|
Objection 1: It would seem that there is not to be any cleansing of
the world. For only that which is unclean needs cleansing. Now
God's creatures are not unclean, wherefore it is written (Acts
10:15): "That which God hath cleansed, do not thou call
common," i.e. unclean. Therefore the creatures of the world shall
not be cleansed.
Objection 2: Further, according to Divine justice cleansing is
directed to the removal of the uncleanness of sin, as instanced in the
cleansing after death. But there can be no stain of sin in the
elements of this world. Therefore, seemingly, they need not to be
cleansed.
Objection 3: Further, a thing is said to be cleansed when any
foreign matter that depreciates it is removed therefrom: for the
removal of that which ennobles a thing is not called a cleansing, but
rather a diminishing. Now it pertains to the perfection and nobility
of the elements that something of a foreign nature is mingled with
them, since the form of a mixed body is more noble than the form of a
simple body. Therefore it would seem nowise fitting that the elements
of this world can possibly be cleansed.
On the contrary, All renewal is effected by some kind of cleansing.
But the elements will be renewed; hence it is written (Apoc.
21:1): "I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first
heaven and the first earth was gone." Therefore the elements shall be
cleansed.
Further, a gloss [St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei xx, 16] on
1 Cor. 7:31, "The fashion of this earth passeth away,"
says: "The beauty of this world will perish in the burning of worldly
flames." Therefore the same conclusion follows.
I answer that, Since the world was, in a way, made for man's
sake, it follows that, when man shall be glorified in the body, the
other bodies of the world shall also be changed to a better state, so
that it is rendered a more fitting place for him and more pleasant to
look upon. Now in order that man obtain the glory of the body, it
behooves first of all those things to be removed which are opposed to
glory. There are two, namely the corruption and stain of
sin---because according to 1 Cor. 15:50, "neither shall
corruption possess incorruption," and all the unclean shall be without
the city of glory (Apoc. 22:15)---and again, the elements
require to be cleansed from the contrary dispositions, ere they be
brought to the newness of glory, proportionately to what we have said
with regard to man. Now although, properly speaking, a corporeal
thing cannot be the subject of the stain of sin, nevertheless, on
account of sin corporeal things contract a certain unfittingness for
being appointed to spiritual purposes; and for this reason we find that
places where crimes have been committed are reckoned unfit for the
performance of sacred actions therein, unless they be cleansed
beforehand. Accordingly that part of the world which is given to our
use contracts from men's sins a certain unfitness for being glorified,
wherefore in this respect it needs to be cleansed. In like manner with
regard to the intervening space, on account of the contact of the
elements, there are many corruptions, generations and alterations of
the elements, which diminish their purity: wherefore the elements need
to be cleansed from these also, so that they be fit to receive the
newness of glory.
Reply to Objection 1: When it is asserted that every creature of
God is clean we are to understand this as meaning that its substance
contains no alloy of evil, as the Manichees maintained, saying that
evil and good are two substances in some places severed from one
another, in others mingled together. But it does not exclude a
creature from having an admixture of a foreign nature, which in itself
is also good, but is inconsistent with the perfection of that
creature. Nor does this prevent evil from being accidental to a
creature, although not mingled with it as part of its substance.
Reply to Objection 2: Although corporeal elements cannot be the
subject of sin, nevertheless, from the sin that is committed in them
they contract a certain unfitness for receiving the perfection of
glory.
Reply to Objection 3: The form of a mixed body and the form of an
element may be considered in two ways: either as regards the perfection
of the species, and thus a mixed body is more perfect---or as
regards their continual endurance; and thus the simple body is more
noble, because it has not in itself the cause of corruption, unless it
be corrupted by something extrinsic: whereas a mixed body has in itself
the cause of its corruption, namely the composition of contraries.
Wherefore a simple body, although it be corruptible in part is
incorruptible as a whole, which cannot be said of a mixed body. And
since incorruption belongs to the perfection of glory, it follows that
the perfection of a simple is more in keeping with the perfection of
glory, than the perfection of a mixed body, unless the mixed body has
also in itself some principle of incorruption, as the human body has,
the form of which is incorruptible. Nevertheless, although a mixed
body is somewhat more noble than a simple body, a simple body that
exists by itself has a more noble being than if it exist in a mixed
body, because in a mixed body simple bodies are somewhat in
potentiality, whereas, existing by themselves, they are in their
ultimate perfection.
|
|