1: “According to Damascene ( De Fide Orth. ii) that [heaven] of the first day wasspherical in form and without stars, the same, in fact, that the philosophers speak of, calling it the ninth

sphere, and the primary movable body that moves with diurnal movement: while by the firmament made on

the second day he understands the starry heaven”. Cf. ibid ., Ia, q. 68, art. 2, ad 3, where St. Thomas speaks of

“the primary mobile” as “the cause of the daily revolution of the entire heaven, whereby the continuance of

generation is secured. In the same way the starry heaven, by the zodiacal movement, is the cause whereby

different bodies are generated or corrupted, through the rising and setting of the stars, and their various

influences.”

51



With respect to the work of formation on the third day, the “deep”, understood as “the

mass of waters without order,”31 necessarily lacked the determination of shape, insofar aswater does not of itself have a shape, but acquires one only from the body containing it. I

therefore suppose the gathering of the waters into ‘Seas’ to imply the imparting of a form

to the surface of the earth, presumably ‘basins’ of some sort (with a corresponding raisingof mountains, on which see below); the earth as a consequence receiving an additional

determination—that of visibility, as St. Thomas explains—when its “watery veil” was

“withdrawn” (cf. ibid., Ia, q. 66, art. 1, c.).

32

On the former of these two points, cf. St.Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Meteorology, lect. 3, n. 17 (tr. Pierre Con-way and F. R. Larcher) (excerpt):

The second fact he proposes is about water [15] and he says that we do not observe water to

exist by itself and isolated from the body located about the earth, namely, from the sea and

rivers, which we see, and from the bodies of water which some have asserted to exist hiddenfrom us in the bowels of the earth. For it does not occur to water to be gathered together in

this way – since the moistness which is water is contained by some alien terminus.

That is to say, a fluid having no boundary of its own, we must perforce recognize that thenature of “the waters” is such as to require an “alien terminus”. Likewise, given the evident

fact that water seeks its own level, we must also recognize that the earth-bound watersmust be gathered into one place somewhere on earth (whether that place be on its surface

or in its ‘bowels’ or both as the case may be), as we observe with its containers we call“the Seas”.

19. On the moist and the dry.

With respect to water’s need for a terminus outside it, cf. also Aristotle, On Generation

and Corruption, II. 2 (329b 17-330a 1) (tr. H. H. Joachim):

Accordingly, we must segregate the tangible differences and contrarieties, and distinguish

which amongst them are primary. Contrarieties correlative to touch are the following: hot-cold, dry-moist, heavy-light, hard-soft, viscous-brittle, rough- [20] smooth, coarse-fine. Of

these (i) heavy and light are neither active nor susceptible. Things are not called ‘heavy’ and

‘light’ because they act upon, or suffer action from, other things. But the ‘elements’ must be

reciprocally active and susceptible, since they ‘combine’ and are transformed into one

another. On the other hand (ii) hot and cold, and dry and moist, are terms, of which the first

pair implies power to act and [25] the second pair susceptibility. ‘Hot’ is that which

‘associates’ things of the same kind (for ‘dissociating’, which people attribute to Fire as itsfunction, is ‘associating’ things of the same class, since its effect is to eliminate what is

foreign), while ‘cold’ is that which brings together, i.e. ‘associates’, homogeneous and

heterogeneous things alike. [30] And moist is that which, being readily adaptable in shape,

is not determinable by any limit of its own: while ‘dry’ is that which is readily

determinable by its own limit, but not readily adaptable in shape. From moist and dry are derived (iii) the fine and coarse, viscous and brittle, hard and soft,

and the remaining tangible differences. For (a) since the moist has no determinate shape,

but is readily adaptable and follows the outline of that which is in contact with it, it is

[330a] characteristic of it to be ‘such as to fill up’. (emphasis added)

31 Cf. ibid., Ia, q. 69, art. 1. c., citing Augustine, Contr. Faust . xxii, 11.32 Also, as Augustine and Thomas saw, by their separation the elements of earth and water had their natures

imparted to them, for which reason they must have pre-existed seminally, as I explain further in PART VIII.

52



From the foregoing passage, then, one can readily see the intimate connection between the

nature of fluidity on the one hand, and the necessity for imparting an outline to the surfaceof the earth on the other. Notice also how that nature relates to the requirement that the

earth, understood as mixed with the waters of the deep, is bohu, ‘void’ or ‘empty’: While

we have argued above that this indetermination was taken away by the several works of adornment, disagreeing with the Angelic Doctor’s assigning the latter to the third work of

distinction, we must recognize that the foregoing observation reveals how the gathering of

the waters below into seas is itself a kind of ‘filling up’ of what is empty, thereby makingthe last work of distinction in a way continuous with the first work of adornment.

Also relevant here is Aristotle, Meteorology, I. 14 (351a 19-351b 4) (tr. E. W. Webster):

The same parts of the earth are not always moist or dry, but they change [20] according as

rivers come into existence and dry up. And so the relation of land to sea changes too and a

place does not always remain land or sea throughout all time, but where there was dry land

there comes to be sea, and where there is now [25] sea, there one day comes to be dry land.

But we must suppose these changes to follow some order and cycle. The principle and

cause of these changes is that the interior of the earth grows and decays, like the bodies of

plants and animals. Only in the case of these latter the process does not go on by parts,

but each [30] of them necessarily grows or decays as a whole, whereas it does go on by parts in the case of the earth. Here the causes are cold and heat, which increase and

diminish on account of the sun and its course. It is owing to them that the parts of the earth

come to have a different character, that some parts remain moist for a certain time, and then

dry up and grow old, while other parts in their turn are filled with life and moisture. Now

when places become drier the springs necessarily give out, and when [351b] this happens the

rivers first decrease in size and then finally become dry; and when rivers change and

disappear in one part and come into existence correspondingly in another, the sea must needs

be affected. (emphasis added)

20. The gathering of the waters on the third day: certain difficulties recognized by St.Thomas Aquinas.

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol., Ia, q. 69, art. 1, obj. 3-4, ad 3-4 (tr. EnglishDominican Fathers):

Objection 3: Further, things which are not in continuous contact cannot occupy one place.

But not all the waters are in continuous contact, and therefore all were not gathered together

into one place.33

Objection 4: Further, a gathering together is a mode of local movement. But the waters

flow naturally, and take their course towards the sea.34 In their case, therefore, a Divine

precept of this kind was unnecessary.

<…>

33 Cf. Commentary on Aristotle’s Meteorology, lect. 1, n. 144: “He gives the second argument [142] and says

that there are many seas that have no communication with any other. For the Red Sea joins but slightly with

the Ocean Sea beyond the columns of Hercules: from which sea the Hyrcanian and Caspian (which is the sea

of Pontus) are far removed.”34 “Indeed, all water moves toward the sea as to its proper place; for the flow of water is toward what is more

concave, as is the place of the sea.” (Commentary on Aristotle’s Meteorology, lect. 2, n. 153)

53



Reply to Objection 3: All the waters have the sea as their goal, into which they flow by

channels hidden or apparent, and this may be the reason why they are said to be gathered

together into one place. Or, “one place” is to be understood not simply, but as contrasted

with the place of the dry land, so that the sense would be, “Let the waters be gathered

together in one place,” that is, apart from the dry land. That the waters occupied more places

than one seems to be implied by the words that follow, “The gathering together of the waters

He called Seas.”

Reply to Objection 4: The Divine command gives bodies their natural movement and bythese natural movements they are said to “fulfill His word.” Or we may say that it was

according to the nature of water completely to cover the earth, just as the air completelysurrounds both water and earth; but as a necessary means towards an end, namely, that plants

and animals might be on the earth, it was necessary for the waters to be withdrawn from a

portion of the earth. Some philosophers attribute this uncovering of the earth’s surface to

the action of the sun lifting up the vapors and thus drying the land. Scripture, however,

attributes it to the Divine power, not only in the Book of Genesis, but also Job 38:10

where in the person of the Lord it is said, “I set My bounds around the sea,” and Jer.

5:22, where it is written: “Will you not then fear Me, saith the Lord, who have set the sand

a bound for the sea?” (emphasis added)

On God’s bounding of the waters, cf. also St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Book of Job (tr. Brian Mulladay), Chapter 26:

Then he shows the effect of divine power on the waters when he says, “He has

circumscribed a limit on the waters”; for the waters according to the natural order of the

elements should cover every place on the earth, but that some part of the earth remains

uncovered by the waters is due to divine power, which has set out a boundary for the

water covering the earth.35 This pertains particularly to the ocean, which surrounds the land

everywhere, and because of this he continues, “at the boundary between light and darkness.”For the light of day and the dark of night are bounded for us by the sun rising and setting

from the upper hemisphere, which is placed over the habitable land, which is enclosed

everywhere by the ocean. Or this can be understood to mean that the boundary of the waters

will remain unchangeable, as long as this actual state of the world remains in which there isa succession of light and darkness. (emphasis added)

On the conforming of the surface of the earth by God, cf. Quaestiones Disputatae de Po-

tentia Dei. On the Power of God by Thomas Aquinas, translated by the English DominicanFathers (1952), q. 4, art. 1, ad 18:

Reply to the Eighteenth Objection. Seeing that mineral bodies do not show any evident

superiority of excellence over the elements as living bodies do, they are not described as

having been formed apart from the elements, and we understand them to have been produced

at the same time as the elements. Hence nothing prevents the existence of hollow places before the waters were gathered together, so that the earth could afterwards provide room for

the waters to be gathered together in the depressions of its surface. However, the words used

by Augustine in his allusion to this view (Gen. ad lit. i, 12) seem to mean that these hollow

places did not already exist beneath the surface, but that they were formed on the surface

of the earth when the waters were gathered together.

These in fact are his words: “By subsiding in all directions the earth was able to provide

these hollow places into which the waters flowing and rushing together were received, and

35 Cf. our remarks on “the world-encircling Ocean” in Preliminaries III.

54



the dry land appeared in those parts that the waters had abandoned.” The same view is

expressed by Basil ( Hom. iv, in Hexaem.): “When the waters were commanded to gather

together, a place for their gathering was at once formed, so that by God’s command

sufficient place was provided to receive the confluence of the many waters.” It may be that

sufficient place was made by the depressions in the earth’s surface, even as certain parts are

accidentally higher as hills and mountains. (emphasis added)

21. How we are to understand the one place to which the waters are gathered. On this

question, cf. the following excerpted above:

To the use of the plural “Seas” for describing what has been gathered together into one place, compare Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1910), s.v. “Geology”, p. 654: “2. The

Hydrosphere. — The water envelope covers nearly three-fourths of the surface of the earth,

and forms the various oceans and seas which, though for convenience of reference

distinguished by separate names, are all linked together in one great body.” Cf. John Gill on

Genesis 1:10: “ And the gathering together of the waters called he seas; for though there was

but one place into which they were collected, and which is the main ocean, with which all

other waters have a communication, and so are one; yet there are divers seas, as the Red sea,

the Mediterranean, Caspian, Baltic, &c. or which are denominated from the shores they

wash, as the German, British, &c. and even lakes and pools of water are called seas, as the

sea of Galilee and Tiberias, which was no other than the lake of Gennesaret.”

22. The conformation of the earth and waters: Some Biblical witnesses.

That Scripture itself understands the forming of the surface of the earth to involve depress-sions producing basins and elevations producing hills and mountains, is well brought out

by the following comment from John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible (1748), on

Genesis 1:9:

Ver. 9. And God said, let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one

place,.... Which are before called the waters under the firmament; and which were either on

the surface of the earth, or in the bowels of it, or mixed with it, which by the compressure of the expanse or air were separated from it and these, by apertures and channels made, were

caused to flow as by a straight line, as the word {e} used signifies, unto the decreed place

that was broke up for them, the great hollow or channel which now contains the waters of

the ocean: this was done by the word of the Lord, at his rebuke; and when it seems

there was a clap thunder, and perhaps an earthquake, which made the vast cavity for

the sea, as well as threw up the hills and mountains, and made the valleys; see Job 38:10:

<…>

{e} wwqy “congregentur tanquam ad amussim et regulam”, Fagius; “recto et equabili cursu

contendant et collineant”, Junius. (emphasis added)

Cf. ibid., on Job 38:8-11:

Verse 8. Or [who] shut up the sea with doors ,.... From the earth the transition is to the sea,according to the order of the creation; and this refers not to the state and case of the sea as at

the flood, of which some interpret it, but as at its first creation; and it is throughout this

account represented as an infant, and here first as in embryo, shut up in the bowels of the

earth, where it was when first created with it, as an infant shut up in its mother’s womb, andwith the doors of it; see Job 3:10; the bowels of the earth being the storehouses where God

55



first laid up the deep waters, Psalm 33:7; and when the chaos, the misshapen earth, was like

a woman big with child;

when it brake forth out of the abyss , as the Targum, with force and violence, as Pharez

broke out of his mother’s womb; for which reason he had his name given, which

signifies a breach, Genesis 38:29; so it follows,

[as if] it had issued out of the womb; as a child out of its mother’s womb; so the sea

burst forth and issued out of the bowels of the earth, and covered it all around, as inPsalm 104:6; and now it was that the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters,

before they were drained off the earth; this was the first open visible production of the sea,

and may be called the birth of it ; see Genesis 1:2. Something like this the Heathen

philosopher Archelaus had a notion of, who says {g}, the sea was shut up in hollow

places, and was as it were strained through the earth.

{g} Laert. Vit. Philosoph. l. 2. p. 99.

Verse 9. When I made the cloud the garment thereof ,.... For this newborn babe, the sea;

and thick darkness a swaddling band for it ; which was the case of the sea when it burst out

of the bowels of the earth and covered it, for then darkness was upon the face of the deep,a dark, foggy, misty air, Genesis 1:2; and this was before its separation from the land, and in

this order it stands in this account; though since, clouds, fogs, and mists, which rise out of

the sea, are as garments to it, and cover it at times, and the surrounding atmosphere, as it

presses the whole terraqueous globe, and keeps the parts of the earth together, so the waters

of the sea from spilling out; and these are the garments and the swaddling bands with which

the hands and arms of this big and boisterous creature are wreathed; it is said of the infant in

Ezekiel 16:4 that it was neither “salted nor swaddled at all”; but both may be said of the sea;

that it is salted is sufficiently known, and that it is swaddled is here affirmed; but who exceptthe Lord Almighty could do this? and who has managed, and still does and can manage, this

unruly creature, as easily as a nurse can turn about and swaddle a newborn babe upon her

lap.

Verse 10. And brake up for it my decreed [place],.... Or, as Mr. Broughton translates it, “and

brake the earth for it by my decree”: made a vast chasm in the earth to hold the waters of

the sea, which was provided as a sort of cradle to put this swaddled infant in; God cleaved

the earth, raised the hills and sank the valleys, which became as channels to convey the

waters that ran off the earth to their appointed place, which beautifully expressed in

Psalm 104:7; and refers there, as here, to the work of creation on the second day, Genesis

1:9 {h};

and set bars and doors; to keep it in its decreed appointed place, that the waters might not go

over the earth; these are the shores, as the Targum, the cliffs and rocks upon them, the

boundaries of the sea; to which may be added, and what is amazing, the sand upon the

seashore is such a boundary to it that it cannot pass, Jeremiah 5:22; but these would beinsufficient was it not for the power and will of God, next expressed.

{h} Or determined, that is, appointed for it its convenient, proper, and fixed place; so David

de Pomis, Lexic. fol. 203. 1.

Verse 11. And said, hitherto shalt thou come, but no further ,.... The waters of the sea shallspread themselves to such and such shores, and wash them, but go no further; its rolling tides

shall go up so far in rivers that go out of it, and then return, keeping exactly to time and

56



place; this is said by Jehovah, the Word of God, and through his almighty power is tended

to;

and here shall thy proud waves be stayed ; so high and no higher shall they lift up

themselves; so far and no farther shall they roll on, than to the boundaries fixed for them;

and though they may toss up themselves as proud men toss up their heads, for which, reason

pride is ascribed to them, yet they shall not prevail, Jeremiah 5:22; all this may be

accommodated to the afflictions of God’s people, which are sometimes compared to the

waves and billows of the sea, Psalm 42:7; and these issue out of the womb of God’s purposes and decrees, and are not the effects of chance; they are many, and threaten to

overwhelm, but God is with his people in them, and preserves them from being overflowed by them; he has set the bounds and measures of them, beyond which they cannot go; see

Isaiah 27:8; and also to the world, and to the men of it, who are like a troubled sea, Daniel

7:2; and who rise, and swell, and dash against the people of God, being separated from them

who were originally mixed with them; but the Lord restrains their wrath and fury, andsuffers them not to do his people any harm; whom he has placed in the munition of rocks out

of their reach, that those proud waters cannot go over them as they threaten to do; see Psalm

76:10. (emphasis added)

Cf. Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible (1721), on Job 38:8:

II. Concerning the limiting of the sea to the place appointed for it, v. 8, etc. [sc. Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?] This

refers to the third day’s work, when God said (Gen. 1:9), Let the waters under the heaven be

gathered together unto one place, and it was so.

1. Out of the great deep or chaos, in which earth and water were intermixed, in obedience

to the divine command the waters broke forth like a child out of the teeming womb, v. 8.

Then the waters that had covered the deep, and stood above the mountains, retired with

precipitation. At God’s rebuke they fled, Ps. 104:6, 7 . (emphasis added)

Cf. Psalm 104 (103):6-9:

6 The deep like a garment is its clothing: above the mountains shall the waters stand. 7 At

thy rebuke they shall flee: at the voice of thy thunder they shall fear. 8 The mountains

ascend, and the plains descend into the place which thou hast founded for them. 9 Thou

hast set a bound which they shall not pass over; neither shall they return to cover the earth.

Cf. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary (Hartford, 1871) on Gen 1:9-13:

Ge 1:9-13. Third Day. 9. let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one

place —The world was to be rendered a terraqueous globe, and this was effected by a

volcanic convulsion on its surface, the upheaving of some parts, the sinking of others, and

the formation of vast hollows, into which the waters impetuously rushed, as is graphically

described (Ps 104:6-9) [Hitchcock]. Thus a large part of the earth was left “dry land,” and

thus were formed oceans, seas, lakes, and rivers which, though each having its own bed, or

channel, are all connected with the sea (Job 38:10; Ec 1:7).

23. Supplement: On Job 38:8: A problem of interpretation.

Cf. Job 38:8:8 Who shut up the sea with doors when it burst forth as though coming from a womb…?

57



Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Book of Job (tr. Brian Mulladay), ch. 38,Lesson 1:

After the foundation of the earth, he continues then speaking about the waters which are

immediately placed over the land. The natural order of the elements requires that water

surrounds the earth at every point like air surrounds earth and water at every point. But by

divine disposition, it has been effected for the generation of men, animals, and plants, some

part of the land remains uncovered by the waters, as God holds back the waters of the seawithin their certain limits by his power, and so he says, “Who shut up the sea with doors,”

with determined limits. There were some who thought the action of the sun dried up some part of the earth, but the Lord shows that it has been disposed from the beginning that the sea

does not cover the land everywhere. He describes the production of the sea using the

comparison of the birth of a living thing, a child, because water is especially apt to be

changed into living things. This is why the seed of all things is moist. The child first comes

forth from the womb of its mother, and he means this when he says, “when it burst forth

as though proceeding from the womb.” He uses the word “to break forth” because it is a

property of water to move almost continually. He says the sea proceeds, “from the womb,”

not because it has had its origin from other corporeal matter, but because it proceeded

from the hidden origin of divine providence as from the womb. (emphasis added)

N.B. Literally, the waters burst forth from the deep “as Pharez broke out of his mother’s

womb,” (Gen. 38:29) as John Gill puts it. On this point cf. Thomas’s Lesson 4 on 1:21:

The Fourth Lecture: Job’s Submission

20 Then Job arose and rent his robe; he shaved his head and he fell on the ground and

worshipped. 21 He said: Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I shall return

there; The Lord gave; the Lord has taken away. As God pleased, so it has been done.

Blessed be the name of the Lord! In all these things, Job did not sin with his lips, nor did

he say anything foolish against God.

…Job revealed the state of his mind not only by deeds, but also by words. For he rationally

demonstrated that although he suffered sadness, he did not have to yield to sadness. First, he

demonstrated from the condition of nature so the text said, “He said: Naked I came

forth from my mother’s womb,” namely, from the earth which is the common mother of

everything, “and naked shall I return there,” i.e., to the earth. Sirach speaks in the same

vein saying, “Great hardship has been created for man, and a heavy yoke lies on the

sons of Adam from the day they come forth from their mother’s womb until the day

they return to their burial in the mother of them all.” (40:1) This can also be interpreted

in another way. The expression, “from my mother’s womb” can be literally taken as the

womb of the mother who bore him. When he says next “naked I shall return there,” the term

“there” establishes a simple relation. For a man cannot return a second time to the womb of his own mother, but he can return to the state which he had in the womb of his mother in a

certain respect, namely in that he is removed from the company of men. In saying this he

reasonably shows that a man should not be absorbed with sadness because of the loss of

exterior goods, since exterior goods are not connatural to him, but come to him accidentally.

This is evident since a man comes into this world without them and leaves this world

without them. So when these accidental goods are taken away if the substantial ones remain

man ought not to be overcome by sadness although sadness may touch him. (emphasis

added)

58



That we should understand the womb of the earth here is also evident from the following

considerations:

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Meteorology (tr. Pierre Conway, O.P.

and F.R. Larcher, O.P. [1964]), Book II, lect. 1, n. 125:

…He says therefore first [122], that to some, the same things seem to be true of thegeneration of rivers as was said of the generation of winds. For they say that when water is

raised aloft through evaporation and then re-descends, it collects under the earth and thus

flows on to generate springs and rivers. It is as if they were understood to emerge from

some “great womb,” i.e., from some large depth where a great amount of water is

gathered. (emphasis added)

Clearly, the waters of which the Lord speaks are fountains originating from the earth: Cf.

Proverbs 8:22-31:

22 The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made any thing from the

beginning. 23 I was set up from eternity, and of old before the earth was made. 24 The

depths were not as yet, and I was already conceived, neither had the fountains of waters

as yet sprung out : 25 The mountains with their huge bulk had not as yet beenestablished: before the hills I was brought forth:

26 He had not yet made the earth, nor the rivers, nor the poles of the world. 27 When he

prepared the heavens, I was present: when with a certain law and compass he enclosed the

depths: 28 When he established the sky above, and poised the fountains of waters: 29 When

he compassed the sea with its bounds, and set a law to the waters that they should not pass

their limits: when be balanced the foundations of the earth; 30 I was with him forming all

things: and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times; 31 Playing in the world:

and my delights were to be with the children of men.

The same conclusion is suggested by considering “the fountains of the great deep” of

Genesis 7 and 8:

Cf. “Noah’s Flood – Where did the water come from?”36

The Fountains of the Great Deep

The “fountains of the great deep” are mentioned before the “windows of heaven,” indicating

either relative importance or the order of events.

What are the “fountains of the great deep?” This phrase is used only in Genesis 7:11.

“Fountains of the deep” is used in Genesis 8:2, where it clearly refers to the same thing, andProverbs 8:28, where the precise meaning is not clear. “The great deep” is used three other

times: Isaiah 51:10, where it clearly refers to the ocean; Amos 7:4, where God’s fire of judgment is said to dry up the great deep, probably the oceans; and Psalm 36:6 where it is

used metaphorically of the depth of God’s justice/judgment. “The deep” is used more often,and usually refers to the oceans (e.g., Genesis 1:2; Job 38:30, 41:32; Psalm 42:7, 104:6;

Isaiah 51:10, 63:13; Ezekiel 26:19; Jonah 2:3), but sometimes to subterranean sources of

water (Ezekiel 31:4, 15). The Hebrew word (mayan) translated “fountains” means “fountain,

spring, well.”[1]

36 (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html [11/30/09])

59



[1] Strong’s Concordance

Cf. Richard M. Davidson, “Biblical Evidence for the Universality of the Genesis Flood”:37

Seventh, Hasel devoted an entire scholarly article to the phrase “all the fountains

[ma⊂ yenoth] of the Great Deep [t ehôm rabbah]” (Genesis 7:11; 8:2), and showed how it is

linked with the universal “Deep” (t ehôm) or world-ocean in Genesis 1:2 (cf. Psalm

104:6: “Thou didst cover it [the earth] with [the] deep [ t ehôm] as with a garment; the

waters were standing above the mountains”). The “breaking up” and “bursting forth” (i.e.,geological faulting) of not just one subterranean water spring in Mesopotamia, but of all the

“fountains” of the Great Deep, coupled in the same verse with the opening of the windows of the heavens, far transcends a local scene. Hasel perceptively concludes that “the bursting

forth of the waters from the fountains of the ‘great deep’ refers to the splitting open of

springs of subterranean waters with such might and force that together with the

torrential downpouring of waters stored in the atmospheric heavens a worldwide flood

comes about” (Hasel 1974 [The fountains of the great deep. Origins 1:67-72], p 71).

Eighth, in another article, Hasel (1978) shows how the Hebrew Bible reserved a special

term mabbûl [= “flood” or “cataclysm”] which in its 13 occurrences refers exclusively to the

universal Genesis Flood (12 occurrences in Genesis, once in Psalm 29: 10). This word may

be derived from the Hebrew root ybl “to flow, to stream.” The term mabbûl , which in the

Flood narrative is usually associated with mayim “waters,” seems to have become “atechnical term for waters flowing or streaming forth and as such designates the flood

(deluge) being caused by waters. ... mabbûl is in the Old Testament a term consistently

employed for the flood (deluge) which was caused by torrential rains and the bursting

forth of subterranean waters” (Hasel 1978 [Some issues regarding the nature and universality

of the Genesis Flood narrative. Origins 5:83-98], p 92-93). This technical term clearly sets the

Genesis Deluge apart from all local floods, and is utilized in the Psalm 29:10 to illustrate

Yahweh’s universal sovereignty over the world at the time of the Noahic Flood: “The Lord

sat enthroned at the Flood, and the Lord sits as King forever.” (emphasis added)

We conclude, then, that by the sea which burst forth as from a womb the Lord means us to

understand the subterranean waters that afterward in Noah’s day He permitted to burst

forth in the Deluge; recognizing their source to be, not “divine providence” as such(although ultimately they derive therefrom), but rather “the earth which is the common

mother of everything”. The primeval state of things, then, is this: having brought into being

the waters of the deep, God restrained their chaotic force: by His rebuke causing them to

recede from the surface of the earth into their proper bounds where they will be held incheck until the time of the Flood.

§

(c) 2013 Bart A. Mazzetti. All rights reserved.

Documents

The Opening of Genesis Part VI. And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”