On a Purely Bodily Creature

Question 11

On a purely bodily creature

Article 1

Whether the empyrean heaven has influence over other bodies

Then last it was asked concerning a purely bodily creature, namely, whether the empyrean heaven has influence over other bodies?

Obj. 1: And it seems it does not, because every body which naturally influences other bodies, influences those which are near before those which are remote. If, therefore, the empyrean heaven were to influence inferior bodies, it would influence the watery heaven, which is nearer to it, before the starry heaven. But this seems unfitting, because the starry heaven is more like the empyrean heaven, since neither is from the nature of the four elements, than is the watery heaven, which is from the nature of the four elements. For those waters are said to have been placed there to cool the heat arising from the motion of the heaven, by reason of which Saturn, which is highest amongst the planets, is said to have coolness. (Cf. Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 2.5, para. 9 (CSEL 28:38–39; PL 34:266–67).) Therefore, the empyrean heaven does not influence inferior bodies.

On the contrary: In the book On the Intelligences (Adam of Puteorum Villa, Book on Intelligences, prop. 7.1; see Clemens Baeumker, Witelo, Beiträge zur Geschichte der philosophie des Mittelalters (Münster: Druck und Verlag der Achendorffschen Buchhandlung, 1900), bk. 3, 2:8.) it is said that everything which influences others is light or having light, and in a comment it is said that every influence is through the power of light. (Adam of Puteorum Villa, Book on Intelligences, Prop. 7.2, para. 1; see Baeumker, Witelo, 3.2:9.) But the empyrean heaven especially has light amongst other bodies. Therefore, it influences other bodies.

I answer that certain men posit (Albert the Great, In II Sent., d. 2 G, a. 6, 27:54–55.) that the empyrean heaven does not have influence upon other bodies, for it was not instituted for natural effects but for this: that it be the place of the blessed. And so, indeed, it once seemed to me. (Aquinas, In II Sent. 2.2.3.)

But to one considering more diligently it seems rather that it must be said that it influences inferior bodies because the whole universe is one by unity of order, as is clear through the Philosopher in the eleventh book of the Metaphysics. (See: Aristotle, Metaphysics, 12.10, 1075a11–15.) Yet this unity of order is attended according as bodily things are ruled by a certain order through spiritual things and inferior bodies through superior, as Augustine says in book three of On the Trinity. (Augustine, On the Trinity 3.4, para. 9 (CCSL 50:135–36; PL 42:873).) Hence, if the empyrean heaven were not to influence inferior bodies, the empyrean heaven would not be contained under the unity of the universe, which is unfitting. Yet its more proper effect seems to be perpetuity and persisting in inferior bodies.

For, according to the Philosopher in book eleven of the Metaphysics, in heaven there are principally two motions. (Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics, 12.6, 1072a9–18; On Generation and Corruption 2.10, 336a15–337a33.) One of these is from east to west, which is called daily and is over the equinox poles; and because this is uniform, it causes perpetuity in inferior motions. Yet the other motion is from west to east, by which the sun and other planets are moved, which is over the zodiac poles, through which the planets accede to and recede from us. Hence that motion properly causes the difference of generation and corruption and other motions in these inferior things. And thus, the generation and corruption of these inferior things is continued as long as God wills; which indeed, as regards continuity, is caused by the first motion, yet as regards contrariety by the second.

Yet just as uniformity of motion precedes non-uniformity, so also unity of rest precedes uniformity of motion because to be moved is to have oneself now otherwise than before, yet to rest is to have oneself in the same mode as before; (Aristotle, Physics 6.3, 234b5–7; 5.8, 239a14–16.) and thus, rest has pure unity, yet uniformity of motion has unity with diversity. And for this reason, the first heaven, namely, the empyrean, singularly influences through its own rest; yet the second heaven, which is called watery, influences through its own uniform motion; yet the third heaven, namely, the starry heaven, influences through its own diverse motion. Yet it is proper to this body that it influences without motion, inasmuch as it is supreme, touching in some way the order of spiritual substances, just as Dionysius says in chapter two of On the Divine Names, that divine wisdom joins the principles of second things to the ends of first things. (Rather: Pseudo-Dionysius, On the Divine Names 7, para. 3 (PG 3:871, 875).)

Reply Obj. 1: It must be said that the empyrean heaven influences the watery heaven more than inferior bodies, namely, inasmuch as the watery heaven receives more from the influence of the empyrean heaven, as its uniformity of motion shows. Hence, also, it accords more with the empyrean heaven by the character of its uniformity than does the starry heaven. Yet concerning the celestial bodies there is a twofold opinion. One is that these are from the nature of the elements, according to which the empyrean heaven would be from the nature of fire, the watery heaven from the nature of water or air; yet the starry heaven is composed from both natures because in part it is lucid and in part diaphanous; and to this opinion it pertains that it is said that waters are there to chill. (Cf. ST I.68.2, ad 3.) Yet there is another opinion, that the celestial bodies are not from the nature of the four elements but from a fifth essence. According to this even the watery heaven is not from the nature of the four elements but is called watery on account of its diaphaneity, just as this is called the empyrean, that is, fiery, heaven on account of its light. (Cf. above: Quodlibet IV, q. 2, a. 2, resp.)

Reply Sed Contra: We concede the contrary, although the book On the Intelligences be not of any authority, nor is it even true that every influence is by the character of light, unless light be taken metaphorically for every act, just as every agent acts inasmuch as it is a being in act. (Cf. Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s On Sense and What is Sensed, tr. 1, ch. 4, nn. 138–39.) Or this can be true in bodily things only, in which light properly is said, namely, inasmuch as bodily light is a form of the first bodily agent, namely, heaven, (Cf. Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s On the Soul, bk. 2, lect. 14, n. 420.) in whose power all inferior bodies act.

And at present let these words suffice.