Thomas Aquinas

And God called the dry land, Earth: 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 is mentioned 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 may also be said with Rabbi Moses, that the expression, "He called," denotes throughout an 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 And here, again, it is said that "the dry land," that is, the part from which the waters had withdrawn, "He called, Earth," as distinct from the sea; although the name earth is equally applied to that which is covered with waters or not.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 corresponded to the name He gave.
The gathering together of the waters He called Seas: 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."

But concerning the production of plants, Augustine's opinion differs from that of others. For other commentators, in accordance with the surface meaning of the text, consider that the plants were produced in act in their various species on this third day; whereas Augustine (Gen. ad lit. v, 5; viii, 3) says that the earth is said to have then produced plants and trees in their causes, that is, it received then the power to produce them. He supports this view by the authority of Scripture, for it is said (Genesis 2:4-5): "These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that . . . God made the heaven and the earth, and every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew." Therefore, the production of plants in their causes, within the earth, took place before they sprang up from the earth's surface. And this is confirmed by reason, as follows. In these first days God created all things in their origin or causes, and from this work He subsequently rested. Yet afterwards, by governing His creatures, in the work of propagation, "He worketh until now."Now the production of plants from out the earth is a work of propagation, and therefore they were not produced in act on the third day, but in their causes only. However, in accordance with other writers, it may be said that the first constitution of species belongs to the work of the six days, but the reproduction among them of like from like, to the government of the universe. And Scripture indicates this in the words, "before it sprung up in the earth," and "before it grew," that is, before like was produced from like; just as now happens in the natural course by the production of seed. Wherefore Scripture says pointedly (Genesis 1:11): "Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed," as indicating the production of perfection of perfect species, from which the seed of others should arise. Nor does the question where the seminal power may reside, whether in root, stem, or fruit, affect the argument.

Let there be lights made in the firmament: Some might say that the lights should have been produced at the same time as the firmament, that is to say, on the second day. But Moses describes what is obvious to sense, out of condescension to popular ignorance, as we have already said (67, 4; 68, 3). For although to the senses there appears but one firmament; if we admit a higher and a lower firmament, the lower will be that which was made on the second day, and on the fourth the stars were fixed in the higher firmament.
According to Ptolemy the heavenly luminaries are not fixed in the spheres, but have their own movement distinct from the movement of the spheres. Wherefore Chrysostom says (Hom. vi in Gen.) that He is said to have set them in the firmament, not because He fixed them there immovably, but because He bade them to be there, even as He placed man in Paradise, to be there.
Lights: Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii), "Let no one esteem the heavens or the heavenly bodies to be living things, for they have neither life nor sense." On the other hand, the Platonists held that the heavenly bodies have life. Nor was there less diversity of opinion among the Doctors of the Church. It was the belief of Origen (Peri Archon i) and Jerome that these bodies were alive, and the latter seems to explain in that sense the words (Ecclesiastes 1:6), "The spirit goeth forward, surveying all places round about." But Basil (Hom. iii, vi in Hexaem.) and Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii) maintain that the heavenly bodies are inanimate. Augustine leaves the matter in doubt, without committing himself to either theory, though he goes so far as to say that if the heavenly bodies are really living beings, their souls must be akin to the angelic nature (Gen. ad lit. ii, 18; Enchiridion lviii).
and let them be for signs: as regards the convenience of business and work, in so far as the lights are set in the heavens to indicate fair or foul weather, as favorable to various occupations.
Let them be for seasons, and for days, and years: as regards the changes of the seasons, which prevent weariness, preserve health, and provide for the necessities of food; all of which things could not be secured if it were always summer or winter.

It was laid down by Avicenna that animals of all kinds can be generated by various minglings of the elements, and naturally, without any kind of seed. This, however, seems repugnant to the fact that nature produces its effects by determinate means, and consequently, those things that are naturally generated from seed cannot be generated naturally in any other way. It ought, then, rather to be said that in the natural generation of all animals that are generated from seed, the active principle lies in the formative power of the seed, but that in the case of animals generated from putrefaction, the formative power of is the influence of the heavenly bodies. The material principle, however, in the generation of either kind of animals, is either some element, or something compounded of the elements. But at the first beginning of the world the active principle was the Word of God, which produced animals from material elements, either in act, as some holy writers say, or virtually, as Augustine teaches. Not as though the power possessed by water or earth of producing all animals resides in the earth and the water themselves, as Avicenna held, but in the power originally given to the elements of producing them from elemental matter by the power of seed or the influence of the stars.
The creeping creature having life: Nature passes from one extreme to another through the medium; and therefore there are creatures of intermediate type between the animals of the air and those of the water, having something in common with both; and they are reckoned as belonging to that class to which they are most allied, through the characters possessed in common with that class, rather than with the other. But in order to include among fishes all such intermediate forms as have special characters like to theirs, the words, "Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life," are followed by these: "God created great whales," etc.
And the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven: But birds move in the lower part of the air, and so are said to fly "beneath the firmament," even if the firmament be taken to mean the region of clouds.

Let us make man to our image and likeness: Man is said to be after the image of God, not as regards his body, but as regards that whereby he excels other animals. Hence, when it is said, "Let us make man to our image and likeness", it is added, "And let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea" (Genesis 1:26). Now man excels all animals by his reason and intelligence; hence it is according to his intelligence and reason, which are incorporeal, that man is said to be according to the image of God.
But equality does not belong to the essence of an image; for as Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 74): "Where there is an image there is not necessarily equality," as we see in a person's image reflected in a glass. Yet this is of the essence of a perfect image; for in a perfect image nothing is wanting that is to be found in that of which it is a copy. Now it is manifest that in man there is some likeness to God, copied from God as from an exemplar; yet this likeness is not one of equality, for such an exemplar infinitely excels its copy. Therefore there is in man a likeness to God; not, indeed, a perfect likeness, but imperfect. And Scripture implies the same when it says that man was made "to" God's likeness; for the preposition "to" signifies a certain approach, as of something at a distance.
Let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the birds of the air, and the beasts of the earth: Now all animals are naturally subject to man. This can be proved in three ways.
First, from the order observed by nature; for just as in the generation of things we perceive a certain order of procession of the perfect from the imperfect (thus matter is for the sake of form; and the imperfect form, for the sake of the perfect), so also is there order in the use of natural things; thus the imperfect are for the use of the perfect; as the plants make use of the earth for their nourishment, and animals make use of plants, and man makes use of both plants and animals. Therefore it is in keeping with the order of nature, that man should be master over animals. Hence the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 5) that the hunting of wild animals is just and natural, because man thereby exercises a natural right. Secondly, this is proved by the order of Divine Providence which always governs inferior things by the superior. Wherefore, as man, being made to the image of God, is above other animals, these are rightly subject to his government. Thirdly, this is proved from a property of man and of other animals. For we see in the latter a certain participated prudence of natural instinct, in regard to certain particular acts; whereas man possesses a universal prudence as regards all practical matters. Now whatever is participated is subject to what is essential and universal. Therefore the subjection of other animals to man is proved to be natural.

Rest is taken in two senses, in one sense meaning a cessation from work, in the other, the satisfying of desire. Now, in either sense God is said to have rested on the seventh day.
First, because He ceased from creating new creatures on that day, for, as said above (1, ad 3), He made nothing afterwards that had not existed previously, in some degree, in the first works; secondly, because He Himself had no need of the things that He had made, but was happy in the fruition of Himself. Hence, when all things were made He is not said to have rested "in" His works, as though needing them for His own happiness, but to have rested "from" them, as in fact resting in Himself, as He suffices for Himself and fulfils His own desire. And even though from all eternity He rested in Himself, yet the rest in Himself, which He took after He had finished His works, is that rest which belongs to the seventh day. And this, says Augustine, is the meaning of God's resting from His works on that day (Gen. ad lit. iv).
God ended: So that, according to our version of the Scripture, the completion of the works is attributed to the seventh day, though according to another (Septuagint) it is assigned to the sixth. Either version, however, may stand, since the completion of the universe as to the completeness of its parts belongs to the sixth day, but its completion as regards their operation, to the seventh.
It would seem that God did not rest on the seventh day from all His work. For it is said (John 5:17), "My Father worketh until now, and I work." God indeed "worketh until now" by preserving and providing for the creatures He has made, but not by the making of new ones.

When "the earth brought forth the green herb." But concerning the production of plants, Augustine's opinion differs from that of others. For other commentators, in accordance with the surface meaning of the text, consider that the plants were produced in act in their various species on this third day; whereas Augustine (Gen. ad lit. v, 5; viii, 3) says that the earth is said to have then produced plants and trees in their causes, that is, it received then the power to produce them. He supports this view by the authority of Scripture, for it is said (Genesis 2:4-5): "These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that . . . God made the heaven and the earth, and every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew." Therefore, the production of plants in their causes, within the earth, took place before they sprang up from the earth's surface. And this is confirmed by reason, as follows. In these first days God created all things in their origin or causes, and from this work He subsequently rested. Yet afterwards, by governing His creatures, in the work of propagation, "He worketh until now."Now the production of plants from out the earth is a work of propagation, and therefore they were not produced in act on the third day, but in their causes only. However, in accordance with other writers, it may be said that the first constitution of species belongs to the work of the six days, but the reproduction among them of like from like, to the government of the universe. And Scripture indicates this in the words, "before it sprung up in the earth," and "before it grew," that is, before like was produced from like; just as now happens in the natural course by the production of seed. Wherefore Scripture says pointedly (Genesis 1:11): "Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed," as indicating the production of perfection of perfect species, from which the seed of others should arise. Nor does the question where the seminal power may reside, whether in root, stem, or fruit, affect the argument.

6. - He wrote this epistle against the errors of those converts from Judaism who wanted to preserve the legal observances along with the Gospel, as though Christ’s grace were not sufficient for salvation. Hence it is divided into two parts: in the first he extols Christ’s grandeur to show the superiority of the New Testament over the Old; secondly, he discusses what unites the members to the head, namely, faith (chap. 11). But he intends to show the New Testament’s superiority over the Old by proving Christ’s preeminence over the personnel of the Old Testament, namely, the angels, by whom the Law was handed down: ‘The law was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator’ (Gal. 3:19); and Moses, by whom or through whom it was given: ‘The law was given by Moses’ (Jn. 1:17); ‘There arose no more a prophet in Israel like unto Moses, to whom the Lord spoke face to face’ (Dt. 3:10), and the priesthood by which it was administered: ‘Into the first tabernacle the priests indeed entered, accomplishing the offices of sacrifices’ (Heb. 9:6). First, therefore, he favors Christ over the angels; secondly, over Moses (chap. 3); thirdly, over the priesthood of the Old Testament (chap. 5). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that the angles lack this greatness; secondly, since this is true of Christ, he shows that the angels lack this greatness (chap. 2).

7. - In regard to the first he indicates Christ’s excellence in four matters: first, as to His unique origin, by calling Him the true natural Son of God; secondly, as to the extent of His rule (v. 2c); thirdly, as to the power of His activity (v. 2d); fourthly, as to the sublimity of His glory (v. 2e). But because he intends to extol Christ so that it redounds to the glory of the New Testament, this favors the New over the Old,

8. - About which he mentions five things: first, how it was promulgated; secondly, the time (v. 1b); thirdly, the author or giver (v. 1c); fourthly, to whom it was given (v. 1d); fifthly, by which ministers (v. 13).

9. - He says, therefore, In many ways, referring first of all to various persons, because God spoke not to one person but to many, namely, Abraham, Noah and others; secondly, to the various times and always with the same certitude: ‘He went out early in the morning,…And about the third hour…And again about the sixth hour…’ (Mt. 20:1 ff.). Many also in regard to the matters treated, namely, divine things: ‘I am who am’ (Ex. 3:14); and future events: ‘She knows signs and wonders before they be done’ (Wis. 8:8); and promises of future benefits, at least in figure: ‘Many things are show to you above the understanding of men’ (Sir. 3:25). Many also in the variety of figures; because at one time he uses the figure of a lion, at another the figure of a stone: ‘A stone was cut out of a mountain without hands’ (Dan. 2:34); ‘That he might show you that his law is manifold’ (Jb. 11:6). And in various ways. This refers to the three kinds of vision: first, ocular vision: ‘In the same hour there appeared fingers, as it were the hand of a man writing over against the candlestick upon the surface of the wall’ (Dan. 5:5); secondly, imaginary vision: ‘I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and elevated’ (Is. 6:1); thirdly, intellectual vision, as to David: ‘I have had understanding above the ancients’ (Ps. 119:100). Hence, Hosea (12:10) includes all of these: ‘I have multiplied visions.’ It refers also to the various ways He spoke, because sometimes He spoke plainly and sometimes obscurely. In fact, there is not manner of speaking that has not been employed in the writings of the Old Testament: ‘Behold, I have described it to you three manner of ways, in thoughts and knowledge’ (Pr. 22:20). Thirdly, because He spoke by rebuking the wicked, by enticing the just, and by instructing the ignorant: ‘All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice’ (2 Tim. 3:16).

10. - Then he touches upon the time, when this teaching was delivered, i.e., the past, because he spoke of old, i.e., not suddenly, because the things that were spoken about Christ were so great as to be incredible, unless they had been taught bit by bit as time went on. Hence St. Gregory says: ‘As time went on, the knowledge of divine things grew.’ ‘The former things of old I have declared, and they went forth out of my mouth, and I have made them to be heard’ (Is. 48:3).

11. - Thus, he mentions the author, namely, God, Who speaks: ‘I will hear what the Lord God will speak in me’ (Ps. 84:9) For He does not lie: ‘God is not a man that he should lie’ (Num. 23:19). These, then, are the first three things which commend the Old Testament: authorship, because it is from God; secondly, subtlety and sublimity, because in so many and various ways; thirdly, duration, because of old.

12. - Fourthly, he shows to whom it is delivered, namely, to our fathers. This is why it is familiar and known to us: ‘We declare unto you the promise which was made to our fathers’ (Ac. 13:32); ‘As he spoke to our fathers’ (Lk. 1:55).

13. - Fifthly, he indicates the ministers, because it was delivered not by jesters but by prophets: ‘Which he had promised before by his prophets’ (Rom. 1:2); ‘To whom all the prophets give testimony’ (Ac. 10:43).

14. - Then (v. 2) he describes the doctrine of the New Testament and mentions five properties. Four of these are differences from those of the Old, and one is the same. For when he had said, in many and various ways, he was indicating that every ordered multitude should be referred to one thing. Therefore, although the manner is manifold, all is ordained to the last thing: ‘Be in the fear of the Lord all the day long’ (Pr. 23:17); ‘The consumption abridged shall overflow with justice. For the Lord God of hosts shall make a consumption and an abridgement in the midst of all the land’ (Is. 10:22). Likewise, of old referred to the time of waiting and of darkness, but in these last days refers to our days, i.e., to the time of grace: ‘The night is passed and the day is at hand’ (Rom. 13:12).

15. - It should be noted that in regard to the Old Testament he says, ‘speaking’, but here he says, has spoken, in order to designate that the speech of the New Testament is more perfect than that of the Old. To understand this it should be noted that three things are required for our speech: first, the conception of a thought whereby we preconceive in our mind that which is to be spoken by the mouth; secondly, the expression of the conceived thought to enable us to indicate what has been conceived; thirdly, the manifestation of the thing expressed, so that it becomes evident. God, therefore, when speaking, first conceived, so that there was but one conception and that from all eternity: ‘God speaks once’ (Jb. 33:14). This eternal conception is the engendering of the Son of God, concerning Whom it says in Ps. 2 (v. 7): ‘The Lord said to me: you are my Son, this day have I begotten you.’ Secondly, he expressed his concept in three ways: first, in the production of creatures, namely, when the conceived Word, existing as the likeness of the Father, is also the likeness according to which all creatures were made: ‘God said: Be light made. And light was made’ (Gen. 1:3). Secondly, through certain notions; for example, in the minds of the angels, in whom the forms of all things, which were concealed in the Word, were infused, and in the minds of holy men: and this by sensible or intellectual or imaginary revelations. Hence, every such manifestation proceeding from the eternal Word is called a speaking: ‘The word of the Lord which came to him’ (Jer. 1:2). Thirdly, by assuming flesh, concerning which it says in John (1:14): ‘And the Word was made flesh.’ Hence, Augustine says that the Incarnate Word is related to the uncreated Word as the voice’s work is related to the heart’s word. But the first expression, namely, in creation, is not for the purpose of manifesting. For it is clear that that expression cannot be called a speaking; hence, it is never said that God speaks when making creatures, but that He is known: ‘The invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made’ (Rom. 1:20). But the second expression, which is the infusion of forms in the minds of angels or of men, is directed only to the knowledge of divine wisdom; hence, it can be called a speaking. The third expression, namely, the assuming of flesh, took place of the purpose of existing and of knowing, and for expressly manifesting, because by assuming flesh the Word was made man and brought us to a complete knowledge of God: ‘For this was I born, that I should give testimony of the truth’ (Jn. 18:37). And he clearly manifests Himself to us: ‘Afterwards he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men’ (Bar. 3:38). Thus, therefore, although God speaks in the New and the Old Testaments, He speaks more perfectly in the New, because in the Old he speaks in the minds of men, but in the New through the Son’s Incarnation. Furthermore, the Old Testament was handed down to the Fathers looking on from afar and seeing God from a distance; the New has been handed down to us, namely, to the apostles, who have seen Him in His very person: ‘That which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, and our hands have handled the Word of life, we declare unto you’ (1 Jn. 1:1); ‘He made not the covenant with our fathers but with us who are present and living. He spoke to us face to face’ (Dt. 5:3). Hence, it is clear that that speaking was a promise: ‘To Abraham were the promises made’ (Gal. 3:16); but the New was a manifestation: ‘Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ’ (Jn. 1:17). Also, in the Old He spoke in the prophets; in the New in His Son, Who is the Lord of the prophets: ‘The only begotten, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him’ (Jn. 1:18).

16. - Does this mean that all the ones through whom God spoke were prophets? I answer that five things are required of a true prophet: first, the revealing of things which transcend human knowledge; otherwise, he would not be called a prophet but a sage, as Solomon, whose mind was enlightened in regard to things within the ken of human reason. Hence, not even the Jew called him a prophet but a sage. Secondly, the understanding of the things revealed; otherwise, he would not be a prophet: ‘There is need of understanding in a vision’ (Dan. 10:1). That is why Nebuchadnezzar, not understanding the revelation made to him, is not called a prophet, but Daniel, who did understand it, was called a prophet. Thirdly, it is required that in the things he sees and by which he is alienated not be held as though by things themselves, but as in figures; otherwise, he would not by a prophet by a lunatic, who apprehends imaginary things as though they were real: ‘The prophet that has a dream, let him tell a dream: and he that has my word, let him speak my word with truth’ (Jer. 23:28). Fourthly, that he perceive the things revealed, with certitude, as though known through demonstration; otherwise, it would be a dream and not a prophecy: ‘The Lord God has opened my ear and I do not resist: I have not gone back’ (Is. 50:5). The fifth requirement is that he has the will to announce the thing revealed; accordingly, some claim that Daniel is not a prophet, because he does not receive the thing revealed in an expressible way. Hence, it is not said that the word of the Lord was made to Daniel, as it said of the other prophets: ‘The word of the Lord is made a reproach to me, and a derision all the day. Then I said: I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name; and there came in my heart as a burning fire’ (Jer. 20:8).

17. - But another question arises: Why does he say, in the prophets, when he might better have said: ‘by the prophets?’ The answer is that he did this because he wished to exclude certain errors: first, the error of Porphyry, who claimed that prophets invented their statements and were not inspired by the Holy Spirit. To counter this the Apostle says, he spoke in the prophets. As if to say: They were not speaking of themselves, but God was speaking in them: ‘For prophecy came not by the will of men at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit’ (2 Pt. 1:21). Secondly, to exclude the error of those who maintained that prophecy is something natural and can be possessed by one’s natural disposition, as a melancholy person might have a very strong imagination; so strong, indeed, that he considers the things he imagines to be real. Hence, it says, he spoke in the prophets. As if to say: Prophecy does not come about through a natural disposition but by an inward utterance of God: ‘The Spirit breathes where he will’ (Jn. 3:8). Thirdly, against the error of those who claim that prophecy can be possessed like a habit, as science is possessed, so that whenever a person decides to do so, he can prophesy. But this is not true, because the spirits of prophecy are not always present in the prophet, but only when their minds are enlightened by God; hence, in 2 Kg. (4:27), Elisha says: ‘Her soul is in anguish, and the Lord has hid it from me.’ Therefore, the Apostle says, in the prophets. As if to say: Not that prophecy is possessed by all or always, as habits are, but only in those in whom it pleases God to speak. Fourthly, to exclude the error of Priscilla and Montanus, who maintained that prophets do not understand their utterances. But this is not true; hence, it is stated in Hag (1:3): ‘The word of the Lord came by the hand of Haggai, the prophet’; and in 1 Cor. (14:32): ‘The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.’ That which he says, in the prophets, i.e., in the understanding and power of the prophets. Thus, therefore, is clear Christ’s unique property, namely, that He is the natural Son: ‘The Father is in me and I in the Father (Jn. 14:10).

18. - But is He one of those sons of whom it is said: ‘I have said: you are gods, and all of you the sons of the Most High’ (Ps. 81:6). No; because these are called sons in a general sense, but He is the Son Who was appointed heir and lord of all things. Is He one of those sons of whom it is said (Jn. 1:12): ‘He gave them the power to become the sons of God, i.e., who believe in his name?’ No; those are said to become the sons; but Christ is the Son through whom he made the world. Is he one of those sons who glory ‘in the hope of the glory of the sons of God’ (Rom. 5:2)? No, because they are sons through the hope they have of God’s glory, but He is the splendor of that glory. Others are called sons, because they were made to the image of this Son: ‘Whom he foreknew to be made conformable to the image of his Son’ (Rom. 8:29), but He is the image itself and the figure of His substance. Others are called sons inasmuch as they contain within themselves the Word of God: ‘That you may be blameless and sincere children without reproof in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation: among whom you shine as lights in the world. Holding for the word of life’ (Phil. 2:15). But He is the true Son Who carries all things by the word of His power. Therefore, Christ’s supereminence is clear from His unique origin and from His relationship to other sons of God. It is these things which make the New Testament greater than the Old.

19. - Yet in regard to both testaments he says, ‘speaking’, or ‘has spoken’, in order to indicate that both have the same author. This is against the Manicheans: ‘By him we have access both in the same Spirit to the Father’ (Eph. 2:18); ‘Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles?’ (Rom. 3:29). Again, the Old was given to our fathers, but the New to us, i.e., through his Son, Who is the Lord of the prophets: ‘The only begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him’ (Jn. 1:18).

20. - Then he shows the greatness of Christ’s power when he says, whom he appointed the heir of all things; for as it says in Gal. (4:7): ‘And if a son, an heir also through God.’ But in Christ are two natures, namely, the divine and the human: insofar as He is the natural son, He is not appointed heir, (He is so naturally;) but inasmuch as He is man and has become a son of God: ‘Concerning his Son who was made to him of the seed of David’ (Rom. 1:3). Indeed, as a man, He has been appointed heir of all things, just as He has become a son of God: ‘All power is given to me in heaven and in earth’ (Mt. 28:18) and it extends to every creature that He has taken under His rule. It extends, therefore, not only to one type of man, but to all, i.e., both Jews and Gentiles: ‘Ask of me and I will give you the Gentiles for your inheritance.’ (Ps. 2:8).

21. - Having shown Christ’s excellence as to His unique origin, he now shows His excellence as to the majesty of His dominion. It is suitable that these two be joined: He has spoken to us through his Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things: ‘If a son, then an heir’ (Rom. 8:17). But it should be noted that in Christ are two natures, namely, the divine and the human. But according to the divine nature, since He was not appointed Son, since He is the natural Son from all eternity, so neither was He appointed heir, since He is the natural heir from all eternity. But according to His human nature, just as He was made Son of God: ‘He was descended from David according to the flesh’ (Rom. 1:3), so He was made heir to all things: Whom he appointed the heir of all things: ‘This is the heir, come, let us kill him’ (Mt. 21:38). ‘I will again bring an heir to you, inhabitants of Mareshah; the glory of Israel shall come to Adullam’ (Mic. 1:15). Indeed, according to His divine nature it belongs to Christ to be the begotten heir of the Lord. First, because He is the power and wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:18) through Whom the Father makes all things. Therefore, if the Father is called the God of all by reason of creation, the Son also, through Whom all things were brought into existence, is called Lord. ‘I was with him forming all things’ (Pr. 8:30). Secondly, because the Son is the Father’s wisdom, by which He governs all things. In Wis. (8:1) it says of wisdom: ‘She reaches mightily from one end of the earth to the other and she orders all things well.’ Therefore, if the Father is called Lord by reason of governing: ‘You, the Father, govern all things’ (Wis. 13:3), the Son, too, has dominion. Furthermore, the Father is Lord inasmuch as all things are ordained to Him as to first principle and end of all things. So, too, the Son, Who is the wisdom of God preceding all things, is Lord: ‘Wisdom was created before all things. Who can search it out?’ (Sir. 1:3). But according to His human nature it also belongs to Christ to be heir and Lord of all things. First, by reason of the union, i.e., from the fact that that man was assumed in the person of the Son of God: ‘The Lord God exalted him as Savior’ (Ac. 5:31).; ‘He set him over every principality and power and dominion’ (Eph. 1:19). Secondly, by reason of power, because all things obey and serve him: ‘All power has been given to me in heaven and in earth’ (Mt. 28:18). Thirdly, by reason of subjection: ‘At the name of Jesus every knee should bow of those in heaven, on earth and, below the earth’ (Phil. 2:10). But he says, of all things, which refers to the totality of all nature, in which he obtains dominion, as it says in Ps. 8 (v. 8): ‘You have subjected all things under his feet.’ It also refers to the whole human race, so that the sense would be: of all things, i.e., not only the Jews but also other men, as it says in Ps. 2 (v. 8): ‘Ask of me and I will give you the Gentiles as your inheritance and the ends of the earth as your possession.’ And of this it is said (Est. 13:11, Vulgate): ‘You are Lord of all.’

22. - Then (v. 2) when he says, by whom also he made the world, he shows the power of Christ’s activity, i.e., why He has been appointed heir of all things. It was not because He was born at a certain moment of time and merited this by leading a good life, as Photinus says, but because all things were originally made by Him, as they were made by the Father. For it was through Him that the Father made all things. For through Him the Father made the world. But it should be noted that the grammatical object of the preposition ‘by’ or ‘through’ designates the cause of an act: in one way, because it causes a making on the part of the maker. For the making is midway between the maker and the thing made. In this usage the object of ‘by’ can designate the final cause motivating the maker, as an artisan works by gain; or the formal cause, as fire warms by heat; or even the efficient cause, as a bailiff acts through the king. But the Son is not the cause making the Father act through Him in any of these ways any more than He is the cause of His proceeding from the Father. But sometimes the object of ‘by’ designates the cause of the action, taken from the viewpoint of the thing made, as an artisan acts through a hammer; for the hammer is not the cause of the artisan’s action, but it is the cause why an artifact made of iron should proceed from the artisan, i.e., why iron [which the hammer strikes] be worked on by the artisan. This is the way the Son is the cause of things made and the way the Father works through the Son.

23. - But is the Son inferior to the Father? It seems so, because that which is the cause of a thing’s being made seems to be an instrument. The answer is that if the power in the Father and in the Son were not the same numerically, and the activity not the same numerical activity, the objection would hold. But the fact is that the power and activity, as well as the nature and the esse of the Father and of the Son are the same. Therefore, the Father is said to make the world through Him, because He begot Him forming the world: ‘Whatever the Father does, the Son also does’ (Jn. 5:19). ‘World’ (saeculum) here means the temporal span of a created thing. Worlds, i.e., saecula, therefore, are successions of times. Therefore, he made not only sempiternal times (in the sense in which philosophers say that God alone made eternal things, and angels created temporal things), but also temporal things, which the Apostle calls worlds (saecula): ‘By faith we understand that the world was framed by the Word of God’ (Heb. 11:3); ‘All things were made by him’ (Jn. 1:3). Thus he removes the Manichean error in two ways: first, in calling God the author of the Old Testament; secondly, in saying that He made temporal things.