Dist. 14, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 1
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/2/d/14/q/bon-sent-II-d14-p1-a1-q1
----------------------------------------
### 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 1: *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.

If you say that *firmament* there is called not the starry heaven but the air, the following text 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 Psalm: *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 Letter*, 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 says: «*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 text: «*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 world; 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 nature; 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 Letter*: 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 constitution: 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 *Confessions*: *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 heavy: 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 higher: 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 rarity; but the air universally is more subtle than water and more rare,

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 same: 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 Letter*, 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 seems — 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 *Confessions* 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 *Hexaëmeron*; 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 nature 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 water. But as regards the nature

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.