First Conclusion. On the first day God created all the Heavens as to substance—namely, the Empyrean, the Sidereal, and the Aerial. This conclusion is sufficiently proved from Scripture and the Fathers (ch. 1, q. 1, from num. 6 to 17; and q. 6, where [I treat] particularly of the Empyrean, from num. 24 to 31); and from what was said there, it is plain that this is more probable than that only the Empyrean and the elements were created. Nor is it against the conclusion if someone should say that the sidereal heavens were made on the second day—provided he say they were made not by creation or substantial generation, but by the expansion of water [already] made (into the Planetary heaven) and by [its] condensation into the heaven of the fixed stars, or into the crystalline and watery heaven: since, by this very [fact]—that that water was created on the first day, and is not afterward posited as substantially changed—he posits those [heavens] as created, as to substance, on the first day.
[Margin: All the heavens created in substance on the first day.]
[II.] Second Conclusion. On the second day God made, from the elemental waters, one Firmament—that is, the Sidereal heaven; then [also] the Crystalline and Watery heaven (provided the two are really distinguished from each other and from the Firmament); or, as [is] more probable, [provided] there be one Firmament, or [the] Empyrean. This conclusion likewise is manifest from the sacred letters and very many Fathers and Doctors (ch. 1, in all that was said, at qq. 1 and 2). And there we refuted the two first false opinions—one about the Angels, the other about the air and clouds [as] founded on that day.
[Margin: The heaven made from water on the second day.]
[III.] Third Conclusion. It is more probable—and, resting on the [established] authority of the Fathers [and] Sacred Scripture—that the watery heaven, or the Waters which are above the Heavens, are fluid; or at least [that they] are really distinguished from the crystalline Heaven, or [are] its supreme part. For (ch. 1, from num. 3 to 8) we showed, from Scripture and the Fathers, that the Firmament was made on the second day from water consolidated in the manner of ice or crystal (num. 4 to 8); [and] that there are true waters above the Firmament—not attenuated into vapours (or, as more affirm, attenuated), but [that they] are liquid, like the elemental [waters], or consolidated into ice (as [we showed] from num. 8 to 9). Wherefore those waters—or the “watery heaven,” as they are called by some of the Doctors—[whether they] are really distinguished from the Firmament [or are its supreme part]…
[Margin: The Watery and Crystalline heaven distinguished.]
[IV.] Fourth Conclusion. It is more probable that the solid heaven, like ice or crystal, is that heaven in which are the Fixed (non-wandering) stars—or even that other heaven which was placed by God immediately above this [one]—but [that] the heaven of the Planets is fluid. This conclusion is one of the chief [ones] investigated by us hitherto with so great a knowledge of the authorities; and therefore, by distinct arguments, I shall establish [it as], unless I am mistaken, the most valid.
[Margin: The upper part of the sidereal heaven solid, the lower fluid.]
First, then: from the Fathers and Doctors, many and most weighty [authors hold] the Firmament to be solid—taking “solidity” for such a hardness as ice or crystal has, or even [as] the tabernacle itself [has]—as is clear from what was said (ch. 2, from num. 2 to 4); and not a few acknowledge the same solidity in the waters placed above the heavens. But, on the contrary, many others, no less weighty—nay, some of those very [authors] who asserted the aforesaid solidity—nevertheless teach that the heaven is not [solid] with an enclosed hardness; others [teach it is] fluid and permeable, as is clear from what was said (ch. 2, num. 4 and 5). Now those who asserted solidity with hardness build, first of all, [the argument] that the heaven [must] be fit to sustain the waters above the heavens (which are fluid), and to separate the invisible heaven from the visible. But those who contend the heaven is fluid—and [argue] more evidently for its fluidity—rely first of all on the motion of the Luminaries through an immobile heaven, or [on the fact] that motion is nowhere attributed to the heaven [by Scripture], but only to the Planets. Therefore [these two camps] can in no way be better reconciled among themselves than by distinguishing—and conceding solidity and hardness to the supreme heaven of the visible [heavens], or to the supreme part of the Firmament (which is distinguished [as that] upon which the same burden falls: of sustaining the hypercelestial waters, and bounding and separating the Empyrean from the visible); but, to the heaven in which the Luminaries move—and so to that of the rest of the Planets, with the Sun as [their] leader [coryphaeus]—conceding fluidity. And it is better thus to [reconcile] so many Fathers (since the text altogether permits this—nay, indicates such a distinction) than to suppose them [irreconcilably] at odds among themselves, or to drag [them] into one extreme opinion without any necessity.
[Margins: 1st Argument; 2nd Argument.]
Secondly: by the same conclusion, not only are the Fathers and Theologians reconciled among themselves [for] me, but also with the more recent and more skilled Astronomers—as will be clear from what is to be said (ch. 7, especially at the end). Why, then, should we not foster this covenant [with the whole] divine workmanship?
Thirdly: Sacred Scripture itself, as we have said, sufficiently indicates that some heaven is hard—inasmuch as [it is] fit for dividing the upper waters from the lower, and [that] this [heaven is] to be conserved perpetually; and we showed (ch. 2, num. 2) that this is gathered from the Hebrew name itself. But the same [Scripture], when it says that the Luminaries move freely through the heavens—never mentioning a motion of their heaven [carrying them], as was said (ch. 2, num. 4)—indicates that at least that part of the heaven through which they are borne does not move, [given] the supposed impenetrability of bodies, even celestial ones (although the Theologians elicit [that] impenetrability from the sacred letters, as I here suppose). Therefore the aforesaid conclusion is very consonant with the sacred letters, and so more probable; nor is it at all incongruous that that [text] of Proverbs 8, “When he made firm the ether above,” be understood of the supreme part of the ether, [as] solidified.
[Margins: 3rd Argument; 4th Argument.]
Fourthly: among the Fathers who dispute about the solidity and fluidity of the heaven, many speak only indefinitely; but [those] who speak more distinctly of some [particular] part of the Firmament ascribe solidity and hardness only to the supreme sidereal heaven (or [that] of the fixed stars), [while] the rest of the firmament—as permeable by the Planets—they grant [to be] the Planetary heaven. Of whom, although I have already adduced some, it pleases [me] here to repeat a few select words to this purpose. St. Bonaventure (2, dist. 14, part 1, art. 1, q. 1) calls [it] the common [opinion] of the Physicists and Mathematicians, that the Planets move in the heaven in one continuous body, subtle and very mobile—of which kind are air and water. And clearly St. Anselm (bk. 1 On the Image of the World, ch. 22), where he says: “The higher heaven is called ‘firmament,’ because it is a firmament in the midst of the waters”; then, “this is of a spherical form, [of] the nature of waters; everywhere adorned with fiery stars, solidified like ice—nay, [like] crystal.” If it is the higher [heaven], and everywhere adorned with stars, then he called that the eighth heaven, or sphere of the fixed [stars]. But he himself opens [the matter] immediately, [in his] words at num. 24, when he subjoins, concerning the Planetary heaven: “Fire, the fourth element, is extended from the Moon up to the firmament; it is only so much more subtle than air, as much as [air is thinner than water]…”
[Margins: St. Bonaventure; St. Anselm.]
[Anselm’s words are completed at the top of p. 225: “…and water rarer than earth; here too the ether is called, as it were, pure air; in this [heaven] the seven stars are borne, each in its own circle, against the course of the world, and for [their] wandering course are called Planets.” P. 225 then continues with Isidore (the Sun “moves by itself, not turned with the world”), Richard of St.-Victor, and William of Paris.]
(printed p. 225): The page gathers further authorities distinguishing the firmament of the fixed stars from the planetary heavens: Anselm on the seven stars borne each in its own circle against the course of the world, Isidore affirming the Sun moves by itself and is not fixed in its heaven, Richard of St.-Victor on the luminaries fixed in the Firmament except the seven Planets, and William of Paris, who holds the Firmament a condensed heaven made from water, distinct from the seven planetary orbs.
Likewise, even more distinctly, St. Thomas distinguishes [it] (in postils on Genesis): “But that Firmament which divides those waters is the sidereal heaven, or the Fixed Stars themselves, which is not [the] Planet[s] and their orbs”—[“under which,” he said,] “not in which.” Hamerus too reports, and tacitly approves, the same opinion—[those authors] who came to [this] understanding from Astronomy; for [the firmament is], by interpretation, [the heaven] fit for the array of the torches of the stars: this is called by the Greeks Aplanḗs [the “non-wandering” sphere], and by the Latins “inerratic.” And clearly Catharinus (Enarration on Genesis ch. 1): “The heaven, therefore, which we call sidereal—namely the eighth, [bearing the fixed stars, and] not a Planet—I [hold] must be understood by this name [Firmament]“—which is far more apt and correct. But also Dionysius the Carthusian (in his Commentary on Genesis, art. 10): “What is to be understood by the name ‘Firmament’ he considers from this—that a little after, those [stars] are said to be ‘placed in the firmament’; and so, God commanding, the firmament was made, that is, the Heaven of the stars, which is the eighth sphere; because beneath it are the seven spheres, or orbs and heavens of the planets”… so that the Firmament made of water is the shell by which the Planetary heavens are contained within its ambit. He subjoins, moreover: “I already think the exposition of those [authors] more reasonable, and more consonant with the text and with the ancient and holy Doctors, who say that in the beginning the celestial bodies and the elements were produced together, under distinct and proper substantial forms; therefore the Firmament and the Orbs of the Planets [were] created in the beginning as to their whole substance,” etc.—so he distinguishes the Firmament and the eighth sphere from the orbs of the Planets.
[Margins: St. Isidore; Richard of St.-Victor; William of Paris; St. Thomas; Hamerus; Catharinus; the Carthusian.]
This very thing those words of Hugh of St.-Cher sound (in postils): “The Firmament, the surface of the sensible world, [made] from waters congealed into crystal (as they say), containing all other sensible [things], after the likeness of a single shell; and it is called ‘firmament’ because [it is] firm.” With whom plainly agrees the [author of the] Scholastic History on Genesis, or Peter Comestor: “The Firmament, in the midst of the waters, fixes a certain outer surface of the world, [made] from waters congealed [and] consolidated like crystal, and translucent, containing within [it] the rest of the sensible [things], after the image of the shell which is in an egg; and in it are the stars.” Moreover, from num. 4 of the second chapter, it is established that the heaven of the Planets does not move, but is permeated by the Planets (according to Chrysostom, Anselm, Procopius, Junilius, the Carthusian, etc.); just as, from num. 3, it is established that the supreme part of the heaven, which divides the upper waters, is solid. Therefore from these [it is] gathered, [as] more probable, that this [supreme part] indeed [is] solid, but the [heaven] of the Planets [is] fluid and permeable.
[Margins: Hugh of St.-Cher; Comestor; Chrysostom, Procopius, Junilius.]
Fifth [argument]: that the heaven of the Planets is, according to not a few Doctors, the Aether or Fire; and this, without doubt, [is] more fluid, and—[as] yielding air—more apt for those mobile bodies. The major proposition is proved, first, by the authority of St. Anselm of Canterbury (adduced a little before, from num. 4), and of Junilius (in his Hexaemeron), saying: “It must be understood that [the bird] flies below the firmament of heaven.” So they number the Heaven in place of the element fire: Innocent III, the Pope, on the fifth penitential Psalm, saying: “In the creation of the World, Heaven and Earth—the first and the lowest among the four elements—were created together.” And since Bede likewise judged the same in his exposition of Genesis, when he says, “Since the World consists of four elements—Heaven, Air, Water, and Earth.” Similarly, more or less, Hugh of St.-Cher (in postils): “‘Heaven,’ that is, the two higher elements [fire and air]; ‘Earth,’ the two lower.” Nor do Tostatus (on Genesis ch. 1) and Rupert (bk. 1 Commentary on Genesis, ch. 8) deny [it]: from Plato’s opinion they so understand Genesis to have been [composed]; and even Plato, when he had read this Scripture, etc.—because by “Heaven” he suspected fire also to be signified, he thought only four elements (namely fire, earth, air, and water) were here enumerated. To which pertains that [text] of St. Augustine (On Genesis to the Letter, the imperfect [work]; and On Genesis to the Letter, bk. 1, ch. 3). And so, above the air, the heaven is said to be pure fire; [it is] said also, from the opinion of Pliny (bk. 2, ch. 5): ”…I see [no reason] to doubt that the elements are four—fire highest, [whence come] the eyes of the shining stars.” Of old too the Stoics called the heaven a “mobile ardour,” and Heraclitus “fire”; and Empedocles (in Clement of Alexandria, bk. 4 Stromata) enumerated the four parts of the world in those words:
“Earth, and the swelling Sea, and the moist Air, and the Titan Aether, who binds all things together in a circle.”
Anaxagoras and Empedocles judged the sidereal heaven to be fiery, as Plutarch reports (bk. 2 On the Opinions [of the Philosophers], ch. 6); Pythagoras and the Egyptians thought the same, and Empedocles (bk. 1 On the Heaven, ch. 4). Wherefore [that] the ether, or heaven of the Planets, is fiery, I deem not [only] not strange, nor new, nor absurd, but vehemently probable—as Paracelsus [holds], and Del Río (on Genesis ch. 3), and Tellez (disp. 40 of [his] Physics, sect. 4): [namely] that in the Firmament the luminaries are placed in that way in which one would say, truly and properly, that something is “placed” in an egg, or in a vessel, even if it were not affixed to the wall itself, or [to] a crust. For the Firmament contains the heavens of the Planets, just as the shell [contains] the white and the yolk of the egg; [Del Río] says it is itself one heaven composing [the whole]—whence [that] which is called “firmament” [is what] Genesis 1 [so names]; which Suárez, Valentia, and Pererius ought the more willingly to concede, since they themselves, by the name “Firmament,” understand that whole diaphanous body which [extends] from the earth up to the supreme heaven.
[Margins: Innocent III; Bede; Hugh of St.-Cher; Plato; St. Augustine; Pliny; the Stoics; Heraclitus, Empedocles, the Egyptians; Tellez, Paracelsus, Del Río.]