Authors/Thomas Aquinas/Summa Theologiae/Part I/Q68

From The Logic Museum

Jump to: navigation, search
Q67 Q69



Latin English
Iª q. 68 pr. Deinde considerandum est de opere secundae diei. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum firmamentum sit factum secunda die. Secundo, utrum aliquae aquae sint supra firmamentum. Tertio, utrum firmamentum dividat aquas ab aquis. Quarto, utrum sit unum caelum tantum, vel plures.
Iª q. 68 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod firmamentum non sit factum secunda die. Dicitur enim Gen. I, vocavit Deus firmamentum caelum. Sed caelum factum est ante omnem diem, ut patet cum dicitur, in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram. Ergo firmamentum non est factum secunda die. Objection 1. It would seem that the firmament was not made on the second day. For it is said (Genesis 1:8): "God called the firmament heaven." But the heaven existed before days, as is clear from the words, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." Therefore the firmament was not made on the second day.
Iª q. 68 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, opera sex dierum ordinantur secundum ordinem divinae sapientiae. Non conveniret autem divinae sapientiae, ut posterius faceret quod est naturaliter prius. Firmamentum autem est naturaliter prius aqua et terra, de quibus tamen fit mentio ante formationem lucis, quae fuit prima die. Non ergo firmamentum factum est secunda die. Objection 2. Further, the work of the six days is ordered conformably to the order of Divine wisdom. Now it would ill become the Divine wisdom to make afterwards that which is naturally first. But though the firmament naturally precedes the earth and the waters, these are mentioned before the formation of light, which was on the first day. Therefore the firmament was not made on the second day.
Iª q. 68 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, omne quod est factum per sex dies, formatum est ex materia prius creata ante omnem diem. Sed firmamentum non potuit formari ex materia praeexistente, quia sic esset generabile et corruptibile. Ergo firmamentum non est factum secunda die. Objection 3. Further, all that was made in the six days was formed out of matter created before days began. But the firmament cannot have been formed out of pre-existing matter, for if so it would be liable to generation and corruption. Therefore the firmament was not made on the second day.
Iª q. 68 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Gen. I, dixit Deus, fiat firmamentum. Et postea sequitur, et factum est vespere et mane dies secundus. On the contrary, It is written (Genesis 1:6): "God said: let there be a firmament," and further on (verse 8); "And the evening and morning were the second day."
Iª q. 68 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus docet, in huiusmodi quaestionibus duo sunt observanda. Primo quidem, ut veritas Scripturae inconcusse teneatur. Secundo, cum Scriptura divina multipliciter exponi possit, quod nulli expositioni aliquis ita praecise inhaereat quod, si certa ratione constiterit hoc esse falsum, quod aliquis sensum Scripturae esse asserere praesumat, ne Scriptura ex hoc ab infidelibus derideatur, et ne eis via credendi praecludatur. Sciendum est ergo quod hoc quod legitur firmamentum secunda die factum, dupliciter intelligi potest. Uno modo, de firmamento in quo sunt sidera. Et secundum hoc, oportet nos diversimode exponere secundum diversas opiniones hominum de firmamento. Quidam enim dixerunt firmamentum illud esse ex elementis compositum. Et haec fuit opinio Empedoclis; qui tamen dixit ideo illud corpus indissolubile esse, quia in eius compositione lis non erat sed amicitia tantum. Alii vero dixerunt firmamentum esse de natura quatuor elementorum non quasi ex elementis compositum, sed quasi elementum simplex. Et haec opinio fuit Platonis, qui posuit corpus caeleste esse elementum ignis. Alii vero dixerunt caelum non esse de natura quatuor elementorum, sed esse quintum corpus, praeter quatuor elementa. Et haec est opinio Aristotelis. Secundum igitur primam opinionem, absolute posset concedi quod firmamentum factum fuerit secunda die, etiam secundum suam substantiam. Nam ad opus creationis pertinet producere ipsam elementorum substantiam, ad opus autem distinctionis et ornatus pertinet formare aliqua ex praeexistentibus elementis. Secundum vero opinionem Platonis, non est conveniens quod firmamentum credatur secundum suam substantiam esse factum secunda die. Nam facere firmamentum, secundum hoc, est producere elementum ignis. Productio autem elementorum pertinet ad opus creationis, secundum eos qui ponunt informitatem materiae tempore praecedere formationem, quia formae elementorum sunt quae primo adveniunt materiae. Multo autem minus secundum opinionem Aristotelis poni potest quod firmamentum secundum suam substantiam sit secunda die productum, secundum quod per istos dies successio temporis designatur. Quia caelum, cum sit secundum suam naturam incorruptibile, habet materiam quae non potest subesse alteri formae, unde impossibile est quod firmamentum sit factum ex materia prius tempore existente. Unde productio substantiae firmamenti ad opus creationis pertinet. Sed aliqua formatio eius, secundum has duas opiniones, pertinet ad opus secundae diei, sicut etiam Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod lumen solis fuit informe in primo triduo, et postea fuit in quarta die formatum. Si autem per istos dies non designetur temporis successio, sed solum ordo naturae, ut Augustinus vult; nihil prohibebit dicere, secundum quamcumque harum opinionum formationem secundum substantiam firmamenti ad secundam diem pertinere. Potest autem et alio modo intelligi, ut per firmamentum quod legitur secunda die factum, non intelligatur firmamentum illud in quo fixae sunt stellae, sed illa pars aeris in qua condensantur nubes. Et dicitur firmamentum propter spissitudinem aeris in parte illa, nam quod est spissum et solidum, dicitur esse corpus firmum, ad differentiam corporis mathematici, ut dicit Basilius. Et secundum hanc expositionem, nihil repugnans sequitur cuicumque opinioni. Unde Augustinus, II super Gen. ad Litt., hanc expositionem commendans, dicit, hanc considerationem laude dignissimam iudico; quod enim dixit, neque est contra fidem, et in promptu, posito documento, credi potest. I answer that, In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing. We say, therefore, that the words which speak of the firmament as made on the second day can be understood in two senses. They may be understood, first, of the starry firmament, on which point it is necessary to set forth the different opinions of philosophers. Some of these believed it to be composed of the elements; and this was the opinion of Empedocles, who, however, held further that the body of the firmament was not susceptible of dissolution, because its parts are, so to say, not in disunion, but in harmony. Others held the firmament to be of the nature of the four elements, not, indeed, compounded of them, but being as it were a simple element. Such was the opinion of Plato, who held that element to be fire. Others, again, have held that the heaven is not of the nature of the four elements, but is itself a fifth body, existing over and above these. This is the opinion of Aristotle (De Coel. i, text. 6,32). 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 produce the substance of the elements, while it belongs to the work of distinction and adornment to give forms to the elements that pre-exist. But the belief that the firmament was made, as to its substance, on the second day is incompatible with the opinion of Plato, according to whom the making of the firmament implies the production of the element of fire. This production, however, belongs to the work of creation, at least, according to those who hold that formlessness of matter preceded in time its formation, since the first form received by matter is the elemental. Still less compatible with the belief that the substance of the firmament was produced on the second day is the opinion of Aristotle, seeing that the mention of days denotes succession of time, whereas the firmament, being naturally incorruptible, is of a matter not susceptible of change of form; wherefore it could not be made out of matter existing antecedently in time. Hence to produce the substance of the firmament belongs to the work of creation. But its formation, in some degree, belongs to the second day, according to both opinions: for as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv), the light of the sun was without form during the first three days, and afterwards, on the fourth day, received its form. If, however, we take these days to denote merely sequence in the natural order, as Augustine holds (Gen. ad lit. iv, 22,24), and not succession in time, there is then nothing to prevent our saying, whilst holding any one of the opinions given above, that the substantial formation of the firmament belongs to the second day. Another possible explanation is to understand by the firmament that was made on the second day, not that in which the stars are set, but the part of the atmosphere where the clouds are collected, and which has received the name firmament from the firmness and density of the air. "For a body is called firm," that is dense and solid, "thereby differing from a mathematical body" as is remarked by Basil (Hom. iii in Hexaem.). If, then, this explanation is adopted none of these opinions will be found repugnant to reason. Augustine, in fact (Gen. ad lit. ii, 4), recommends it thus: "I consider this view of the question worthy of all commendation, as neither contrary to faith nor difficult to be proved and believed."
Iª q. 68 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, secundum Chrysostomum, primo Moyses summarie dixit quid Deus fecit, praemittens, in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram, postea per partes explicavit. Sicut si quis dicat, hic artifex fecit domum istam, et postea subdat, primo fecit fundamenta, et postea erexit parietes, tertio superposuit tectum. Et sic non oportet nos aliud caelum intelligere, cum dicitur, in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram; et cum dicitur quod secunda die factum est firmamentum. Potest etiam dici aliud esse caelum quod legitur in principio creatum, et quod legitur secunda die factum. Et hoc diversimode. Nam secundum Augustinum, caelum quod legitur primo die factum, est natura spiritualis informis, caelum autem quod legitur secunda die factum, est caelum corporeum. Secundum vero Bedam et Strabum, caelum quod legitur primo die factum, est caelum Empyreum, firmamentum vero quod legitur secunda die factum, est caelum sidereum. Secundum vero Damascenum, caelum quod legitur prima die factum, est quoddam caelum sphaericum sine stellis, de quo philosophi loquuntur, dicentes ipsum esse nonam sphaeram et mobile primum, quod movetur motu diurno, per firmamentum vero factum secunda die, intelligitur caelum sidereum. Secundum autem aliam expositionem, quam Augustinus tangit, caelum prima die factum, est etiam ipsum caelum sidereum, per firmamentum vero secunda die factum, intelligitur spatium aeris in quo nubes condensantur, quod etiam caelum aequivoce dicitur. Et ideo, ad aequivocationem designandam, signanter dicitur, vocavit Deus firmamentum caelum; sicut et supra dixerat, vocavit lucem diem (quia dies etiam pro spatio vigintiquatuor horarum ponitur). Et idem est in aliis observandum, ut Rabbi Moyses dicit. Reply to Objection 1. According to Chrysostom (Hom. iii in Genes.), Moses prefaces his record by speaking of the works of God collectively, in the words, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," and then proceeds to explain them part by part; in somewhat the same way as one might say: "This house was constructed by that builder," and then add: " First, he laid the foundations, then built the walls, and thirdly, put on the roof." In accepting this explanation we are, therefore, not bound to hold that a different heaven is spoken of in the words: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," and when we read that the firmament was made on the second day. We may also say that the heaven recorded as created in the beginning is not the same as that made on the second day; and there are several senses in which this may be understood. Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. i, 9) that the heaven recorded as made on the first day is the formless spiritual nature, and that the heaven of the second day is the corporeal heaven. According to Bede (Hexaem. i) and Strabus, the heaven made on the first day is the empyrean, and the firmament made on the second day, the starry heaven. According to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii) that of the first day was spherical 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. According to another theory, touched upon by Augustine [Gen. ad lit. ii, 1] the heaven made on the first day was the starry heaven, and the firmament made on the second day was that region of the air where the clouds are collected, which is also called heaven, but equivocally. And to show that the word is here used in an equivocal sense, it is expressly said that "God called the firmament heaven"; just as in a preceding verse it said that "God called the light day" (since the word "day" is also used to denote a space of twenty-four hours). Other instances of a similar use occur, as pointed out by Rabbi Moses.
Iª q. 68 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum et tertium patet solutio ex supra dictis. The second and third objections are sufficiently answered by what has been already said.
Iª q. 68 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aquae non sunt supra firmamentum. Aqua enim est naturaliter gravis. Locus autem proprius gravis non est esse sursum, sed solum deorsum. Ergo aquae non sunt supra firmamentum. 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.
Iª q. 68 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, naturaliter aqua est fluida. Sed quod est fluidum, non potest consistere super corpus rotundum, ut experimento patet. Ergo, cum firmamentum sit corpus rotundum, aqua non potest esse supra firmamentum. Objection 2. Further, water is fluid by nature, and fluids cannot rest on a sphere, as experience shows. Therefore, since the firmament is a sphere, there cannot be water above it.
Iª q. 68 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, aqua, cum sit elementum, ordinatur ad generationem corporis mixti; sicut imperfectum ordinatur ad perfectum. Sed supra firmamentum non est locus mixtionis, sed supra terram. Ergo frustra aqua esset supra firmamentum. Nihil autem in operibus Dei est frustra. Ergo aquae non sunt supra firmamentum. 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.
Iª q. 68 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Gen. I, quod divisit aquas quae erant supra firmamentum, ab his quae erant sub firmamento. On the contrary, It is written (Genesis 1:7): "(God) divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament."
Iª q. 68 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dicit Augustinus, II super Gen. ad Litt., maior est Scripturae huius auctoritas quam omnis humani ingenii capacitas. Unde quomodo et quales aquae ibi sint, eas tamen ibi esse, minime dubitamus. Quales autem sint illae aquae, non eodem modo ab omnibus assignatur. Origenes enim dicit quod aquae illae quae super caelos sunt, sunt spirituales substantiae, unde in Psalmo CXLVIII, dicitur, aquae quae super caelos sunt, laudent nomen domini; et Dan. III, benedicite, aquae omnes quae super caelos sunt, domino. Sed ad hoc respondet Basilius, in III Hexaem., quod hoc non dicitur eo quod aquae sint rationales creaturae; sed quia consideratio earum, prudenter a sensum habentibus contemplata, glorificationem perficit creatoris. Unde ibidem dicitur idem de igne et grandine et huiusmodi, de quibus constat quod non sunt rationales creaturae. Dicendum est ergo quod sunt aquae corporales. Sed quales aquae sint, oportet diversimode definire, secundum diversam de firmamento sententiam. Si enim per firmamentum intelligitur caelum sidereum quod ponitur esse de natura quatuor elementorum, pari ratione et aquae quae super caelos sunt, eiusdem naturae poterunt credi cum elementaribus aquis. Si autem per firmamentum intelligatur caelum sidereum quod non sit de natura quatuor elementorum, tunc et aquae illae quae sunt supra firmamentum, non erunt de natura elementarium aquarum, sed sicut, secundum Strabum, dicitur caelum Empyreum, idest igneum, propter solum splendorem; ita dicetur aliud caelum aqueum propter solam diaphaneitatem, quod est supra caelum sidereum. Posito etiam quod firmamentum sit alterius naturae praeter quatuor elementa, adhuc potest dici quod aquas dividit, si per aquam non elementum aquae, sed materiam informem corporum intelligamus, ut Augustinus dicit, super Gen. contra Manich., quia secundum hoc, quidquid est inter corpora, dividit aquas ab aquis. Si autem per firmamentum intelligatur pars aeris in qua nubes condensantur, sic aquae quae supra firmamentum sunt, sunt aquae quae, vaporabiliter resolutae, supra aliquam partem aeris elevantur ex quibus pluviae generantur. Dicere enim quod aquae vaporabiliter resolutae eleventur supra caelum sidereum, ut quidam dixerunt, quorum opinionem Augustinus tangit in II super Gen. ad Litt. est omnino impossibile. Tum propter soliditatem caeli. Tum propter regionem ignis mediam, quae huiusmodi vapores consumeret. Tum quia locus quo feruntur levia et rara, est infra concavum orbis lunae. Tum etiam quia sensibiliter apparet vapores non elevari usque ad cacumina quorundam montium. Quod etiam dicunt de rarefactione corporis in infinitum, propter hoc quod corpus est in infinitum divisibile, vanum est. Non enim corpus naturale in infinitum dividitur aut rarefit, sed usque ad certum terminum. 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 (Psalm 148:4): "Let the waters that are above the heavens praise the name of the Lord," and (Daniel 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 transparence; 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 the rain falls. But to say, as some writers alluded to by Augustine (Gen. ad lit. ii, 4), that waters resolved into vapor may be lifted above the starry heaven, is a mere absurdity. 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.
Iª q. 68 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod quibusdam videtur ratio illa solvenda per hoc, quod aquae, quamvis sint naturaliter graves, virtute tamen divina super caelos continentur. Sed hanc solutionem Augustinus excludit, II Lib. super Gen. ad Litt., dicens quod nunc quemadmodum Deus instituit naturas rerum convenit quaerere; non quid in eis ad miraculum suae potentiae velit operari. Unde aliter dicendum est quod, secundum duas ultimas opiniones de aquis et firmamento, patet solutio ex praemissis. Secundum autem primam opinionem, oportet ponere alium ordinem in elementis quam Aristoteles ponat; ut quaedam aquae spissae sint circa terram, quaedam vero tenues circa caelum; ut sic se habeant illae ad caelum, sicut istae ad terram. Vel quod per aquam intelligatur materia corporum, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 1. Some have attempted to solve this difficulty by supposing that in spite 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 elements must 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.
Iª q. 68 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum etiam patet solutio ex praemissis, secundum duas ultimas opiniones. Secundum vero primam, respondet Basilius dupliciter. Uno modo, quia non est necessarium ut omne quod in concavo apparet rotundum, sit etiam supra rotundum secundum convexum. Secundo, quia aquae quae sunt supra caelos, non sunt fluidae; sed quasi glaciali soliditate circa caelum firmatae. Unde et a quibusdam dicuntur caelum crystallinum. Reply to Objection 2. The solution is clear from what has been said, according to the last two 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.
Iª q. 68 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, secundum tertiam opinionem, aquae sunt supra firmamentum vaporabiliter elevatae propter utilitatem pluviarum. Secundum vero secundam opinionem, aquae sunt supra firmamentum, idest caelum totum diaphanum absque stellis. Quod quidam ponunt primum mobile, quod revolvit totum caelum motu diurno, ut operetur per motum diurnum continuitatem generationis, sicut caelum in quo sunt sidera, per motum qui est secundum zodiacum, operatur diversitatem generationis et corruptionis, per accessum et recessum, et per diversas virtutes stellarum. Secundum vero primam opinionem, aquae sunt ibi, ut Basilius dicit, ad contemperandum calorem caelestium corporum. Cuius signum acceperunt aliqui, ut Augustinus dicit, quod stella Saturni, propter vicinitatem aquarum superiorum, est frigidissima. 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 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. 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.
Iª q. 68 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod firmamentum non dividat aquas ab aquis. Unius enim corporis secundum speciem, est unus locus naturalis. Sed omnis aqua omni aquae est eadem specie, ut dicit philosophus. Non ergo aquae ab aquis sunt distinguendae secundum locum. 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.
Iª q. 68 a. 3 arg. 2 Si dicatur quod aquae illae quae sunt supra firmamentum, sunt alterius speciei ab aquis quae sunt sub firmamento, contra, ea quae sunt secundum speciem diversa, non indigent aliquo alio distinguente. Si ergo aquae superiores et inferiores specie differunt, firmamentum eas ab invicem non distinguit. 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.
Iª q. 68 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, illud videtur aquas ab aquis distinguere, quod ex utraque parte ab aquis contingitur; sicut si aliquis paries fabricetur in medio fluminis. Manifestum est autem quod aquae inferiores non pertingunt usque ad firmamentum. Ergo non dividit firmamentum aquas ab aquis. 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.
Iª q. 68 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Gen. I, fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum, et dividat aquas ab aquis. On the contrary, It is written (Genesis 1:6): "Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters; and let it divide the waters from the waters."
Iª q. 68 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod aliquis, considerando superficie tenus litteram Genesis, posset talem imaginationem concipere, secundum quorundam antiquorum philosophorum positionem. Posuerunt enim quidam aquam esse quoddam infinitum corpus, et omnium aliorum corporum principium. Quam quidem immensitatem aquarum accipere posset in nomine abyssi, cum dicitur quod tenebrae erant super faciem abyssi. Ponebant etiam quod istud caelum sensibile quod videmus, non continet infra se omnia corporalia; sed est infinitum aquarum corpus supra caelum. Et ita posset aliquis dicere quod firmamentum caeli dividit aquas exteriores ab aquis interioribus, idest ab omnibus corporibus quae infra caelum continentur, quorum principium aquam ponebant. Sed quia ista positio per veras rationes falsa deprehenditur, non est dicendum hunc esse intellectum Scripturae. Sed considerandum est quod Moyses rudi populo loquebatur, quorum imbecillitati condescendens, illa solum eis proposuit, quae manifeste sensui apparent. Omnes autem, quantumcumque rudes, terram et aquam esse corpora sensu deprehendunt. Aer autem non percipitur ab omnibus esse corpus, intantum quod etiam quidam philosophi aerem dixerunt nihil esse, plenum aere vacuum nominantes. Et ideo Moyses de aqua et terra mentionem facit expressam, aerem autem non expresse nominat, ne rudibus quoddam ignotum proponeret. Ut tamen capacibus veritatem exprimeret, dat locum intelligendi aerem, significans ipsum quasi aquae annexum, cum dicit quod tenebrae erant super faciem abyssi; per quod datur intelligi super faciem aquae esse aliquod corpus diaphanum quod est subiectum lucis et tenebrarum. Sic igitur sive per firmamentum intelligamus caelum in quo sunt sidera, sive spatium aeris nubilosum, convenienter dicitur quod firmamentum dividit aquas ab aquis, secundum quod per aquam materia informis significatur; vel secundum quod omnia corpora diaphana sub nomine aquarum intelliguntur. Nam caelum sidereum distinguit corpora inferiora diaphana a superioribus. Aer vero nubilosus distinguit superiorem aeris partem, in qua generantur pluviae et huiusmodi impressiones, ab inferiori parte aeris, quae aquae connectitur, et sub nomine aquarum intelligitur. I answer that, The text of Genesis, considered superficially, might lead to the adoption of a theory 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 infinite 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 firmament 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 be the sense of Holy Scripture. 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 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, 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 transparent 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 connected with the water and included under that name.
Iª q. 68 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, si per firmamentum intelligatur caelum sidereum, aquae superiores non sunt eiusdem speciei cum inferioribus. Si autem per firmamentum intelligatur nubilosus aer, tunc utraeque aquae sunt eiusdem speciei. Et deputantur tunc duo loca aquis non eadem ratione; sed locus superior est locus generationis aquarum, locus autem inferior est locus quietis earum. 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 the cloudy 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.
Iª q. 68 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, si accipiantur aquae diversae secundum speciem, firmamentum dicitur dividere aquas ab aquis, non sicut causa faciens divisionem; sed sicut terminus utrarumque aquarum. 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.
Iª q. 68 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Moyses, propter invisibilitatem aeris et similium corporum, omnia huiusmodi corpora sub aquae nomine comprehendit. Et sic manifestum est quod ex utraque parte firmamenti, qualitercumque accepti, sunt aquae. 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.
Iª q. 68 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod sit unum caelum tantum. Caelum enim contra terram dividitur, cum dicitur, in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram. Sed terra est una tantum. Ergo et caelum est unum tantum. Objection 1. It would seem that there is only one heaven. For the heaven is contrasted with the earth, in the words, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth."But there is only one earth. Therefore there is only one heaven.
Iª q. 68 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, omne quod constat ex tota sua materia est unum tantum. Sed caelum est huiusmodi, ut probat philosophus in I de caelo. Ergo caelum est unum tantum. Objection 2. Further, that which consists of the entire sum of its own matter, must be one; and such is the heaven, as the Philosopher proves (De Coel. i, text. 95). Therefore there is but one heaven.
Iª q. 68 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, quidquid dicitur de pluribus univoce, dicitur de eis secundum unam rationem communem. Sed si sunt plures caeli, caelum dicitur univoce de pluribus, quia si aequivoce, non proprie dicerentur plures caeli. Oportet ergo, si dicuntur plures caeli, quod sit aliqua ratio communis, secundum quam caeli dicantur. Hanc autem non est assignare. Non est ergo dicendum quod sint plures caeli. Objection 3. Further, whatever is predicated of many things univocally is predicated of them according to some common notion. But if there are more heavens than one, they are so called univocally, for if equivocally only, they could not properly be called many. If, then, they are many, there must be some common notion by reason of which each is called heaven, but this common notion cannot be assigned. Therefore there cannot be more than one heaven.
Iª q. 68 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalmo CXLVIII, laudate eum, caeli caelorum. On the contrary, It is said (Psalm 148:4): "Praise Him, ye heavens of heavens."
Iª q. 68 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod circa hoc videtur esse quaedam diversitas inter Basilium et Chrysostomum. Dicit enim Chrysostomus non esse nisi unum caelum; et quod pluraliter dicitur, caeli caelorum, hoc est propter proprietatem linguae Hebraeae, in qua consuetum est ut caelum solum pluraliter significetur; sicut sunt etiam multa nomina in Latino quae singulari carent. Basilius autem, et Damascenus sequens eum, dicunt plures esse caelos. Sed haec diversitas magis est in voce quam in re. Nam Chrysostomus unum caelum nominat totum corpus quod est supra terram et aquam, nam etiam aves, quae volant in aere, dicuntur propter hoc volucres caeli. Sed quia in isto corpore sunt multae distinctiones, propter hoc Basilius posuit plures caelos. Ad distinctionem ergo caelorum sciendam, considerandum est quod caelum tripliciter dicitur in Scripturis. Quandoque enim dicitur proprie et naturaliter. Et sic dicitur caelum corpus aliquod sublime, et luminosum actu vel potentia, et incorruptibile per naturam. Et secundum hoc, ponuntur tres caeli. Primum totaliter lucidum, quod vocant Empyreum. Secundum totaliter diaphanum, quod vocant caelum aqueum vel crystallinum. Tertium partim diaphanum et partim lucidum actu, quod vocant caelum sidereum, et dividitur in octo sphaeras, scilicet in sphaeram stellarum fixarum, et septem sphaeras planetarum; quae possunt dici octo caeli. Secundo dicitur caelum per participationem alicuius proprietatis caelestis corporis, scilicet sublimitatis et luminositatis actu vel potentia. Et sic totum illud spatium quod est ab aquis usque ad orbem lunae, Damascenus ponit unum caelum, nominans illud aereum. Et sic, secundum eum, sunt tres caeli, aereum, sidereum, et aliud superius, de quo intelligit quod apostolus legitur raptus usque ad tertium caelum. Sed quia istud spatium continet duo elementa, scilicet ignis et aeris, et in utroque eorum vocatur superior et inferior regio; ideo istud caelum Rabanus distinguit in quatuor, supremam regionem ignis nominans caelum igneum; inferiorem vero regionem, caelum Olympium, ab altitudine cuiusdam montis qui vocatur Olympus; supremam vero regionem aeris vocavit caelum aethereum, propter inflammationem; inferiorem vero regionem, caelum aereum. Et sic, cum isti quatuor caeli tribus superioribus connumerantur, fiunt in universo, secundum Rabanum, septem caeli corporei. Tertio dicitur caelum metaphorice. Et sic quandoque ipsa sancta Trinitas dicitur caelum, propter eius spiritualem sublimitatem et lucem. De quo caelo exponitur Diabolum dixisse, ascendam in caelum, idest ad aequalitatem Dei. Quandoque etiam spiritualia bona in quibus est sanctorum remuneratio, propter eorum eminentiam caeli nominantur; ubi dicitur, merces vestra multa est in caelis, ut Augustinus exponit. Quandoque vero tria genera supernaturalium visionum, scilicet corporalis, imaginariae et intellectualis tres caeli nominantur. De quibus Augustinus exponit quod Paulus est raptus usque ad tertium caelum. I answer that, On this point there seems to be a diversity of opinion between Basil and Chrysostom. The latter says that there is only one heaven (Hom. iv in Gen.), and that the words 'heavens of heavens' are merely the translation of the Hebrew idiom according to which the word is always used in the plural, just as in Latin there are many nouns that are wanting in the singular. On the other hand, Basil (Hom. iii in Hexaem.), whom Damascene follows (De Fide Orth. ii), says that there are many heavens. The difference, however, is more nominal than real. For Chrysostom means by the one heaven the whole body that is above the earth and the water, for which reason the birds that fly in the air are called birds of heaven [Ps. 8:9. But since in this body there are many distinct parts, Basil said that there are more heavens than one. In order, then, to understand the distinction of heavens, it must be borne in mind that Scripture speaks of heaven in a threefold sense. Sometimes it uses the word in its proper and natural meaning, when it denotes that body on high which is luminous actually or potentially, and incorruptible by nature. In this body there are three heavens; the first is the empyrean, which is wholly luminous; the second is the aqueous or crystalline, wholly transparent; and the third is called the starry heaven, in part transparent, and in part actually luminous, and divided into eight spheres. One of these is the sphere of the fixed stars; the other seven, which may be called the seven heavens, are the spheres of the planets. In the second place, the name heaven is applied to a body that participates in any property of the heavenly body, as sublimity and luminosity, actual or potential. Thus Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii) holds as one heaven all the space between the waters and the moon's orb, calling it the aerial. According to him, then, there are three heavens, the aerial, the starry, and one higher than both these, of which the Apostle is understood to speak when he says of himself that he was "rapt to the third heaven." But since this space contains two elements, namely, fire and air, and in each of these there is what is called a higher and a lower region Rabanus subdivides this space into four distinct heavens. The higher region of fire he calls the fiery heaven; the lower, the Olympian heaven from a lofty mountain of that name: the higher region of air he calls, from its brightness, the ethereal heaven; the lower, the aerial. When, therefore, these four heavens are added to the three enumerated above, there are seven corporeal heavens in all, in the opinion of Rabanus. Thirdly, there are metaphorical uses of the word heaven, as when this name is applied to the Blessed Trinity, Who is the Light and the Most High Spirit. It is explained by some, as thus applied, in the words, "I will ascend into heaven"; whereby the evil spirit is represented as seeking to make himself equal with God. Sometimes also spiritual blessings, the recompense of the Saints, from being the highest of all good gifts, are signified by the word heaven, and, in fact, are so signified, according to Augustine (De Serm. Dom. in Monte), in the words, "Your reward is very great in heaven" (Matthew 5:12). Again, three kinds of supernatural visions, bodily, imaginative, and intellectual, are called sometimes so many heavens, in reference to which Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xii) expounds Paul's rapture "to the third heaven."
Iª q. 68 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod terra se habet ad caelum, ut centrum ad circumferentiam. Circa unum autem centrum possunt esse multae circumferentiae. Unde una terra existente, multi caeli ponuntur. Reply to Objection 1. The earth stands in relation to the heaven as the centre of a circle to its circumference. But as one center may have many circumferences, so, though there is but one earth, there may be many heavens.
Iª q. 68 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de caelo, secundum quod importat universitatem creaturarum corporalium. Sic enim est unum caelum tantum. Reply to Objection 2. The argument holds good as to the heaven, in so far as it denotes the entire sum of corporeal creation, for in that sense it is one.
Iª q. 68 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod in omnibus caelis invenitur communiter sublimitas et aliqua luminositas, ut ex dictis patet. Reply to Objection 3. All the heavens have in common sublimity and some degree of luminosity, as appears from what has been said.

Notes


  • [[]]
Personal tools