|
Objection 1: It would seem that there are not waters above the
firmament. For water is heavy by nature, and heavy things tend
naturally downwards, not upwards. Therefore there are not waters
above the firmament.
Objection 2: Further, water is fluid by nature, and fluids cannot
rest on a sphere, as experience shows. Therefore, since the
firmament is a sphere, there cannot be water above it.
Objection 3: Further, water is an element, and appointed to the
generation of composite bodies, according to the relation in which
imperfect things stand towards perfect. But bodies of composite nature
have their place upon the earth, and not above the firmament, so that
water would be useless there. But none of God's works are useless.
Therefore there are not waters above the firmament.
On the contrary, It is written (Gn. 1:7): "(God) divided
the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above
the firmament."
I answer with Augustine (Gen. ad lit. ii, 5) that, "These
words of Scripture have more authority than the most exalted human
intellect. Hence, whatever these waters are, and whatever their mode
of existence, we cannot for a moment doubt that they are there." As
to the nature of these waters, all are not agreed. Origen says
(Hom. i in Gen.) that the waters that are above the firmament are
"spiritual substances." Wherefore it is written (Ps.
148:4): "Let the waters that are above the heavens praise the
name of the Lord," and (Dn. 3:60): "Ye waters that are
above the heavens, bless the Lord."To this Basil answers (Hom.
iii in Hexaem.) that these words do not mean that these waters are
rational creatures, but that "the thoughtful contemplation of them by
those who understand fulfils the glory of the Creator." Hence in the
same context, fire, hail, and other like creatures, are invoked in
the same way, though no one would attribute reason to these.
We must hold, then, these waters to be material, but their exact
nature will be differently defined according as opinions on the
firmament differ. For if by the firmament we understand the starry
heaven, and as being of the nature of the four elements, for the same
reason it may be believed that the waters above the heaven are of the
same nature as the elemental waters. But if by the firmament we
understand the starry heaven, not, however, as being of the nature of
the four elements then the waters above the firmament will not be of the
same nature as the elemental waters, but just as, according to
Strabus, one heaven is called empyrean, that is, fiery, solely on
account of its splendor: so this other heaven will be called aqueous
solely on account of its 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.
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.
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.
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.
|
|