Cursus Theologicus, Tomus I: In Primam Partem

1 It must first be said that there must be inequality among the visions of the blessed. Thus it is stated in John 14: In my Father's house there are many dwelling places: where Christ the Lord speaks openly of the heavenly glory toward which he himself was tending, and of which he said: I am going to prepare a place for you. And so in 1 Corinthians 15: For star differs from star in brightness, and thus the resurrection of the dead. That testimony to the inequality of the glory of bodies, and consequently to the inequality of the soul's glory, which overflows into the body, is expounded by the Holy Fathers Jerome, in book 2 of Against Jovinian; Augustine, in book On Holy Virginity, chapter 26; Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Primasius, and Bede, on that same passage of Paul; and likewise on 2 Corinthians 9: He who sows sparingly will reap sparingly; and he who sows in blessings, will reap in blessings. Where the abundant reward corresponds to abundant merit, and the lesser to the lesser, it is nevertheless certain, according to faith, that the future reward corresponding to present merit is the beatific vision.

This truth was then defined against Jovinian (Gonzalez says, disputation 29, first section) in the Council of Pella under Pope Sergius, in the letter of the Council to Jovinian itself, namely letter 81 among those written by Saint Ambrose, who took part in that Council. Likewise, it is set forth in the Council of Florence under Eugene IV in the Letters of Union, where it is stated that, according to the distinction of merits, even the essence of God is variously seen by the blessed. The Holy Fathers thus commonly hold this very view, as do the theologians who expound the aforementioned passages of Scripture. Vázquez must therefore be rejected, because he weakens these testimonies by rejecting them, or by accepting them only as probable grounds that, according to faith, certainly establish the inequality of the visions. For testimonies of Scripture commonly accepted by the Holy Fathers and theologians to prove some truth establish it not only, as Vázquez wishes, probably, but most effectively.

2 Finally, the assertion is proved by a reason drawn from St. Paul, 2 Timothy 4, and from St. Thomas on the same passage. For the beatific vision is bestowed upon adults after the manner of a crown. Therefore, in bestowing it, the principle of justice must be preserved, so that it is bestowed in proportion to merits. Therefore, since it is certain that the just are unequal in their merits, it is certain that they will also be unequal in the beatific vision, which is the crown corresponding to them. Both conclusions follow from the antecedent. The antecedent, however, follows from the cited passage of Paul, where he says: The crown of righteousness awaits me, and the Lord, the just Judge, will give it to me on that day, not only to me, but also to all those who love his appearing.

This is confirmed. For when God punishes sins in the life to come, he then preserves the principle of justice, so that he inflicts a greater punishment on greater sinners. Therefore, even when he bestows the beatific vision after the manner of a crown, he will preserve the principle of justice and the proportion to the unequal merits of the just.

3 But one may object with the parable that Jovinian adduced as contrary to this view, as Saint Jerome attests in book 2 of Against Jovinian, as do Augustine in Haeresis 82 and St. Thomas in Opusculum 19, on Matthew, chapter 10. There, after the day's labour had ended, a single day's wage was granted to everyone working in the Lord's vineyard: so that equality of reward might be signified by this; and thus the workers who had come earlier to labour complained, saying, You made those who carried the day's burden and heat equal with us.

To this objection Vázquez admits that, according to the common understanding of the Fathers, by this day's wage the reward of beatitude is to be understood as distributed unequally, in proportion to the inequality of merits; yet he none the less impugns both this explanation and the Fathers individually, and adduces another peculiar interpretation violently imposed upon the text, which Gonzalez vigorously refutes in the present argument, as do Suárez, Summa, book 1, chapter 10, number 11, and the younger theologians generally.

Nevertheless, to counter his attack, it is enough for us that the Council of Trent, in its fourth session, in the decree concerning the edition and use of sacred books, decreed that no one should dare to expound Scripture concerning matters of faith—such as this one is, as the Fathers and Vázquez himself admit—or concerning morals against the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

Having rejected this interpretation, therefore, it must be said that, as St. Thomas notes here and in Summa 1-2, q. 5, a. 2, ad 1, and as others note from the Fathers, by the term day's wage formal beatitude is not understood, namely the vision of God, but objective beatitude, that is, the divine essence seen by the blessed, in which all are equal. For all, insofar as they see it in itself, are equal, even though they are not equal in the vision itself, which has the character of formal beatitude.

4 To the objection drawn from the workers' complaint, it must be said that it is not necessary for the individual words in parables to be accommodated. Rather, it is enough that their principal intention be preserved, and that the words of the parable be accommodated with reference to it. The principal intention of this parable, as the Fathers commonly teach, is to show that the reward of beatitude is to be measured not strictly by the antiquity of the calling or the duration of the labour, but by the merit of the works themselves, which flows from charity, and according to their fervour and intensity. Thus it often happens that, through the more abundant and efficacious grace of God, there is greater merit in a shorter time, and consequently a greater reward for those called later. This is especially clear from a comparison between the workers of the Old and the New Testaments, in which grace is bestowed more abundantly through Christ. The conclusion of this parable, therefore, is that the last will be first, and the first last; that is, for receiving the reward it makes no strict difference that one was called earlier, because those called later can, by God's grace, attain a greater reward on account of greater merit.

5 It must be said, secondly, that the beatific visions need not necessarily be unequal, but can be, and must often be, equal. This assertion is explained and proved in the case of children baptized before the use of reason who die before attaining it. Just as they are equal in every respect in the effect of Baptism, so too they are equal in the grace and glory corresponding to them as an inheritance. The same assertion can also be found among adults whose merits are altogether equal, as the Fathers and theologians commonly admit.

Nor does it tell against this that some Catholics, among whom is Paludanus in book 4, distinction 4, question 4, object that human beings were elected to restore the seats of angels who had fallen. For just as all those angels, if they had not fallen, would have had unequal degrees of beatitude, as the theologians commonly teach, so too all blessed human beings ought to have inequality in the vision.

It must be answered, therefore, that those seats can be restored sufficiently even if perfect commensurability in every respect is not preserved, and consequently neither is the aforementioned inequality preserved. For it is enough that, when comparison is made between the whole accumulation of glory that was to be bestowed upon the whole company of those angels and the accumulation of glory that will be bestowed upon all human beings, these be equal. But if this much suffices for the aforementioned restoration, far more will what is actually found in it suffice: namely, that the glory corresponding to the whole mass of humankind is far greater than the glory that would have had to be bestowed upon the aforementioned angels gathered into one, as the younger theologians note in the present argument.