← Back to Distinction 14

Dist. 14, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 1

Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 14

Textus Latinus
p. 335

ARTICULUS I.

De natura caelorum.

QUAESTIO I.

Utrum caelum crystallinum sit de natura aquae.

Circa primum quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur de natura caeli crystallini. Secundo de natura caeli firmamenti.

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum caelum crystallinum sit de natura aquae. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Per auctoritatem Scripturae. Genesis primo1: Fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum, et dividat aquas ab aquis; quae autem sola divisione

p. 336

distinguuntur sunt eiusdem naturae: ergo aquae, quae sunt super firmamentum et quae sub firmamento, sunt eiusdem naturae. Si tu dicas, quod firmamentum ibi vocatur non caelum sidereum, sed aër; obviat textus sequens2, ubi dicitur, quod stellae positae sunt in firmamento. Obviat etiam illud quod scribitur Danielis tertio: Benedicite aquae, quae super caelos sunt, Domino, et postea subditur: Benedicite sol et luna Domino: ergo aquae illae sunt super solem. Si tu dicas, aquas illas esse spirituales; obviat illud quod dicitur in Psalmo3: Extendens caelum sicut pellem, qui tegis aquis superiora eius; sed caelum extensum est corporale: ergo aquae, quae tegunt, sunt corporales.

2. Item, hoc videtur auctoritate Doctorum. Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram4, loquens de aquis: « Qualitercumque sint, ibi eas esse non dubitamus; maior est enim huius Scripturae auctoritas quam omnis humani ingenii perspicacitas ». Si tu dicas, quod sunt ibi aquae, sed tamen non materiales, sed spirituales; contra hoc dicit Basilius5: « Aquam illam intelligimus aquam esse veram »: ergo videtur, quod vere aquae illae habent speciem et naturam aquae. Quodsi tu dicas, quod formam habent aquae, sed tamen non proprietates; contra hoc est verbum Bedae, quod adducit Magister in littera6: « Qui infra caelum ligat aquas ad tempus vaporibus nubium retentas, potest etiam supra caeli sphaeram non vaporali tenuitate, sed glaciali soliditate aquas suspendere, ne labantur ».

3. Item, ratione videtur. Ordo partium in microcosmo sive in minori mundo respondet ordini partium in maiori mundo7; sed sic videmus in natura corporis humani, quod supra cor, quod est calidum et naturae igneae, ponitur cerebrum, quod est frigidum et naturae aqueae: ergo et in maiori mundo supra solem et alia corpora calefacentia erit ponere naturam aqueam.

4. Item, aqua de sui natura est perspicua et per hoc apta ad susceptionem luminis: ergo conformis est naturae caelesti8, ergo apta est, ut de ea possit aliquod caelum fieri: ergo si aliquod caelum habet fieri ex aqua, cum nullum sit infra firmamentum caelum aqueum, videtur, quod sit supra firmamentum.

5. Item, quod illud sit possibile, videtur per rationem, quam facit Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram9: Aqua per sui subtiliationem potest elevari, ut sit supra aërem: ergo maiori subtiliatione poterit amplius elevari: ergo si omne corpus divisibile est in infinitum, si adsit potentia dividentis, poterit aqua tantum dividi et subtiliari, quod supra firmamentum naturaliter poterit consistere; et si hoc, ergo aliquod caelum aqueum esse.

6. Item, illud est unicuique naturale, quod Creator ei indidit a prima constitutione10: ergo si in prima divisione aquarum quaedam positae sunt supra firmamentum, quaedam sub firmamento, ita naturale est illis esse supra firmamentum, sicut istis esse infra firmamentum: ergo sicut nobis entibus supra firmamentum stultum esset dubitare, utrum aquae possent esse infra firmamentum, sic nobis entibus infra firmamentum stultum est credere, esse inconveniens, supra firmamentum esse caelum aqueum.

Ad oppositum arguitur sic.

1. Primo auctoritate Augustini decimo tertio Confessionum11: Pro parte negativa. « Sunt aliae aquae, quae supra firmamentum sunt, immortales et ab omni corruptione secretae »: ergo videtur, quod caelum aqueum non sit de natura istius aquae.

2. Item, corpus, habens speciem aquae, per naturam est ponderosum12: ergo si aliquod caelum est aqueae naturae, illud est ponderosum; sed ponderosum non debet collocari nisi deorsum per naturam: ergo videtur, quod inordinatum sit ponere, quod aliquod sit caelum aqueum, quod sit sursum.

3. Item, corpora mundi ordinantur secundum maiorem nobilitatem et minorem; et corpus, quod nobilius est, superius locatur13: ergo si aqua minus nobilis est quam firmamentum, ergo nunquam locanda est supra firmamentum.

4. Item, corpora mundi ordinantur sub et supra secundum maiorem subtilitatem et minorem, et secundum maiorem raritatem et minorem14; sed aër universaliter subtilior est quam aqua et rarior,

p. 337

et similiter ignis: ergo nunquam aqua adeo poterit rarefieri, ut sit subtilior aëre et igne: ergo nunquam videtur, quod possit convenienter supra ignem et aërem collocari.

5. Item, habentium eandem naturam idem est locus; quia enim eadem est natura glebae et totius terrae, idem est locus glebae et totius terrae15: ergo idem est locus huius aquae et totius aquae: ergo si aliqua aqua naturaliter est iuxta terram, ergo et omnis aqua: ergo videtur, quod nullum sit caelum aqueum. Si tu dicas, quod non est quaerenda hic ratio naturae, quia hoc fit virtute divinae potentiae; hanc responsionem refutat Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram16 inquiens: « Nec quisquam dicat, haec omnipotentia Dei fieri; qualiter enim Deus naturas fecerit, quaeritur, non quid de his per miraculum suae potentiae operetur ».

6. Item, quaero ad quid positae sunt ibi aquae? Si ad refrigerandum calorem igneum — quod quidem videtur propter hoc, quod Saturnus, qui supremus est inter planetas et velocissime movetur, et ita ex motu deberet esse calidior, tamen frigidissimus est, et hoc non nisi propter aquas illas, ut videtur17 — obiicitur contra hoc, quia, si aquae illae possunt infrigidare calorem solis et aliorum corporum, ergo eadem ratione possunt ab eis calefieri, ergo et consumi, et ita aliquando totaliter corrumperentur, quod est inconveniens.

Quaestio incers. Quaeritur igitur, cuius naturae sunt illae aquae? et pro quanto caelum illud dicatur esse aqueum; si enim propter naturam perspicuitatis, tunc omne caelum debet dici aqueum.

Conclusio.

Supra firmamentum probabiliter sunt verae aquae, quae tamen multum differunt ab aquis elementaribus.

Respondeo: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod in hac quaestione propter diversitatem positionum et debilitatem rationum vix potest aliquid certum dici; sed ex quadam proprietate et coniectura ex diversis positionibus potest elici una quaedam sobria, quae inter fidem et rationem incedat quasi quadam media via.

Propter quod notandum est, quod aliqui, Opinio 1. sequentes viam rationis et mundanae philosophiae, dixerunt, quod supra firmamentum, quod est caelum sidereum, nullae sunt aquae corporales, et Scriptura sacra intelligi debet de aquis spiritualibus. Quodsi alicubi in Scriptura legatur de istis aquis materialibus, quod sint supra firmamentum elevatae, tunc nomine firmamenti intelligitur aër. Et utrumque horum dictorum eliciunt ex verbis Augustini. Primum ex hoc, quod dicit decimo tertio Confessionum18, quod illae aquae sint immortales. Secundum vero ex hoc, quod dicit super Genesim ad litteram, quod hoc potest intelligi de aquis, quae suspenduntur in nubibus. — Sed istam positionem improbatur. improbat Basilius in Hexaëmeron19; reprobat etiam ipse textus, qui dicit, stellas positas esse in firmamento, per quod firmamentum, dixerat supra, aquas ab aquis esse divisas; si ergo firmamentum illud est caelum sidereum, et aquae illae sunt materiales, positio praedicta nullo modo videtur stare posse.

Et ideo alii, innitentes textui sacrae Scripturae, Opinio 2. secundum quod videtur sonare, dixerunt, quod aliquod caelum sursum est, quod est aqueae naturae, quod divina dispositio sursum posuit ad refrigerandum ardorem aetheris. Et ad omnes rationes ad oppositum respondent per hoc, quod Deus in ordinatione mundi plus considerat finis utilitatem quam formae qualitatem; et ideo, sicut in minori mundo posuit cerebrum sursum ad calorem cordis mitigandum, sic supra caelum sidereum posuit caelum aqueum; et ibidem aquae illae quiescunt et sustentantur vel sua soliditate, sicut videtur Beda dicere, vel sua subtilitate, vel etiam Dei virtute, quae sic ordinavit. — Non probatur. Sed quia credendum est, Opificem summum corpora mundi optimo ordine ordinasse, non solum videtur, quod in ordinando consideraverit finis utilitatem, sed etiam perfectionis dignitatem; ideo non videtur verum elementum aquae super firmamentum collocasse, cum per naturam sit minus nobile.

Et ideo est tertius modus dicendi, Opinio 3. quod supra firmamentum, sicut dicit Scriptura, sunt aquae, quae tamen non habent naturam20 et speciem aquae elementi, censentur tamen aquae nomine propter convenientiam in aliqua proprietate. — Unde notandum est, quod aqua ista tres habet proprietates: Tres proprietates aquae. habet enim perspicuitatem, habet frigiditatem, habet nihilominus gravitatem. Quantum ad naturam perspicuitatis hae aquae et illae conveniunt, eo quod habent naturam receptivam luminis et quodam modo retentivam, sicut experimento patet in aliquibus lapidibus, qui de nocte non videntur per se, nisi ponantur in aqua21. Quantum autem ad na-

p. 338

turam gravitatis simpliciter differunt; illae enim aquae nullo modo sunt graves nec appetunt esse deorsum. Quantum vero ad naturam frigiditatis partim conveniunt, partim differunt. Conveniunt enim in hoc, quod utraeque sunt frigidae effective; differunt autem in hoc, quod istae sunt frigidae formaliter, illae vero minime.

Corollarium. Et secundum hoc patet, quod nomen aquae tripliciter accipitur in primaria rerum distinctione: aliquando pro informi materia, ut ibi: Spiritus Domini ferebatur super aquas; aliquando pro natura transparenti et luminis retentiva, ut ibi: Fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum; aliquando pro ipso elemento aqueo, ut ibi: Congregentur aquae in locum unum. — Conclusio 1. Et sic patet, quod supra firmamentum verae sunt aquae, sicut dicit Scriptura, et auctoritates Sanctorum, quia illud intendunt persuadere. Conclusio 2. Patet etiam, quod non sunt ibi aquae elementares sive eius naturae, cuius sunt istae aquae, nec quantum ad corruptibilitatem, nec quantum ad gravitatem, nec quantum ad ignobilitatem, nec quantum ad grossitiem, nec quantum ad transfundendi possibilitatem, sicut ostendunt rationes ad oppositum adductae. — Hanc autem viam tertiam satis sustinere possumus probabiliter, cum nihil videatur sibi obviare. Notandum. Hoc autem praecipue attendendum est, ne in incerta materia aliquid certitudinaliter asseratur; melius est enim pie dubitare, quam aliquid temerarie definire.

Ad quaest. connexam. Ad illud vero quod ultimo quaeritur, scilicet quare nomine aquarum censeatur caelum illud, cum tamen non sit de natura aquae, iam patet responsio. Hoc enim dictum est propter convenientiam non solum in perspicuitate, sed etiam in frigiditate, sed in perspicuitate formaliter, in frigiditate effective. Et si tu obiicias, quod firmamentum convenit similiter in perspicuitate; arguis ab insufficienti. Praeterea non convenit eo modo firmamentum cum aqua in perspicuitate, secundum quem modum caelum aqueum creditur convenire. Aquae enim habent perspicuitatem, quae non tantummodo est luminis susceptiva, sicut perspicuum aëris, sed etiam quodammodo retentiva; sicut per experientiam ostenditur. Cum metallum aliquod ponitur in fundo vasis in tenebris superfusa aqua liquida, videbitur sub luce retenta ab aqua. Sic etiam dicuntur probari rubini, qui per se non lucent de nocte. — Convenit etiam cum aqua in frigiditate, sed effective, sicut dicit Basilius; nec tamen ex hoc sequitur, quod possit calefieri vel consumi, sicut nec sol, quamvis calefaciat, habet formaliter infrigidari, sed solummodo per frigiditatem ei oppositam potest effectus eius reprimi. — Et sic patent omnia quaesita circa illius caeli aquei naturam.

Scholion

I. De hac et pluribus aliis huius distinctionis quaestionibus sapienter monet S. Doctor (hic in corp.), quod « propter diversitatem positionum et debilitatem rationum vix potest aliquid certum dici ». Et in fine corp. cavet, « ne in incerta materia aliquid certitudinaliter asseratur; melius est enim pie dubitare, quam aliquid temerarie definire ». Diligentissime tamen ex libris Aristotelis, philosophorum Arabum, S. Augustini aliorumque ea collegit, quae ad has quaestiones faciunt, ut adiectis nostris notis probatur. Cum autem haec fundamenta, mutuata ex aliena scientia (quae de rebus naturalibus tractabat pro ratione illorum temporum et destituta erat instrumentis et experimentis, quibus innitur physica nostrae aetatis) in multis deficiant, fieri non potuit, quominus etiam argumentatio, licet acuta, in nonnullis particularibus conclusionibus a scientia physica recentiore non approbetur.

II. De 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 50. m. 1. — Scot., Report. hic q. 1. n. 16. — S. Thom., hic q. unica, a. 1; S. I. q. 68. a. 2; de Potent. q. 4. a. 1; Quodlib. 4. q. 2. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. q. 2; S. p. II. tr. 11. q. 52. m. 1. 3. et q. 53. m. 1. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Ægid. R., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. — Biel de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.

III. In seq. sive 2. quaestione attentione dignum est, quod ibi secundum S. Augustinum et philosophos dicitur de natura essentiae quintae, ab elemento ignis distinctae, quae « lucem participat in quadam puritate ». In ipsa conclusione consentiunt S. Thomas (hic q. unica, a. 2. et S. I. q. 68. a. 1.) aliique multi.

Alii auctores: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 6. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 4; S. loc. cit. q. 53. m. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 3. — Ægid. R., hic a. 1. a. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

---

English Translation
p. 335

ARTICLE I.

On the nature of the heavens.

QUESTION I.

Whether the crystalline heaven is of the nature of water.

Concerning the first [matter] two [questions] are asked. First it is asked about the nature of the crystalline heaven. Second about the nature of the firmament heaven.

Concerning the first the matter proceeds thus, and it is asked whether the crystalline heaven is of the nature of water. And that it is, it seems:

1. By the authority of Scripture. Genesis 11: Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters; but things which are distinguished by division alone are of the same nature: therefore the waters which are above the firmament and which are under the firmament are of the same nature.

p. 336

If you say that firmament there is called not the starry heaven but the air, the following text2 resists, where it is said that the stars were placed in the firmament. There resists also that which is written in Daniel 3: Bless the Lord, you waters that are above the heavens, and afterwards is subjoined: Bless the Lord, sun and moon: therefore those waters are above the sun. If you say that those waters are spiritual, there resists that which is said in the Psalm3: Stretching out the heaven like a skin, who covers its upper parts with waters; but the heaven stretched out is corporeal: therefore the waters which cover [it] are corporeal.

2. Likewise, this seems [so] by the authority of the Doctors. Augustine On Genesis according to the Letter4, speaking of the waters: «In whatever way they are, we do not doubt that they are there; for the authority of this Scripture is greater than the perspicacity of every human ingenuity». If you say that there are waters there, but nevertheless not material but spiritual, against this Basil says5: «That water we understand to be true water»: therefore it seems that those waters truly have the species and nature of water. But if you say that they have the form of water, but nevertheless not the properties, against this is the word of Bede which the Master adduces in the text6: «He who below the heaven binds the waters for a time, retained by the vapors of clouds, can also above the sphere of heaven suspend the waters, not by vaporous tenuity, but by glacial solidity, lest they fall».

3. Likewise, it seems by reason. The order of the parts in the microcosm or in the lesser world corresponds to the order of the parts in the greater world7; but thus we see in the nature of the human body, that above the heart, which is hot and of fiery nature, is placed the brain, which is cold and of watery nature: therefore also in the greater world above the sun and other heating bodies a watery nature must be placed.

4. Likewise, water by its own nature is transparent and through this fit for the reception of light: therefore it is conformable to the celestial nature8; therefore it is fit, so that out of it some heaven can be made: therefore if any heaven has to be made out of water, since none below the firmament is a watery heaven, it seems that it is above the firmament.

5. Likewise, that this is possible, is seen by the reasoning which Augustine makes On Genesis according to the Letter9: Water by its own subtilization can be elevated so as to be above the air: therefore by a greater subtilization it could be elevated further: therefore if every body is divisible to infinity, provided there be present the power of one dividing, water can be so much divided and subtilized that it can naturally subsist above the firmament; and if this, then there is some watery heaven.

6. Likewise, that is natural to each thing which the Creator put into it from the first constitution10: therefore if in the first division of the waters some were placed above the firmament, some under the firmament, it is just as natural for those to be above the firmament as for these to be beneath the firmament: therefore just as for us being above the firmament it would be foolish to doubt whether waters could be beneath the firmament, so for us being beneath the firmament it is foolish to believe that it is unfitting that there should be a watery heaven above the firmament.

To the opposite it is argued thus.

1. First by the authority of Augustine in the thirteenth [book] of the Confessions11: For the negative side. «There are other waters, which are above the firmament, immortal and separated from all corruption»: therefore it seems that the watery heaven is not of the nature of this [our] water.

2. Likewise, a body having the species of water is by nature heavy12: therefore if any heaven is of watery nature, it is heavy; but the heavy ought to be placed only downward by nature: therefore it seems that it is disordered to posit that there is any watery heaven which is above.

3. Likewise, the bodies of the world are ordered according to greater and lesser nobility; and the body which is more noble is located higher13: therefore if water is less noble than the firmament, then it is never to be located above the firmament.

4. Likewise, the bodies of the world are ordered below and above according to greater and lesser subtlety, and according to greater and lesser rarity14; but the air universally is more subtle than water and more rare,

p. 337

and likewise fire: therefore water can never be so rarefied as to be more subtle than air and fire: therefore it never seems that it can fittingly be located above fire and air.

5. Likewise, of things having the same nature the place is the same; because the nature of a clod and of the whole earth is the same, the place of the clod and of the whole earth is the same15: therefore the place of this [particular] water and of the whole water is the same: therefore if some water is naturally next to the earth, then so is all water: therefore it seems that there is no watery heaven. If you say that the reasoning of nature is not to be sought here, because this comes about by the power of divine omnipotence, this response Augustine refutes On Genesis according to the Letter16, saying: «Nor let anyone say that these things come about by the omnipotence of God; for it is asked in what way God made the natures, not what He works upon these by the miracle of His power».

6. Likewise, I ask: for what were the waters placed there? If for cooling the fiery heat — which indeed seems [to be the case] on account of this, that Saturn, who is the highest among the planets and is moved most swiftly, and so from motion ought to be hotter, is nevertheless coldest, and this only on account of those waters, as it seems17 — there is objected against this that, if those waters can chill the heat of the sun and of the other bodies, then by the same reasoning they can be heated by them, therefore also consumed, and thus at some time they would be totally corrupted, which is unfitting.

A related question. It is asked therefore: of what nature are those waters? and to what extent is that heaven called watery; for if on account of the nature of transparency, then every heaven ought to be called watery.

Conclusion.

Above the firmament there are probably true waters, which nevertheless differ much from elementary waters.

Respondeo: For the understanding of the aforesaid, it must be noted that in this question, on account of the diversity of positions and the weakness of the reasonings, something certain can scarcely be said; but from a certain property and from conjecture out of the diverse positions one sober [view] can be elicited, which proceeds between faith and reason as by a kind of middle way.

On account of which it must be noted that some, Opinion 1. following the way of reason and of mundane philosophy, said that above the firmament, which is the starry heaven, there are no corporeal waters, and sacred Scripture is to be understood concerning spiritual waters. But if anywhere in Scripture it is read concerning these material waters that they were elevated above the firmament, then by the name of firmament the air is understood. And both of these claims they elicit from the words of Augustine. The first from this, that he says in the thirteenth [book] of the Confessions18 that those waters are immortal. The second indeed from this, that he says On Genesis according to the Letter that this can be understood of the waters which are suspended in the clouds. — But this position [It] is disproved. is disproved by Basil in the Hexaëmeron19; the very text reprobates it also, which says that the stars are placed in the firmament, through which firmament, he had said above, the waters were divided from the waters; if therefore that firmament is the starry heaven, and those waters are material, the aforesaid position seems in no way able to stand.

And therefore others, relying on the text of sacred Scripture, Opinion 2. according to what it seems to sound forth, said that some heaven is above which is of watery nature, which the divine disposition placed above for cooling the ardor of the ether. And to all the reasons to the opposite they respond by this, that God in the ordering of the world considers more the usefulness of the end than the quality of the form; and therefore, just as in the lesser world He placed the brain above for mitigating the heat of the heart, so above the starry heaven He placed the watery heaven; and there those waters rest and are sustained either by their own solidity, as Bede seems to say, or by their own subtlety, or even by the power of God, who so ordered. — [It] is not proved. But because it must be believed that the supreme Maker has ordered the bodies of the world by the best order, it appears not only that in ordering He considered the usefulness of the end, but also the dignity of perfection; therefore it does not seem that He placed the true element of water above the firmament, since by nature it is less noble.

And therefore there is a third mode of speaking, Opinion 3. that above the firmament, as Scripture says, there are waters, which nevertheless do not have the nature20 and species of the element of water, [yet] are reckoned by the name of waters on account of an agreement in some property. — Hence it must be noted that that water has three properties: Three properties of water. for it has transparency, it has coldness, it has nonetheless heaviness. As regards the nature of transparency these waters and those [our waters] agree, in that they have a nature receptive of light and in some way retentive [of it], as is clear by experiment in certain stones, which by night are not seen by themselves, unless they are placed in water21. But as regards the nature

p. 338

of heaviness they differ absolutely; for those waters are in no way heavy nor do they tend to be below. But as regards the nature of coldness they partly agree, partly differ. For they agree in this, that both are cold effectively; but they differ in this, that these are cold formally, but those not at all.

Corollary. And according to this it is clear that the name of water is taken in three ways in the primary distinction of things: sometimes for unformed matter, as there: The Spirit of the Lord moved upon the waters; sometimes for a transparent and light-retentive nature, as there: Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters; sometimes for the watery element itself, as there: Let the waters be gathered into one place. — Conclusion 1. And thus it is clear that above the firmament there are true waters, as Scripture says, and the authorities of the Saints, because that is what they intend to persuade. Conclusion 2. It is also clear that there are not there elementary waters, or [waters] of that nature of which these waters are — neither as regards corruptibility, nor as regards heaviness, nor as regards ignobility, nor as regards grossness, nor as regards the possibility of pouring through — as the reasons adduced to the opposite show. — But this third way we can fairly probably sustain, since nothing seems to oppose it. Note. This however is especially to be attended to, lest in uncertain matter something be asserted with certitude; for it is better piously to doubt than rashly to define anything.

To the connected question. But to that which is last asked, namely why that heaven is reckoned by the name of waters, since nevertheless it is not of the nature of water, the response is now clear. For this was said on account of the agreement not only in transparency, but also in coldness; but in transparency formally, in coldness effectively. And if you object that the firmament agrees likewise in transparency, you argue from the insufficient. Moreover the firmament does not agree with water in transparency in that mode according to which the watery heaven is believed to agree. For the waters have a transparency which is not only receptive of light, like the transparent [character] of air, but also in some way retentive [of it]; as is shown by experience. When some metal is placed at the bottom of a vessel in the dark, with clear water poured over [it], it will be seen under the light retained by the water. So also rubies are said to be tested, which by themselves do not shine by night. — It also agrees with water in coldness, but effectively, as Basil says; nor however does it follow from this that it can be heated or consumed — just as neither the sun, although it heats, is bound to be cooled formally, but only by a coldness opposed to it can its effect be repressed. — And thus all that is asked concerning the nature of that watery heaven is clear.

Scholion

I. Concerning this and many other questions of this distinction, the Holy Doctor wisely warns (here in the body) that «on account of the diversity of positions and the weakness of the reasonings, something certain can scarcely be said». And at the end of the body he takes care «lest in uncertain matter something be asserted with certitude; for it is better piously to doubt than rashly to define anything». Most diligently however he gathered from the books of Aristotle, of the Arab philosophers, of St. Augustine and others, those [things] which bear on these questions, as is proven by the notes we have added. But since these foundations, borrowed from an alien science (which treated of natural matters by the standard of those times and was bereft of the instruments and experiments on which the physics of our age relies) fall short in many [respects], it could not but be that even the argumentation, however acute, in some particular conclusions is not approved by the more recent physical science.

II. On the 1st question: Alex. of Hales, Summa p. II, q. 50, m. 1. — Scot., Reportata here q. 1, n. 16. — St. Thom., here q. unica, a. 1; S. I, q. 68, a. 2; de Potent. q. 4, a. 1; Quodlib. 4, q. 2, a. 3. — Bl. Albert., here a. 1, q. 2; S. p. II, tr. 11, q. 52, m. 1, 3, and q. 53, m. 1, 2. — Petr. of Tarantasia, here q. 1, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1. — Giles of Rome, here a. 1, q. 1. — Durand., here q. 1. — Dionys. the Carthusian, here q. 1. — Biel on this and the following qq., here q. unica.

III. In the following or 2nd question it is worthy of attention that there, according to St. Augustine and the philosophers, it is said of the nature of the fifth essence, distinct from the element of fire, which «participates in light in a certain purity». In the conclusion itself St. Thomas (here q. unica, a. 2 and S. I, q. 68, a. 1) and many others concur.

Other authors: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. m. 6, a. 3. — Bl. Albert., here a. 4; S. loc. cit. q. 53, m. 2. — Petr. of Tarantasia, here q. 1, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 3. — Giles of Rome, here a. 1, a. 2. — Dionys. the Carthusian, here q. 2.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vers. 6. — Paulo inferius non pauci codd. ergo ea pro ergo aquae.
    Verse 6. — A little below, not a few codices [read] ergo ea for ergo aquae.
  2. Gen. 1, 14. — Duo seqq. textus sunt Daniel. 3, 60. et 62. — Dein Vat. post super solem. addit et lunam.
    Gen. 1:14. — The two following texts are Daniel 3:60 and 62. — Then the Vatican [edition] after super solem. adds et lunam.
  3. Psalm. 103, 2. seq.
    Psalm 103:2 and following.
  4. Libr. II. c. 5. n. 9: Quoquo modo autem et qualeslibet aquae ibi sint, esse eas ibi minime dubitemus; maior est quippe Scripturae huius auctoritas quam omnis humani ingenii capacitas.
    [On Genesis according to the Letter,] book II, c. 5, n. 9: But in whatever way and of whatever sort the waters are there, let us by no means doubt that they are there; for the authority of this Scripture is greater than the capacity of every human ingenuity.
  5. Homil. 3. in Hexaëm. n. 9: Aniles fabulas reiicientes, aquam aquam intelligamus. — Paulo ante cod. cc et ed. 1 non tamen materiales pro sed tamen non materiales.
    [Basil,] Homily 3 on the Hexaëmeron, n. 9: Rejecting old wives' tales, let us understand water as water. — A little earlier, codex cc and edition 1 [read] non tamen materiales for sed tamen non materiales.
  6. Hic c. 5.
    Here, c. 5.
  7. Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 17. (c. 2.): « Si enim in parvo mundo fit, et in magno ». De seq. propos. cfr. idem, II. de Partib. animal. c. 7.
    Aristotle, Physics VIII, text 17 (c. 2): «For if it happens in the small world, [it also happens] in the great». On the following proposition cf. the same, On the Parts of Animals II, c. 7.
  8. Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 68. (c. 7.).
    Cf. Aristotle, On the Soul II, text 68 (c. 7).
  9. Libr. II. c. 4. n. 8. — In fine arg. aliqui codd. cum ed. 1 esset, Vat. est pro esse.
    [On Genesis according to the Letter,] book II, c. 4, n. 8. — At the end of the argument, some codices with edition 1 [read] esset, the Vatican [edition] est for esse.
  10. Vide supra pag. 331, nota 6, ubi sententiam S. Augustini de hac re invenies. — Vat. in hoc arg. bis habet existentibus pro entibus.
    See above p. 331, note 6, where you will find the opinion of St. Augustine on this matter. — The Vatican [edition] in this argument twice has existentibus for entibus.
  11. Cap. 15. n. 18: Sunt aliae aquae super hoc firmamentum, credo, immortales et a terrena corruptione secretae. — In fine arg. cod. I subiungit cum aquae istae sunt corruptibiles, ut probat Philosophus, de Generatione (libr. II. text. 24. seqq.).
    [Confessions XIII,] c. 15, n. 18: There are other waters above this firmament, I believe, immortal and separated from earthly corruption. — At the end of the argument, codex I subjoins since these waters are corruptible, as the Philosopher proves in On Generation (book II, text 24 and following).
  12. Cfr. Aristot., III. de Caelo et mundo, text. 8. (c. 1.) et IV. text. 27. (c. 4.). — In hac prop. cod. aa post aquae addit elementi, aliqui codd. cum ed. 1 aeque.
    Cf. Aristotle, On the Heavens and the World III, text 8 (c. 1) and IV, text 27 (c. 4). — In this proposition codex aa after aquae adds elementi; some codices with edition 1 [read] aeque.
  13. Aristot., IV. de Caelo et mundo, text. 23. (c. 3.); III. de Partib. animal. c. 3. Vide supra pag. 73, nota 3.
    Aristotle, On the Heavens and the World IV, text 23 (c. 3); On the Parts of Animals III, c. 3. See above p. 73, note 3.
  14. Cfr. Aristot., IV. de Caelo et mundo, text. 44. seq. (c. 6.). — Paulo inferius aliqui codd. substituunt naturaliter pro universaliter, quod Vat. omittit.
    Cf. Aristotle, On the Heavens and the World IV, text 44 and following (c. 6). — A little below, some codices substitute naturaliter for universaliter, which the Vatican [edition] omits.
  15. Aristot., III. Phys. text. 48. (c. 5.): « Locus est aliquis uniuscuiusque, et idem est partis et totius, ut totius terrae et unius glebae, et ignis atque scintillae ». Idem dicit ibid. text. 52. et I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 19. 73. (c. 3. 7.).
    Aristotle, Physics III, text 48 (c. 5): «There is some place of each thing, and the place of the part and of the whole is the same — as of the whole earth and of one clod, and of fire and of a spark». He says the same ibid., text 52, and On the Heavens and the World I, text 19, 73 (c. 3, 7).
  16. Libr. II. c. 4. n. 2.
    [On Genesis according to the Letter,] book II, c. 4, n. 2.
  17. Hoc arg., ut refert August., II. de Gen. ad lit. c. 5. n. 9, iam suo tempore quidam catholicorum protulerunt « adversus eos, qui nolunt aquas super caelum credere, et volunt, eam stellam [Saturnum] esse frigidam » etc.
    This argument, as Augustine reports in On Genesis according to the Letter II, c. 5, n. 9, certain Catholics already in his own time brought forward «against those who refuse to believe that there are waters above the heaven, and maintain that that star [Saturn] is cold» etc.
  18. Cap. 15. n. 18. — Sequens textus est II. de Gen. ad lit. c. 4. n. 7.
    [Confessions XIII,] c. 15, n. 18. — The following text is On Genesis according to the Letter II, c. 4, n. 7.
  19. Vide hic pro parte affirm. arg. 2. et text. Gen. arg. 1.
    See here, on the affirmative side, argument 2, and the Genesis text [in] argument 1.
  20. Non pauci codd. materiam.
    Not a few codices [read] materiam.
  21. B. Albert., II. de Mineral. tract. 2. c. 3. de carbunculo sive rubino ait: Quando vere bonus est, lucet in tenebris, sicut carbo, et talem vidi ego. Quando autem minus bonus est et tamen verus, emicat in tenebris superfusa aqua clara et limpida in vase nigro, mundo, polito. Qui autem nullo modo lucet in tenebris, hic non habet nobilitatem perfectam etc.
    Bl. Albert, On Minerals II, tract. 2, c. 3, on the carbuncle or ruby, says: When it is truly good, it shines in darkness like a coal, and such a one I myself have seen. But when it is less good and yet genuine, it gleams forth in darkness when clear and limpid water is poured over [it] in a black, clean, polished vessel. But that which in no way shines in darkness has not the perfect nobility etc.
← Dist. 14, Part 2, Divisio TextusDist. 14, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2→