Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

Book Two — the heavens and the stars

QUESTION I. Whether, according to sacred Scripture, the nature of the stars and of the heaven is constituted incorruptible

LatineEnglish

QUESTION I. Whether, according to sacred Scripture, the nature of the stars and of the heaven is constituted incorruptible.1

QUAESTIO I. An secundum sacram Scripturam stellae et caeli natura constent incorruptibili.

LEGENTI Sacras litteras verasque credenti, et sanctorum Patrum scripta pervolutanti, non potest esse dubium quin Caeli aliquo modo interituri sint et in meliorem statum commutandi. Hoc enim concordi sententia tradunt omnes Patres: Iustinus respondens ad quaestiones orthodoxorum 93, 94 et 95, Basilius homilia 1 et 3 in Genesim, Ambrosius lib. 1 in Hexameron c. 6, Gregorius Nyssenus in libro de Creatione hominis capite 24, Philastrius in Catalogo hae[reseon]...
To one who reads the Sacred writings and believes them true, and who pores over the writings of the holy Fathers, there can be no doubt that the Heavens are in some way to perish and to be changed into a better state. For this all the Fathers deliver with one accord: Justin, answering the questions of the orthodox 93, 94, and 95; Basil in homilies 1 and 3 on Genesis; Ambrose in book 1 on the Hexameron, chapter 6; Gregory of Nyssa in his book on the Creation of Man, chapter 24; Philastrius in his Catalogue of here[sies]...2
...[hae]reseon, Chrysostomus homil. 10 ad populum Antiochenum, et homil. 14 super 8 caput epistolae ad Romanos, et in eiusdem loci Commentario Theodoretus. Sed quid attinet recensere singulos, cum fere omnium haec sit sententia? Nec mirum sane id fuisse omnibus persuasum; quippe hoc multis in locis sacrarum litterarum scriptum et inculcatum legebant. Iob cap. 14 ait, Homo cum dormierit non resurget, donec atteratur caelum; non evigilabit, nec consurget de somno suo: sed homo aliquando resurget, ergo caelum etiam aliquando est atterendum. Isaias capite 24, Tabescet omnis militia caelorum, et complicabuntur sicut liber caeli, et omnis militia eorum defluet; et c. 51, Caeli sicut fumus liquescent, et terra sicut vestimentum atteretur; et c. 65, Ego creo caelos novos et terram novam. David etiam Psalmo 101, Opera, inquit, manuum tuarum sunt caeli; ipsi peribunt, et omnes sicut vestimentum veterascent, et sicut opertorium mutabis eos et mutabuntur. Et in libro Ecclesiastici cap. 17 sic est, Quid lucidius sole? et hic deficiet. Dominus quoque noster in Evangelio Matth. c. 24 ait, Caelum et terra transibunt; et rursus Luc. 21, Stellae cadent de caelo, et virtutes caelorum movebuntur. Paulus etiam in cap. 8 epistolae ad Romanos, Vanitati, ait, creatura subiecta est non volens, sed liberabitur a servitute corruptionis in libertatem gloriae filiorum Dei; et 1 ad Corinthios cap. 7, Praeterit, inquit, figura huius mundi. Et Ioannes cap. 2 prioris epistolae, Mundus transit et concupiscentia eius. Sed apertius et explanatius hoc docet B. Petrus; is enim in posterioris Epistolae suae capit. 3 scriptum reliquit Caelos igni esse reservatos in diem iudicii, et eo die magno impetu transituros; tunc etiam fore ut caeli ardentes solvantur et elementa ignis ardore tabescant; novos etiam caelos et novam terram secundum promissa Dei a nobis exspectari. His adiice quod ait Ioannes in Apocalypsi cap. 6, 21 et 22, Vidi caelum novum et terram novam; primum enim caelum et prima terra abiit.
...of heresies; Chrysostom in homily 10 to the people of Antioch, and homily 14 on the eighth chapter of the epistle to the Romans, and Theodoret in his Commentary on the same passage. But what need is there to review them one by one, since this is the opinion of well-nigh all? Nor indeed is it any wonder that all were persuaded of it, since they read it written and inculcated in many places of the sacred writings. Job, in chapter 14, says, Man, when he has fallen asleep, shall not rise again, until the heaven is worn away; he shall not wake, nor rise from his sleep: but man shall at some time rise again; therefore the heaven too is at some time to be worn away. Isaiah, in chapter 24, The whole host of the heavens shall waste away, and they shall be rolled up like a book of the heaven, and all their host shall fall down; and in chapter 51, The heavens shall vanish like smoke, and the earth shall be worn away like a garment; and in chapter 65, I create new heavens and a new earth. David too, in Psalm 101, The heavens, he says, are the works of thy hands; they shall perish, and all shall grow old like a garment, and as a covering thou shalt change them, and they shall be changed. And in the book of Ecclesiasticus, chapter 17, it stands thus, What is brighter than the sun? yet this shall fail. Our Lord too, in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 24, says, Heaven and earth shall pass away; and again in Luke 21, The stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be moved. Paul also, in chapter 8 of the epistle to the Romans, The creature, he says, was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but it shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God; and in 1 Corinthians, chapter 7, The fashion of this world passes away. And John, in chapter 2 of his first epistle, The world passes away, and the lust thereof. But more openly and explicitly does the blessed Peter teach this; for in chapter 3 of his second Epistle he left it written that the heavens are reserved unto fire against the day of judgment, and on that day shall pass away with great violence; that then also it shall come to pass that the burning heavens shall be dissolved and the elements shall melt with the heat of fire; and that new heavens and a new earth are awaited by us according to the promises of God. To these add what John says in the Apocalypse, chapters 6, 21, and 22, I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away.3
Quin hoc licet etiam argumentari ex eo quod tradit Moses in 4 capite Deuteronomii, Solem, lunam et astra esse a Deo creata in ministerium cunctis gentibus quae sub caelo sunt: sed post diem iudicii nec motus, nec lucis, nec defluxus aut effectus alicuius caelestis ministerio erit opus homini; ergo necesse est tunc caelos, ne frustra sint, aut perire omnino, aut in alium quam nunc est statum commutari. Nec sacrarum modo, sed etiam prophanarum litterarum haec est doctrina: nam praeter unum Aristotelem, qui caelum fecit incorruptibile, et Platonem, qui caelum suapte natura vult quidem esse mortale ac dissolubile, Dei tamen voluntate conservatum iri ne dissolvatur unquam, Heracliti, Empedoclis, Anaxagorae, Democriti, Stoicorum omnium atque Epicureorum, quibus adde etiam Sibyllarum carmina seu vaticinia, concors est sententia mundum hunc et corruptibilem esse, et aliquando tandem interiturum.
Indeed one may also argue this from what Moses delivers in the fourth chapter of Deuteronomy, that the sun, moon, and stars were created by God for the service of all the nations that are under heaven: but after the day of judgment man will have no need of the ministry of motion, of light, of any influence or effect of any celestial body; therefore it is necessary that the heavens then—lest they be in vain—either perish altogether or be changed into another state than they now are. Nor is this the doctrine of the sacred writings only, but of the profane as well: for, except Aristotle alone, who made the heaven incorruptible, and Plato, who indeed holds the heaven to be by its own nature mortal and dissoluble, yet to be preserved by God's will so that it never be dissolved, the judgment of Heraclitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Democritus, of all the Stoics and the Epicureans—to whom add also the songs or oracles of the Sibyls—is in accord that this world is both corruptible and at some time at last to perish.4
Ex his adhuc dicta sunt, et aliis similibus quae in eandem sententiam (nisi longiores in re aperta nec turbam testium desiderante esse noluissemus) adduci potuissent, satis apparet sacrae Scripturae...
From these things now said, and from others like them which could have been brought forward to the same effect (had we not been unwilling to be too long in a matter plain and requiring no crowd of witnesses), it is sufficiently apparent that, following the doctrine of sacred Scripture...5
...[Scri]pturae doctrinam sequenti minime dubitandum esse quin caelum aliquando sit aliquo modo interiturum, certe in aliam quam nunc habet formam statumque redigendum. Sed illud est in controversia, qualis futura sit suprema caelorum et mundi commutatio: an secundum substantiam, ut plane intereant; an secundum qualitates et facultates suas, et secundum actiones et effectus; an tantummodo per solam cessationem et vacationem a motu, vel aliqua alia ratione. B. Augustinus, cuius iam pridem in disceptatione huius quaestionis fere Theologis omnibus probata est sententia, in libro 20 De civitate Dei cap. 24, supradictum B. Petri locum expendens, affirmat superiores caelos in quibus sunt astra supremo mundi incendio nec esse purificandos nec ab igne aliquatenus attingendos, sed aereos duntaxat caelos et elementa conflagratione illius ignis esse renovanda. Etenim eodem in loco Petrus significat eosdem caelos igne arsuros qui olim diluvio perierunt; quis autem nescit aquas Noëtici diluvii excessisse quidem montes omnes quindecim cubitis, veruntamen a caelis sydereis longissime abfuisse? Hanc Augustini doctrinam, ut dixi, plerique omnes sequuntur Theologi, praesertim autem Scholastici, ut videre est eorum disputationes hac de re in quarto Sententiarum super distinctione 48: qui, cum Scriptura (inquit) fore ut caeli senescant, atterantur, liquescant, transeant et pereant, censent haec et alia eius generis (si quae sunt alia) non de caelis sydereis, sed de aereis esse intelligenda atque interpretanda; nec obstare huic interpretationi quod Scriptura numero plurali dicat caelos perituros: ea namque servat in hoc vim et usum linguae Hebraeae, in qua vox Caelum caret numero singulari.
...of Scripture, there can be no doubt at all that the heaven is at some time in some manner to perish—certainly to be reduced to another form and state than it now has. But this is in dispute: of what kind shall be the supreme change of the heavens and of the world—whether according to substance, so that they utterly perish; or according to their qualities and faculties, and according to their actions and effects; or only by a mere cessation and rest from motion, or in some other way. The blessed Augustine, whose opinion has long since been approved by almost all the theologians in the discussion of this question, in book 20 of The City of God, chapter 24, weighing the aforesaid passage of the blessed Peter, affirms that the higher heavens, in which are the stars, are neither to be purified by the final conflagration of the world nor in any degree to be touched by fire, but that only the aerial heavens and the elements are to be renewed by the burning of that fire. For in the same passage Peter signifies that the same heavens shall burn with fire which once perished by the flood; and who does not know that the waters of Noah's flood, though they exceeded all the mountains by fifteen cubits, were yet very far removed from the starry heavens? This doctrine of Augustine, as I said, almost all the theologians follow, but especially the Scholastics, as may be seen in their disputations on this matter in the fourth book of the Sentences, on distinction 48: who, since (it is said) Scripture foretells that the heavens shall grow old, be worn, melt, pass away, and perish, judge that these and other things of the kind (if there be any others) are to be understood and interpreted not of the starry heavens, but of the aerial; and that no obstacle to this interpretation is raised by Scripture's saying in the plural that the heavens will perish, for in this it preserves the force and usage of the Hebrew tongue, in which the word ‘Heaven’ lacks the singular number.6
Illud tamen magis videtur officere huic expositioni, quod David Psalmo 101, cum inquit, Initio tu Domine terram fundasti, et opera manuum tuarum sunt caeli, haud dubie loquitur de caelis supremis; at enim mox subiicit, Ipsi peribunt, et omnes sicut vestimentum veterascent et mutabuntur: ergo non aereos modo caelos, sed etiam sydereos Scriptura docet esse interituros. Quare, ut et hoc et alia quae in hac quaestione difficultatem afferre possunt uno responso enodentur et expediantur omnia, admonent duplicem cogitari oportere mutationem et interitum: alterum quo res mortales corrumpuntur et abolentur, amissa natura quam habebant, qualem interitum negant Theologi caelis eventurum; alterum non verum, sed qui umbram tantum et similitudinem habet interitus, qui non est aliud quam vacatio quaedam a priori ministerio, usu et opere, et variatio status et conditionis. Peribunt igitur caeli, non ut animalia, ita ut dissolvantur et esse desinant, sed quia in alium statum transformabuntur, omnibus quae nunc exercent ministeriis, functionibus et effectibus vacuum. Etenim hominibus, quorum causa sunt conditi, e terra in caelestem aeternamque felicitatem translatis, non erit opus caeli motu, lumine, calore ceterisque syderum commoditatibus, quibus praesens haec mortalium vita fovetur atque sustentatur.
Yet this seems rather to stand against this exposition: that David, in Psalm 101, when he says, In the beginning, Lord, thou didst found the earth, and the heavens are the works of thy hands, is without doubt speaking of the supreme heavens; and yet he straightway adds, They shall perish, and all shall grow old like a garment and be changed: therefore Scripture teaches that not the aerial heavens only, but also the starry, shall perish. Wherefore, that both this and the other things which can bring difficulty into this question may all be untangled and dispatched by a single answer, they advise that a twofold change and perishing must be conceived: the one, by which mortal things are corrupted and abolished, losing the nature they had—which kind of perishing the theologians deny will befall the heavens; the other, not a true perishing, but one that has only the shadow and likeness of perishing, which is nothing else than a certain cessation from their former ministry, use, and operation, and a change of state and condition. The heavens, therefore, shall perish, not as animals do, so as to be dissolved and to cease to be, but because they shall be transformed into another state, void of all the ministries, functions, and effects which they now exercise. For when men, for whose sake they were founded, are translated from earth into the heavenly and eternal felicity, there will be no need of the motion of the heaven, of light, of heat, and of the other conveniences of the heavenly bodies, by which this present life of mortals is cherished and sustained.7
Beatus Hieronymus, tum super 51 tum super 65 caput Esaiae, extremam illam caelorum mutationem et interitum appellat renovationem eorum et promotionem in meliorem statum; et in Commentario super 65 cap. Esaiae, ex illis verbis David, Ipsi peribunt et sicut vestimentum veterascent, et tanquam opertorium mutabis eos et mutabuntur, argumentatur interitum caelorum non fore abolitionem eorum et dissolutionem, sed reformationem et renovationem. Neque enim illud quod dixit Esaiae capite 30, Luna fulgebit ut Sol, et Sol septuplum lumen accipiet, interitum significat pristinorum, sed commutationem in melius. Hoc Hieronymus exemplo nobis noto et familiari manifestum facit, ita subiiciens: Infans cum in puerum creverit, et puer in iuvenem, et iuvenis in virum, et vir in senem, nequaquam per singulas aetates perit: idem enim est qui prius fuit, sed paulatim immutatur, et aetati pristinae periisse dicitur. Quod intelligens et Paulus Apostolus loquebatur, Praeterit enim figura huius mundi. Consideremus quid dixerit: Figura praeterit, non substantia. Hoc idem significat non obscure et Beatus Petrus secunda epistola capite tertio: nam cum is dixisset et caelos et elementa incendio deflagratura et dissolvenda esse, ut intelligeretur qualem ipse dissolutionem et interitum intelligeret, mox subiecit, Novos autem caelos et novam terram videbimus: non dixit, alios caelos et aliam terram videbimus, sed veteres et antiquos in melius commutatos. Hactenus ex Hieronymo.
The blessed Jerome, both on the 51st and on the 65th chapter of Isaiah, calls that final change and perishing of the heavens their renovation and promotion to a better state; and in his Commentary on the 65th chapter of Isaiah, from those words of David, They shall perish and shall grow old like a garment, and as a covering thou shalt change them and they shall be changed, he argues that the perishing of the heavens will not be their abolition and dissolution, but their reformation and renovation. For neither does that which he said in Isaiah chapter 30, The moon shall shine as the sun, and the sun shall receive sevenfold light, signify the perishing of the former things, but a change for the better. This Jerome makes plain by an example known and familiar to us, adding thus: When the infant has grown into a boy, and the boy into a youth, and the youth into a man, and the man into an old man, he by no means perishes through the several ages: for he is the same who was before, but is gradually changed, and is said to have perished to his former age. Understanding this, the Apostle Paul too spoke, For the fashion of this world passes away. Let us consider what he said: The fashion passes away, not the substance. This same thing the blessed Peter also signifies, not obscurely, in his second epistle, chapter 3: for when he had said that both the heavens and the elements should be burned up and dissolved by fire, in order that it might be understood what kind of dissolution and perishing he himself meant, he straightway added, But we shall see new heavens and a new earth: he did not say, we shall see other heavens and another earth, but the old and ancient ones changed for the better. Thus far from Jerome.8
Pro hac sententia pulcherrimum locum Beati Gregorii ex libro decimoseptimo Moralium capite quinto hic ascribam.
In favor of this opinion I shall here transcribe a most beautiful passage of the blessed Gregory, from the seventeenth book of the Morals, chapter five.9

It may be asked, he says—since it is said through Solomon, One generation passes away and another generation comes, but the earth stands forever—why the blessed Job asserts that all things are humbled and taken away. Yet we easily resolve this, if we distinguish in what manner earth and heaven pass away, and in what manner they remain. For both of these pass away through the appearance which they now have, but yet through their essence subsist without end. For hence it is said through Paul, For the fashion of this world passes away; hence Truth says through herself, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away; hence to John it is declared by the angelic voice, There shall be a new heaven and a new earth—which indeed are not to be founded as others, but these very ones are renewed. Heaven, therefore, and earth both pass away and shall be, because both they are wiped by fire from the appearance which they now have, and yet are forever preserved in their own nature. Whence it is said through the Psalmist, Thou shalt change them, and they shall be changed. And this their final change is announced to us even now by the very vicissitudes by which, for our uses, they unceasingly alternate. For the earth fails of its appearance in winter dryness, and grows green again in the moisture of spring. The heaven is daily overcast by the gloom of night, and renewed by the brightness of day. Hence, then, let every believer gather that these things both perish and yet are restored through renewal, which we see to be continually repaired, as it were, from their failing. Thus far Gregory.10

Quaeri potest, inquit, cum per Salomonem dicitur, Generatio praeterit et generatio advenit, terra vero in aeternum stat, cur Beatus Iob omnia humiliari asserat et auferri? Quod tamen facile discutimus, si terra et caelum vel qualiter transeat vel qualiter maneat distingamus. Utraque namque haec per eam quam nunc habent imaginem transeunt, sed tamen per essentiam sine fine subsistunt. Hinc namque per Paulum dicitur, Praeterit enim figura huius mundi; hinc per semetipsam Veritas dicit, Caelum et terra transibunt, verba autem mea non transibunt; hinc ad Ioannem angelica voce perhibetur, Erit caelum novum et terra nova: quae quidem non alia condenda sunt, sed haec ipsa renovantur. Caelum igitur et terra transit et erit, quia et ab ea quam nunc habet specie per ignem tergitur, et tamen in sua semper natura servatur. Unde per Psalmistam dicitur, Mutabis eos et mutabuntur. Quam quidem ultimam commutationem suam ipsis nobis nunc vicissitudinibus nunciat, quibus nostris usibus indesinenter alternant. Nam terra a sua specie hyemali ariditate deficit, vernali humore viridescit. Caelum quotidie a caligine noctis obducitur, et diurna claritate renovatur. Hinc ergo fidelis quisque colligat, et interire haec et tamen per innovationem refici, quae constat nunc assidue velut ex defectu reparari. Haec Gregorius.

SED quia verba illa Petri non semel in hac disputatione commemorata, aut deinceps commemoranda, obscuritatem et difficultatem habent, maximeque attingunt praesentem controversiam, subtilius et accuratius explananda sunt. Sic autem, inquit Petrus, Caeli magno impetu transient, hoc est, in morem procellae transibunt: non quidem amissione substantiae suae, sed cessatione ministeriorum suorum suique status renovatione. Elementa vero calore solventur, hoc est, ardore ignis aestuantia, a cunctis sordibus praesentis corruptionis velut aurum igne purificabuntur. Augustinus libro vigesimo De civitate Dei capite vigesimoquarto, quod Petrus dicit de elementis, refert non ad omnia quatuor, sed ad ea tantum quae in imo sunt apud nos, terram nimirum et aerem: pro quo facit quod praemisit Petrus de diluvio, quod inferioribus duntaxat elementis nocuisse constat.
BUT since those words of Peter, mentioned more than once in this disputation, and to be mentioned hereafter, have obscurity and difficulty, and most of all touch the present controversy, they must be explained more subtly and accurately. Thus says Peter: The heavens shall pass away with great violence—that is, they shall pass after the manner of a storm: not indeed by the loss of their substance, but by the cessation of their ministries and the renovation of their state. But the elements shall be dissolved with heat—that is, glowing with the burning of fire, they shall be purified from all the filth of the present corruption, as gold is by fire. Augustine, in book 20 of The City of God, chapter 24, refers what Peter says of the ‘elements’ not to all four, but only to those which are lowest with us, namely earth and air: for which it makes that Peter premised the matter of the flood, which is agreed to have harmed only the lower elements.11
Beda vero, quia Petrus indefinite dixit elementa, putat omnia quatuor esse intelligenda; scribit enim ad hunc modum: Quatuor sunt elementa quae ignis ille maximus absumet, duo quidem in totum, ut penitus non sint, videlicet ignem et aquam; duo autem in meliorem restituet faciem, terram nimirum et aerem: quod satis innuit Petrus cum subiunxit, Novos caelos et novam terram exspectamus, per caelos aerem significans. De igne vero et aqua nihil tale legitur; quinimo in Apocalypsi capite 21 traditur, Et mare iam non est. Haec fere ille. Videtur igitur Beda sensisse, de quatuor elementis duo post diem iudicii secundum substantiam peritura.
Bede, however, because Peter said ‘elements’ indefinitely, thinks all four are to be understood; for he writes in this manner: There are four elements which that greatest fire shall consume—two indeed wholly, so that they are not at all, namely fire and water; but two it shall restore to a better face, namely earth and air: which Peter sufficiently hinted when he added, We await new heavens and a new earth, signifying by ‘heavens’ the air. But of fire and water nothing of the sort is read; nay rather, in the Apocalypse, chapter 21, it is delivered, And the sea is now no more. So, in effect, he. It seems, therefore, that Bede was of the mind that, of the four elements, two are to perish in substance after the day of judgment.12
Verum illud ex Apocalypsi productum, Et mare iam non est, non movit Augustinum ut putaret post diem iudicii non futurum mare; quippe tractans eum locum in libro vigesimo De civitate Dei capite decimosexto, Amat, inquit, Prophetica locutio propriis verbis translata miscere, ac sic quodammodo velare quod dicitur: potuit de illo mari dicere, Et mare iam non est, de quo supra dixerat, Et exhibuit mare mortuos qui in eo erant; iam enim tunc non erit hoc saeculum vita mortalium turbulentum et procellosum, quod maris nomine figuravit.
But that text adduced from the Apocalypse, And the sea is now no more, did not move Augustine to suppose that after the day of judgment there will be no sea; for, treating that passage in book 20 of The City of God, chapter 16, Prophetic speech, he says, loves to mingle figurative with literal words, and thus in a manner to veil what is said: he could say of that sea, And the sea is now no more, of which he had said above, And the sea gave up the dead that were in it; for then this present age—the turbulent and stormy life of mortals, which he figured by the name of ‘sea’—will be no more.13
Scholastici Theologi in quarto, super distinctione quadragesimaseptima, negant ullum elementum post diem iudicii secundum substantiam interiturum; quare Bonaventura interpretatus est Bedam non aliud significare voluisse quam in igne et aqua insigniorem fore mutationem quam in aliis elementis. Sanctus Thomas in quarto, distinctione quadragesimaseptima, quaestione secunda, ait dictum Bedae ita esse accipiendum: non quod duo illa elementa corrumpenda sint secundum substantiam, sed quod plus ceteris removenda sint a naturali proprietate, ministerio et statu quem nunc habent; cum enim excellant duabus qualitatibus maxime activis, quae sunt potissima principia alterationis et corruptionis, hoc est calore et frigore, post diem autem iudicii nulla sit futura istiusmodi qualitatum actio et usus, ob hanc causam videntur haec duo elementa adeo mutanda, ut fere secundum substantiam mutata videantur. Sed Beda in libro De sex aetatibus mundi capite sexagesimonono satis explicate et diserte sententiam suam exponit, quae prorsus nihil a supradicta opinione Augustini differt. Ceterum Philo in libro cui titulum fecit Quod mundus sit incorruptibilis, obnixe contendit multis argumentis persuadere mundum esse incorruptibilem, nec a statu quem adhuc habuit vel in deteriorem vel in meliorem aliquando esse...
The Scholastic Theologians, in the fourth book, on distinction 47, deny that any element will perish in substance after the day of judgment; wherefore Bonaventure interpreted that Bede meant nothing else than that there would be a more notable change in fire and water than in the other elements. St. Thomas, in the fourth book, distinction 47, question 2, says that Bede's saying is to be taken thus: not that those two elements are to be corrupted in substance, but that they are to be removed more than the others from the natural property, ministry, and state which they now have; for since they excel in the two most active qualities, which are the chief principles of alteration and corruption—that is, heat and cold—and after the day of judgment there will be no action or use of qualities of this kind, for this reason these two elements seem to be so far changed that they appear almost changed in substance. But Bede, in his book On the Six Ages of the World, chapter 69, sets forth his opinion clearly and plainly enough, which differs in nothing at all from the aforesaid opinion of Augustine. For the rest, Philo, in the book to which he gave the title That the World is Incorruptible, strenuously strives by many arguments to persuade that the world is incorruptible, and that it is never to be changed from the state which it has had until now, whether for the worse or for the better...14
...commutandum. Quanquam, an eius libri Philo sit auctor, multa me quidem certe faciunt ambigere: nam nec eius libri meminere Hieronymus et Eusebius in ea quam satis longam et diligentem omnium operum Philonis enumerationem descripserunt; et nisi me fallit animus, nec stylus, nec ratio disserendi, nec methodus et elocutio, nec genus ipsum doctrinae quae traditur, Philonem olet, aut etiam scriptorem quempiam Iudaeum: nusquam enim ponit ullum Scripturae testimonium ullumve exemplum; nusquam ulla argumentatio ex Sacrarum litterarum doctrina, vel secundum historiam vel secundum allegoriam, in quo Philo copiosus et excellens esse solet, contexitur: resipit autem disputatio illa magis philosophum quempiam Ethnicum, praesertim vero Peripateticae disciplinae alumnum atque propugnatorem.
...to be changed. And yet, whether Philo is the author of that book, many things certainly make me hesitate: for neither Jerome nor Eusebius mention this book in the rather long and careful enumeration which they drew up of all of Philo's works; and unless my judgment deceives me, neither the style, nor the manner of arguing, nor the method and diction, nor the very kind of doctrine which is delivered, smacks of Philo, or even of any Jewish writer at all: for nowhere does he set down any testimony of Scripture or any example; nowhere is any argument woven from the doctrine of the sacred writings, whether according to the history or according to the allegory, in which Philo is wont to be copious and excellent: rather, that disputation savors more of some pagan philosopher, and especially of a pupil and champion of the Peripatetic school.15
SED quia haec controversia ex his quae dicta sunt adhuc nequaquam satis explicata est, enitendum nobis est ut omnes nodos quoad eius fieri potest exolvamus, et, variis arduisque difficultatibus quibus implicata est explanatis, quam sententiam arbitramur rectae rationi, potissimum autem divinae Scripturae, maxime respondentem congruentemque aperiamus. Nec vero attinet hoc loco admonere lectorem in hac disceptatione non agi de absoluta potentia Dei, sed de eo quod facturum esse Deum vel ex sacris litteris vel ex Patrum sententiis vel ex probabilibus argumentis potest nobis constare. Etenim omnibus qui Christiane sapiunt et sacris litteris fidem habent, extra controversiam et dubitationem omnem esse debet Deum, qua libertate voluntatis et immensitate potestatis suae mundum ex nihilo condidit, posse eundem, si quidem is vellet, ad nihilum redigere. Apertam de hoc Scripturae sententiam habemus in 2 libro Machabeorum cap. 8, ubi sic est, Ipse potest universum mundum uno nutu delere. Simile quippiam colligi potest ex verbis Isaiae quae sunt in cap. 40, et ex verbis quae sunt in libro Sapientiae cap. 11. Non sum nescius hoc non iri probatum philosophis, praesertim autem Peripateticis, qui vel negant Deum molitorem et effectorem fuisse huius mundi (quod in rebus aeternis causa vere ac proprie efficiens ipsorum iudicio et sententia locum non habeat), vel existimant Deum non plena libertate voluntatis, sed ea naturae necessitate adductum fecisse mundum, ut opus quod ipse fecit retexere ac dissolvere non possit. Verum quaestionem hanc non cum philosophis in praesentia agitamus, sed apud Christianos et ex sacrae Scripturae et Christianae doctrinae decretis tractare instituimus.
BUT since this controversy is by no means yet sufficiently explained from the things that have been said, we must strive to loosen all the knots, so far as may be done, and—the various and hard difficulties in which it is entangled having been cleared up—to set forth what opinion we judge most answers and accords with right reason, and above all with divine Scripture. Nor is it to the purpose to warn the reader in this place that in this discussion we are treating not of God's absolute power, but of what we can establish, whether from the sacred writings or from the opinions of the Fathers or from probable arguments, that God will do. For to all who are wise in a Christian manner and have faith in the sacred writings, it ought to be beyond all controversy and doubt that God, by that liberty of will and immensity of power with which He founded the world out of nothing, can—if indeed He should will it—reduce it again to nothing. We have a plain statement of Scripture about this in the second book of Maccabees, chapter 8, where it stands thus, He can destroy the whole world with a single nod. Something similar can be gathered from the words of Isaiah in chapter 40, and from the words in the book of Wisdom, chapter 11. I am not unaware that this will not be approved by the philosophers, especially the Peripatetics, who either deny that God was the builder and maker of this world (because, in their judgment, in eternal things there is no place for a truly and properly efficient cause of them), or suppose that God made the world not by full liberty of will, but constrained by that necessity of nature, so that He cannot unmake and dissolve the work which He Himself made. But this question we are not for the present debating with the philosophers, but have undertaken to treat among Christians and from the decrees of sacred Scripture and Christian doctrine.16
PRINCIPIO igitur, ut hinc exordiar meae opinionis explanationem, mundum nunquam ita destructum iri arbitror ut nullus aliquando vel futurus sit: quippe hoc satis ostendit Scriptura quae futuram mundi mutationem vel purgationem vel renovationem vel servitutis et corruptionis liberationem nominat; quod disertis sane verbis docet Paulus in c. 8 Epistolae ad Romanos, cum scribit omnem creatu[ram]...
TO BEGIN, then, that I may here start the explanation of my opinion: I judge that the world will never be so destroyed that at any time it shall not even exist; for this Scripture sufficiently shows, which names the future change, or purgation, or renovation, or deliverance from bondage and corruption, of the world; which Paul teaches in plain words indeed in chapter 8 of the Epistle to the Romans, when he writes that every creat[ure]...17
...[creatu]ram, hoc est etiam rationis et sensus expertem, quodammodo anxie exspectare glorificationem electorum, ut ipsa simul cum illis a servitutis corruptione liberata, novitatem quandam et gloriam incorruptionis acquirat. Eodem pertinet quod ait Salomon in 3 capite libri Ecclesiastae, Didici quod omnia opera quae fecit Deus perseverent in perpetuum. Et vero Dei bonitatis ac sapientiae alienum videtur ut hoc tam praeclarum et omnibus numeris absolutum mundi opificium, et Dei potentiae ac providentiae non modo splendidissimum monumentum sed gravissimum etiam testimonium, penitus destruatur et ad nihilum redigatur. Profecto ita est: cum mundus hic corporeus praecipue factus sit propter hominem, convenit existimare similem fore mundi ut hominis corruptionem pariter atque renovationem; homo autem post diem iudicii ex corruptibili factus incorruptibilis, idem secundum substantiam omni aevo permanebit.
...creature—that is, even the one void of reason and sense—in a manner anxiously awaits the glorification of the elect, so that it, set free together with them from the corruption of bondage, may acquire a certain newness and glory of incorruption. To the same purpose is what Solomon says in the third chapter of the book of Ecclesiastes, I have learned that all the works which God has made continue forever. And indeed it seems foreign to the goodness and wisdom of God that this so splendid fashioning of the world, complete in every part, and not only a most glorious monument but also a most weighty testimony of God's power and providence, should be utterly destroyed and reduced to nothing. So in truth it is: since this corporeal world was made chiefly for the sake of man, it is fitting to suppose that the corruption and renovation of the world will be similar to that of man; and man, after the day of judgment, made from corruptible incorruptible, shall remain the same according to substance for every age.18
Quare quod fertur in libro 2 et 3 Recognitionum Clementis, dixisse olim B. Petrum supremum caelum et beatarum mentium domicilium, quod Empyreum posteriores Theologi appellarunt, nullo unquam tempore mutatum iri, nedum interiturum, sed omnino immutabile in omnem aeternitatem duraturum; caelum vero sydereum mortalium oculis conspicuum in consummatione saeculi esse dissolvendum ac prorsus abolendum, ut, eius corporis ablato quasi velamine, caelum illud gloriosum et nunc humani sensus captu sublimius tum appareat creatis quos Deus eius conspectu fuerit dignatus: hoc, inquam, quod in illis libris traditur, aut non magni faciendum est, propter dubiam aut nullam potius apud viros doctos eius operis fidem et auctoritatem; aut est probabili aliqua interpretatione molliendum, et ad hanc opinionem quam docuimus et probavimus quoquo modo deflectendum.
Wherefore that which is reported in books 2 and 3 of the Recognitions of Clement—that the blessed Peter once said that the highest heaven and dwelling of the blessed minds, which later theologians have called the Empyrean, will at no time ever be changed, much less perish, but will endure wholly unchangeable for all eternity; but that the starry heaven, visible to the eyes of mortals, is at the consummation of the age to be dissolved and utterly abolished, so that, the veil, as it were, of that body being taken away, that glorious heaven, now too sublime for the grasp of human sense, may then appear to the created beings whom God shall have deemed worthy of the sight of it—this, I say, which is delivered in those books, is either to be made little of, on account of the doubtful, or rather null, credit and authority of that work among learned men; or is to be softened by some probable interpretation, and bent in whatever way to this opinion which we have taught and proved.19
ILLUD etiam mihi quidem sic simillimum vero ac prope certum: mundum corporeum non esse corrumpendum secundum substantiam, aliumque diversum ab eo qui nunc est a Deo fabricandum. Paulus enim 1 Corinth. cap. 7 non obscure indicavit hoc, cum dixit, Praeterit figura huius mundi: non enim, inquit, praeterituram substantiam, sed figuram. Atque ad huius rei confirmationem valent quae paulo superius ex Augustino, Hieronymo Gregorioque adduximus. In primo cap. Ecclesiastae sic est, Terra in aeternum stat; ibidem etiam c. 3 scriptum est, Omnia opera quae fecit Deus perseverant in perpetuum. Psalmo 148, Statuit ea in aeternum. Hoc ipsum sensit, disertisque verbis explicuit et probavit Proclus et Methodius, ut videre licet apud Epiphanium Haeres. 64, quae brevitatis causa praetermittimus. In eadem sententia fuisse complures de veteribus Graecis scriptoribus magna fit coniectura ex Oecumenio, idem tradente super 3 cap. 2 Epist. Petri, cuius verba paulo infra posuimus: quippe commentarii Oecumenii sunt collectanea Graecorum scriptorum. Nec aegre quisquam, opinor, hoc credere in animum suum inducet, qui secum reputabit...
THIS also is to me most like the truth and well-nigh certain: that the corporeal world is not to be corrupted according to substance, and another, different from the one that now is, to be fashioned by God. For Paul, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, indicated this not obscurely, when he said, The fashion of this world passes away: for he did not say that the substance, but the fashion, would pass away. And toward the confirmation of this matter avail the things we adduced a little above from Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory. In the first chapter of Ecclesiastes it stands thus, The earth stands forever; and in the same book, chapter 3, it is written, All the works which God has made continue forever. In Psalm 148, He has established them forever. This very thing Proclus and Methodius held, and explained and proved in plain words, as may be seen in Epiphanius, Heresy 64, which for brevity's sake we pass over. That very many of the old Greek writers were of the same opinion is greatly conjectured from Oecumenius, who delivers the same on chapter 3 of the second Epistle of Peter, whose words we have set down a little below: for the commentaries of Oecumenius are collections of the Greek writers. Nor, I think, will anyone bring himself with difficulty to believe this, who shall reflect with himself...20
...[re]putabit vix posse fingi quemadmodum alius mundus ab hoc nostro secundum substantiam omnino diversus effici queat. Namque mundus ille post diem iudicii futurus elementa et caelos, solem item et lunam ceteraque astra habeat necesse est: nisi enim habeat, non vere nominari posset mundus aut universum, tot tamque perfectis rerum generibus integritatem, decorem ornatumque mundi conficientibus carens. Vel igitur habebit eiusmodi res secundum substantiam similes huic nostro mundo; atqui nulla ratio erat cur vellet Deus mundum hunc destruere et alterum huius simillimum de integro condere. Sin autem elementa et astra illius mundi diversa ponantur secundum substantiam, non possum equidem animo capere qua id ratione possit fieri. Nec enim terra illius mundi non erit densa, sicca, gravis, frigida, ad medium mundi locum propendens, et in eo suapte natura conquiescens: nam quae hisce proprietatibus non est insignita, non est vere terra; quae autem eas habet, plane talis est secundum substantiam qualis est haec nostra. Quod autem hic de terra sum argumentatus, idem ad ceteras principales mundi partes transferri et aptari potest. Quod si mundus secundum substantiam esset interiturus, et non ipse, sed alius quidam mundus ex alia substantia conditus a Deo incorruptionis et gloriae quam post diem iudicii filii Dei consequentur futurus est particeps, non utique dixisset Paulus de hoc nostrati mundo loquens omnem creaturam ingemiscere et parturire exspectando renovationem et glorificationem filiorum Dei, ut ipsa quoque particeps eiusdem novitatis et gloriae quodammodo fiat: non enim mundus qui nunc est, sed alius secundum substantiam, illius novitatis et gloriae particeps esset; nec hic mundus, quod exspectat tam anxie et ingemiscit, unquam consequeretur.
...will reflect that it can scarcely be imagined how another world, wholly different in substance from this our own, could be made. For that world which is to be after the day of judgment must of necessity have elements and heavens, the sun likewise and the moon and the other stars: for unless it have them, it could not truly be called a world or a universe, lacking so many and so perfect kinds of things, which make up the completeness, beauty, and adornment of the world. Either, then, it will have such things, similar in substance to this our world; but there was no reason why God should wish to destroy this world and to found anew another most like it. But if the elements and stars of that world be supposed different in substance, I for my part cannot grasp in my mind by what reasoning this could come about. For the earth of that world will not fail to be dense, dry, heavy, cold, tending toward the middle place of the world and there resting by its own nature: for that which is not marked by these properties is not truly earth; and that which has them is plainly such in substance as this our own. And what I have here argued of earth can be transferred and applied to the other principal parts of the world. But if the world were to perish in substance, and not itself, but some other world founded by God out of another substance were to be partaker of the incorruption and glory which the sons of God shall obtain after the day of judgment, then Paul, speaking of this world of ours, would surely not have said that every creature groans and is in travail, awaiting the renovation and glorification of the sons of God, so that it too may in a manner become partaker of the same newness and glory: for then not the world which now is, but another in substance, would be partaker of that newness and glory; and this world would never obtain what it so anxiously awaits and groans for.21
IAM vero, si caelum secundum substantiam nunquam est interiturum, videtur hinc optima ratione concludi posse caelum per se ac intrinsece esse incorruptibile. Quemadmodum enim, si caelum post diem iudicii fuisset corrumpendum, alienum et incongruum erat fecisse ipsum secundum naturam incorruptibile (quorsum enim faceret Deus incorruptibile caelum, quod vellet aliquando corrumpi?), ita etiam caelum, cum nullo unquam tempore sit corrumpendum secundum substantiam, ratio ipsa poscit ut factum a Deo fuerit incorruptibile; frustra enim fecisset corruptibile quod nunquam corrumpi vellet. Omnia item signa et argumenta, vel ex sensuum iudicio vel ex naturali humanae rationis lumine petita, quibus aliquid esse incorruptibile probari potest (quorum potiora in 1 libro de Caelo collegit Aristoteles), ad unum omnia conveniunt in caelum. Nec vim huius argumentationis elevat exemplum hominis, qui natura sua cum sit corruptibilis a Deo factus, post resurrectionem assequetur immortalitatem: homo namque ita factus est secundum naturam corruptibilis, ut tamen, si vellet, Dei iussis et voluntati obtemperando, omnem...
NOW indeed, if the heaven shall never perish according to substance, it seems that hence, by an excellent reasoning, it can be concluded that the heaven is of itself and intrinsically incorruptible. For just as, if the heaven had been due to be corrupted after the day of judgment, it would have been foreign and incongruous to have made it incorruptible according to nature (for to what end would God make an incorruptible heaven which He willed at some time to be corrupted?), so also, since the heaven is at no time ever to be corrupted according to substance, reason itself demands that it was made incorruptible by God; for He would have made it corruptible in vain, which He never willed to be corrupted. Likewise all the signs and arguments—whether drawn from the judgment of the senses or from the natural light of human reason—by which a thing can be proved to be incorruptible (the chief of which Aristotle collected in the first book On the Heaven), all to a man converge upon the heaven. Nor does the example of man weaken the force of this argumentation—man, who, though made by God corruptible by his own nature, will after the resurrection attain immortality: for man was so made corruptible according to nature, that nevertheless, if he would, by obeying God's commands and will, every...22
...omnem corruptionem atque mortem effugeret: neque incorruptio quae manet eum post resurrectionem est aliquid naturale et hominis naturae debitum, sed est supernaturale quoddam Dei donum, et ab homine bene vivendo beneque agendo promeritum: haec autem quae de homine diximus, caelo non competunt. Adde quod homo, sicut est corruptibilis, ita tandem aliquando corrumpitur, et postea incorruptionem quasi praemium a se promeritum accipit. Et vero homo non potuit fieri natura sua incorruptibilis sicut caelum: nec est par ratio caeli et hominis, qui sic est in ordine rerum naturalium ut sit a Deo tamen ordinatus ad participationem rerum supernaturalium. Deinde, nisi caelum sit incorruptibile corpus, nullum habebit mundus corpus incorruptibile; quare hic gradus et hoc genus entis nobilissimum mundo deerit, quo sane carens, nec mundus, nec perfectus, nec universum vere dici poterit.
...he might escape all corruption and death: nor is the incorruption which awaits him after the resurrection anything natural and owed to man's nature, but it is a certain supernatural gift of God, and merited by man's living well and acting well; but these things which we have said of man do not belong to the heaven. Add that man, just as he is corruptible, so at last at some time is corrupted, and afterward receives incorruption as a prize, as it were, merited by himself. And indeed man could not be made incorruptible by his own nature as the heaven is: nor is the case of the heaven and of man the same—man, who is set in the order of natural things in such a way that he is nevertheless ordained by God to a participation in supernatural things. Lastly, unless the heaven be an incorruptible body, the world will have no incorruptible body; wherefore this most noble grade and kind of being will be lacking to the world, lacking which, surely, it could neither truly be called a world, nor perfect, nor a universe.23

Translator’s notes

  1. The first question of Book II. ↩
  2. Marginal gloss: "Auctores qui putaverunt mundum aliquando interiturum." Justin (ps.), Quaestiones ad orthodoxos 93–95; Basil, Hom. 1 & 3 in Hexaemeron; Ambrose, In Hexaemeron 1.6; Gregory of Nyssa, De hominis opificio 24; Philastrius, De haeresibus (Catalogus haereseon). Sentence continues onto the next page (catchword ‘reseon’). ↩
  3. Marginal gloss: "Testimonia Scripturae de interitu mundi." Job 14:12; Isaiah 24:4 / 34:4, 51:6, 65:17; Psalm 101[102]:26–27; Ecclesiasticus 17:31 (‘Quid lucidius sole?’); Matthew 24:35; Luke 21:26 (cf. 21:33); Romans 8:20–21; 1 Corinthians 7:31; 1 John 2:17; 2 Peter 3:7,10,13; Apocalypse 21:1. ↩
  4. Marginal gloss: "Praeter Platonem et Aristotelem, omnes ferme Philosophi ac Poetae mundum esse aliquando interiturum tradiderunt." Deuteronomy 4:19; Aristotle (the heaven incorruptible); Plato, Timaeus (the world dissoluble by nature but preserved by God's will); Heraclitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Democritus, the Stoics, the Epicureans, the Sibylline oracles. ↩
  5. Sentence continues onto the next page (catchword ‘pturae’). ↩
  6. Marginal glosses: "Opinio Augustini" and "Opinio Scholasticorum Theologorum." Augustine, De civitate Dei 20.24; 2 Peter 3 (the flood comparison); Genesis 7:20 (the waters fifteen cubits above the mountains); Peter Lombard, Sentences IV dist. 48. The Hebrew שמים (‘heaven’) has no singular form. ↩
  7. Psalm 101[102]:26–27. The twofold distinction of change/perishing: true corruption (loss of nature, denied of the heavens) versus mere cessation of ministry and change of state. ↩
  8. Jerome, on Isaiah 51 and 65; Isaiah 30:26 (‘the moon shall shine as the sun’); the analogy of the ages of man; 1 Corinthians 7:31; 2 Peter 3:13. ↩
  9. Marginal gloss: "Notabilis sententia Gregorii de caelorum interitu non substantiali sed tantum accidentali." ↩
  10. Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob 17.5. Embedded references (with marginal citations beside the passage: Iob 24, 1.Corint.7, Matth.24, Apocal.21): Ecclesiastes 1:4; 1 Corinthians 7:31; Matthew 24:35; Apocalypse 21:1; Psalm 101[102]:27. ↩
  11. Marginal gloss: "Explicatur locus B. Petri 2 Epi. c. 3." 2 Peter 3:10,12; Augustine, De civitate Dei 20.24. ↩
  12. Marginal gloss: "An post diem iudicii aliquod de quatuor elementis periturum sit." Bede; Apocalypse 21:1 (‘and the sea is now no more’). ↩
  13. Marginal gloss: "Consuetudo propheticae locutionis." Augustine, De civitate Dei 20.16; Apocalypse 20:13 (‘the sea gave up the dead that were in it’). ↩
  14. Peter Lombard, Sentences IV dist. 47; Bonaventure; Aquinas, In IV Sent. dist. 47 q.2 (fire and water excel in the active qualities of heat and cold); Bede, De sex aetatibus mundi 69; Philo, Quod mundus sit incorruptibilis (De aeternitate mundi). Sentence continues onto the next page (catchword ‘com[mutandum]’; signature C 3). ↩
  15. Marginal gloss: "An libri 'Quod mundus sit incorruptibilis' auctor sit Philo, ut fertur." Pererius doubts the attribution to Philo (Jerome and Eusebius omit it from their catalogues of Philo's works; the style cites no Scripture and looks rather like a pagan Peripatetic's). ↩
  16. 2 Maccabees 8:18 (‘He can destroy the whole world with a single nod’); Isaiah 40; Wisdom 11. Pererius stresses that the dispute concerns not God's absolute power, but what He will in fact do. ↩
  17. Marginal gloss: "Auctoris sententia: mundum nunquam omnino, vel secundum substantiam, destructum iri." Romans 8:19–22. Sentence continues onto the next page (catchword ‘tur’). ↩
  18. Romans 8:19–21; Ecclesiastes 3:14. ↩
  19. Marginal gloss: "Libri Recognitionum Clementis." The pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 2–3 (the Empyrean heaven immutable, the starry heaven dissolved at the end of the age) — of doubtful authority, and to be softened. ↩
  20. Marginal gloss: "Hic mundus non corrumpetur secundum substantiam." 1 Corinthians 7:31; Ecclesiastes 1:4, 3:14; Psalm 148:6; Proclus and Methodius (in Epiphanius, Panarion / Haer. 64); Oecumenius on 2 Peter 3 (his commentaries being catenae of the Greek writers). Sentence continues onto the next page (catchword ‘putabit’). ↩
  21. Marginal gloss: "An possit effici alius mundus, ab hoc qui nunc est omnino diversus secundum substantiam." Romans 8:19–22 (the whole creation groans, awaiting the renovation of the sons of God). ↩
  22. Marginal glosses: "Caelum intrinsece ac secundum substantiam est incorruptibile" and "Cur sicut homo, non ita mundus possit esse corruptibilis, et post diem iudicii adipisci incorruptionem." Aristotle, De Caelo 1 (the marks of incorruptibility). Sentence continues onto the next page (catchword ‘omnem’). ↩
  23. The disanalogy of man and the heaven: man's incorruption after the resurrection is a supernatural gift, merited; the heaven is incorruptible by its own nature. ↩