Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that this work is not fittingly described. For as birds and fishes have a living soul, so also have land animals. But these animals are not themselves living souls. Therefore the words, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature," should rather have been, "Let the earth bring forth the living four-footed creatures."

Objection 2: Further, a genus ought not to be opposed to its species. But beasts and cattle are quadrupeds. Therefore quadrupeds ought not to be enumerated as a class with beasts and cattle.

Objection 3: Further, as animals belong to a determinate genus and species, so also does man. But in the making of man nothing is said of his genus and species, and therefore nothing ought to have been said about them in the production of other animals, whereas it is said "according to its genus" and "in its species."

Objection 4: Further, land animals are more like man, whom God is recorded to have blessed, than are birds and fishes. But as birds and fishes are said to be blessed, this should have been said, with much more reason, of the other animals as well.

Objection 5: Further, certain animals are generated from putrefaction, which is a kind of corruption. But corruption is repugnant to the first founding of the world. Therefore such animals should not have been produced at that time.

Objection 6: Further, certain animals are poisonous, and injurious to man. But there ought to have been nothing injurious to man before man sinned. Therefore such animals ought not to have been made by God at all, since He is the Author of good; or at least not until man had sinned.

On the contrary, Suffices the authority of Scripture.

I answer that, As on the fifth day the intermediate body, namely, the water, is adorned, and thus that day corresponds to the second day; so the sixth day, on which the lowest body, or the earth, is adorned by the production of land animals, corresponds to the third day. Hence the earth is mentioned in both places. And here again Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. v) that the production was potential, and other holy writers that it was actual.

Reply to Objection 1: The different grades of life which are found in different living creatures can be discovered from the various ways in which Scripture speaks of them, as Basil says (Hom. viii in Hexaem.). The life of plants, for instance, is very imperfect and difficult to discern, and hence, in speaking of their production, nothing is said of their life, but only their generation is mentioned, since only in generation is a vital act observed in them. For the powers of nutrition and growth are subordinate to the generative life, as will be shown later on (Question 78, Article 2). But amongst animals, those that live on land are, generally speaking, more perfect than birds and fishes, not because the fish is devoid of memory, as Basil upholds (Hom. viii in Hexaem.) and Augustine rejects (Gen. ad lit. iii), but because their limbs are more distinct and their generation of a higher order, (yet some imperfect animals, such as bees and ants, are more intelligent in certain ways). Scripture, therefore, does not call fishes "living creatures," but "creeping creatures having life"; whereas it does call land animals "living creatures" on account of their more perfect life, and seems to imply that fishes are merely bodies having in them something of a soul, whilst land animals, from the higher perfection of their life, are, as it were, living souls with bodies subject to them. But the life of man, as being the most perfect grade, is not said to be produced, like the life of other animals, by earth or water, but immediately by God.

Reply to Objection 2: By "cattle," domestic animals are signified, which in any way are of service to man: but by "beasts," wild animals such as bears and lions are designated. By "creeping things" those animals are meant which either have no feet and cannot rise from the earth, as serpents, or those whose feet are too short to life them far from the ground, as the lizard and tortoise. But since certain animals, as deer and goats, seem to fall under none of these classes, the word "quadrupeds" is added. Or perhaps the word "quadruped" is used first as being the genus, to which the others are added as species, for even some reptiles, such as lizards and tortoises, are four-footed.

Reply to Objection 3: In other animals, and in plants, mention is made of genus and species, to denote the generation of like from like. But it was unnecessary to do so in the case of man, as what had already been said of other creatures might be understood of him. Again, animals and plants may be said to be produced according to their kinds, to signify their remoteness from the Divine image and likeness, whereas man is said to be made "to the image and likeness of God."

Reply to Objection 4: The blessing of God gives power to multiply by generation, and, having been mentioned in the preceding account of the making of birds and fishes, could be understood of the beasts of the earth, without requiring to be repeated. The blessing, however, is repeated in the case of man, since in him generation of children has a special relation to the number of the elect , and to prevent anyone from saying that there was any sin whatever in the act of begetting children. As to plants, since they experience neither desire of propagation, nor sensation in generating, they are deemed unworthy of a formal blessing.

Reply to Objection 5: Since the generation of one thing is the corruption of another, it was not incompatible with the first formation of things, that from the corruption of the less perfect the more perfect should be generated. Hence animals generated from the corruption of inanimate things, or of plants, may have been generated then. But those generated from corruption of animals could not have been produced then otherwise than potentially.

Reply to Objection 6: In the words of Augustine (Super. Gen. contr. Manich. i): "If an unskilled person enters the workshop of an artificer he sees in it many appliances of which he does not understand the use, and which, if he is a foolish fellow, he considers unnecessary. Moreover, should he carelessly fall into the fire, or wound himself with a sharp-edged tool, he is under the impression that many of the things there are hurtful; whereas the craftsman, knowing their use, laughs at his folly. And thus some people presume to find fault with many things in this world, through not seeing the reasons for their existence. For though not required for the furnishing of our house, these things are necessary for the perfection of the universe." And, since man before he sinned would have used the things of this world conformably to the order designed, poisonous animals would not have injured him.

Quaestio 72 de opere sextae diei

Argumentum 1

Deinde quaeritur de opere sextae diei. Et videtur quod inconvenienter describatur. Sicut enim aves et pisces habent viventem animam, ita etiam et animalia terrestria; non autem terrestria animalia sunt ipsa anima vivens.

Ergo inconvenienter dicitur, producat terra animam viventem; sed debuit dici, producat terra quadrupedia animae viventis.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, genus non debet dividi contra speciem. Sed iumenta et bestiae sub quadrupedibus computantur. Inconvenienter ergo quadrupedia connumerantur iumentis et bestiis.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, sicut alia animalia sunt in determinato genere et specie, ita et homo. Sed in factione hominis non fit mentio de suo genere vel specie. Ergo nec in productione aliorum animalium debuit fieri mentio de genere vel specie, cum dicitur, in genere suo, vel specie sua.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, animalia terrestria magis sunt similia homini, qui a deo dicitur benedici, quam aves et pisces. Cum igitur aves et pisces dicantur benedici, multo fortius hoc dici debuit de aliis animalibus.

Argumentum 5

Praeterea, quaedam animalia generantur ex putrefactione, quae est corruptio quaedam. Corruptio autem non convenit primae institutioni rerum. Non ergo animalia debuerunt in prima rerum institutione produci.

Argumentum 6

Praeterea, quaedam animalia sunt venenosa et homini noxia.

Nihil autem debuit esse homini nocivum ante peccatum. Ergo huiusmodi animalia vel omnino fieri a deo non debuerunt, qui est bonorum auctor, vel non debuerunt fieri ante peccatum.

Sed Contra

In contrarium sufficit auctoritas Scripturae.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in die quinto ornatur medium corpus, et respondet secundae diei ita in sexto die ornatur ultimum corpus, scilicet terra, per productionem animalium terrestrium, et respondet tertiae diei. Unde utrobique fit mentio de terra. Et hic etiam, secundum Augustinum animalia terrestria producuntur potentialiter, secundum vero alios sanctos, in actu.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut basilius dicit, diversus gradus vitae qui in diversis viventibus invenitur, ex modo loquendi Scripturae colligi potest. Plantae enim habent imperfectissimam vitam et occultam. Unde in earum productione nulla mentio fit de vita, sed solum de generatione, quia secundum hanc solum invenitur actus vitae in eis; nutritiva enim et augmentativa generativae deserviunt, ut infra dicetur.

Inter animalia vero, perfectiora sunt, communiter loquendo, terrestria avibus et piscibus, non quod pisces memoria careant, ut basilius dicit, et Augustinus improbat; sed propter distinctionem membrorum, et perfectionem generationis (quantum autem ad aliquas sagacitates, etiam aliqua animalia imperfecta magis vigent, ut apes et formicae)p et ideo pisces vocat, non animam viventem, sed reptile animae viventis, sed terrena animalia vocat animam viventem, propter perfectionem vitae in eis, ac si pisces sint corpora habentia aliquid animae, terrestria vero animalia, propter perfectionem vitae, sint quasi animae dominantes corporibus.

Perfectissimus autem gradus vitae est in homine. Et ideo vitam hominis non dicit produci a terra vel aqua, sicut ceterorum animalium, sed a deo.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod per iumenta, vel pecora, intelliguntur animalia domestica, quae homini serviunt qualitercumque.

Per bestias autem intelliguntur animalia saeva, ut ursi et leones. Per reptilia vero, animalia quae vel non habent pedes quibus eleventur a terra, ut serpentes; vel habent breves, quibus parum elevantur, ut lacertae et tortucae et huiusmodi. Sed quia sunt quaedam animalia quae sub nullo horum comprehenduntur, ut cervi et capreae, ut etiam ista comprehenderentur, addidit quadrupedia. Vel quadrupedia praemisit quasi genus, et alia subiunxit quasi species, sunt enim etiam quaedam reptilia quadrupedia, ut lacertae et tortucae.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod in aliis animalibus et plantis mentionem fecit de genere et specie, ut designaret generationes similium ex similibus. In homine autem non fuit necessarium ut hoc diceretur, quia quod praemissum fuit de aliis, etiam de homine intelligi potest. Vel quia animalia et plantae producuntur secundum genus et speciem suam, quasi longe a similitudine divina remota, homo autem dicitur formatus ad imaginem et similitudinem dei.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod benedictio dei dat virtutem multiplicandi per generationem. Et ideo quod positum est in avibus et piscibus, quae primo occurrunt, non fuit necessarium repeti in terrenis animalibus, sed intelligitur. In hominibus autem iteratur benedictio, quia in eis est quaedam specialis multiplicationis ratio, propter complendum numerum electorum, et ne quisquam diceret in officio gignendi filios ullum esse peccatum.

Plantae vero nullum habent propagandae prolis affectum, ac sine ullo sensu generant, unde indignae iudicatae sunt benedictionis verbis.

Ad 5

Ad quintum dicendum quod, cum generatio unius sit corruptio alterius, quod ex corruptione ignobiliorum generentur nobiliora, non repugnat primae rerum institutioni. Unde animalia quae generantur ex corruptione rerum inanimatarum vel plantarum, potuerunt tunc generari. Non autem quae generantur ex corruptione animalium, tunc potuerunt produci, nisi potentialiter tantum.

Ad 6

Ad sextum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit in I super Gen. Contra Manichaeos, si in alicuius opificis officinam imperitus intraverit, videt ibi multa instrumenta quorum causas ignorat, et si multum est insipiens, superflua putat. Iam vero si in fornacem incautus ceciderit, aut ferramento aliquo acuto se vulneraverit, noxia existimat ibi esse multa, quorum usum quia novit artifex, insipientiam eius irridet. Sic in hoc mundo quidam audent multa reprehendere, quorum causas non vident, multa enim, etsi domui nostrae non sunt necessaria, eis tamen completur universitatis integritas.

Homo autem ante peccatum ordinate fuisset usus rebus mundi.

Unde animalia venenosa ei noxia non fuissent.