Tractatus de Deo uno secundum naturam

On the light of glory.

« Since the intuitive vision of God, beyond any created intellect, is supernatural, a supernatural aid is necessary by which the created mind is raised to the beatific vision. Although indeed there is some disagreement of opinions about the proper reason of this aid, which is called the light of glory, nevertheless it must be held that the light of glory is a lasting gift of God, by which the intellect so informed is supernaturally made like the divine intellect for the immediate beatific vision of God. »

Just as understanding, especially clear and immediate understanding of an intelligible object, is called vision, a name derived from that sensible perception which has the greater analogy with mental understanding: so, by the same derivation from the sensible order, light is called all that which is the cause of intellectual vision¹. Moreover, since there is a threefold distinct perfection of the rational creature: the perfection of nature, grace on the way to the end, and glory in the final consummation; and to each of these states of perfection its own distinct knowledge corresponds, for which intellectual light is necessarily proportioned: from this it is made manifest that there must also be distinguished a threefold intellectual light: light indeed of natural reason, light of grace on the way, light of glory in the homeland. The author and source of this threefold light in the created intellect is certainly God, « the sun of intelligibles, » but according to the diversity of light, in accordance with the threefold different aspect: as creator in the order of nature, as sanctifier in the order of grace, as consummator and beatificator in the order of glory. It is of this last that we now speak.

The light of glory can in turn be considered in four ways. a) The light of glory, objective, which is seen, is God himself, insofar as he manifests himself to be seen not through another object, but through himself and in himself; for the sun is not made visible by another light, but makes itself visible by its own splendor². Hence also it is that theologians teach, by a far more common opinion, that for the beatific vision no impressed species of God is given; but God himself, by his own essence, is united to the mind of the seer as the object of vision. Indeed St Thomas (1. q. 12. a. 2; quodlib. VII. a. 1; 4. dist. 49. q. 2. a. 1; de verit. q. 8. a. 1; compend. theolog. c. 105.) and many of his disciples hold that absolutely no intelligible impressed species can be, by which God may be seen as he is in himself. Cf. Suarez 1. II. c. 13. Further, b) the light of glory formally, under which God is seen, is a supernatural effect of God and a supernatural gift in the created mind, by which this mind is raised and constituted in proximate first act for seeing God as he is. c) The actual vision of God itself may also be called the light of glory. Finally, d) all these things can be understood together under the name of light of glory, so that God is as the fountain of light and the term of vision, manifesting himself through light and vision in the created mind: « For with you is the fountain of life, and in your light we shall see light » Ps. XXXV. (heb. 36.) 10.

As to the first point, that God himself is light to the blessed minds, nothing further is to be treated in this place beyond what we said in the preceding thesis. But God is manifested to the blessed only through the light and vision by which they are informed, and they see intuitively and, by seeing, possess God most blissfully. For, as Suarez rightly says (1. II. c. 14. n. 5.), the uncreated light of glory does not properly elevate the human intellect, except insofar as God works something in the intellect itself above its nature. Moreover, comparing light and vision: vision as second act presupposes the first act and follows from it connaturally; it presupposes, of course, a mind informed and raised by supernatural powers to the intuitive vision itself. Now these supernatural powers, or the intuitive power superadded to the mind, are properly called and understood by theologians light of glory simply so called: in much the same way as grace is uncreated God himself, to whom we are joined, and graces are the supernatural acts of faith, hope and charity, by which we tend toward God; but grace simply so called is understood as the formal participation in the divine nature in us, through habit and aid, which join us to God and from which acts proceed.

With this sense now determined, the question is raised about the truth and about the proper reason of the light of glory.

I. The truth of the matter is demonstrated, whether it is: 1°, from all those things by which it was shown in the two preceding theses, that the immediate vision of God, natural to God alone, surpasses the natural powers of any created intellect; and that nevertheless this vision is promised to us by God as our ultimate end and supreme blessedness. For in these very things it is contained that the created intellect must be equipped and raised by supernatural powers or supernatural aid for this vision. Therefore, as long as the light of glory is spoken of only generically as supernatural elevation, without a more distinct determination of the proper reason of this light, it is established by Catholic faith as certainly as it is certain that eternal life is supernatural blessedness, of which it is written: « you have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end eternal life... For the grace of God is eternal life » Rom. VI. 23.

2°. The truth of the light of glory is demonstrated more specifically from the truth of the habits and supernatural gifts, which are already granted to us on the way as the beginning and preparation for consummation in the homeland. For we can understand the perfection and fullness of the gifts in the blessed end in no better way than from the order of the graces, from the pledge and earnest given to us on the way. We are renewed in the spirit of our mind through the justice inhering in us, and we receive the virtues of faith, hope and charity, infused and remaining in us (Conc. Trid. sess. VI. c. 7.), to which supernatural acts correspond; for supernatural acts, in order that they may come about as if connaturally, require a principle supernaturally raised by habitual gifts. Just as, therefore, the habit of charity remains in the homeland: « for charity never falls away » 1. Cor. XIII. 8: so for the habit of faith, which passes into vision, another habitual gift is required. For when what is in faith as knowledge ex parte has been done away, and what is perfect has come (ib. v. 10.), namely when sight is substituted for faith, that is, face-to-face vision; this supernatural act, the most sublime of all, of the beatific vision presupposes supernatural powers in the intellect corresponding to the act itself, no less, indeed even more, than the act of faith presupposes infused habitual faith. That very gift, by which the powers of the intellect are so raised, is and is called light of glory. « Everything that is raised to something exceeding its nature must be disposed by some disposition which is above its nature... Since, therefore, the natural power of the created intellect does not suffice to see the essence of God, as has been shown, it is necessary that from divine grace an increase of power to understand accrue to it. And this augmentation of intellectual power we call illumination of the intellect, just as the intelligible itself is called light, of which it is said (Apoc. XXI. 23.) that the brightness of God will illuminate it, namely the society of the blessed who see God. And according to this light they are made deiform, that is, like God, according to that (1.Io.III.2.): when he shall appear we shall be like him, and we shall see him as he is » S. Th. 1. q. 12. a. 5.

3°. Hence, among the « accursed errors » of the Beguards and Beguines « in the kingdom of Germany », there was condemned at the Council of Vienne this, fifth in place: « that every intellectual nature is in itself naturally blessed; and that the soul does not need the light of glory elevating it to see God and to enjoy him blessedly » (Clementin. l. V. tit. 3. c. 3). The Catholic truth defined by the ecumenical Council is therefore this: « the soul needs the light of glory elevating it to see God and to enjoy him blessedly ». Certainly both those heretics and the Pontiff, « with the sacred Council approving, condemning and reprobating that sect itself with the aforesaid errors », used the name light of glory, which at the beginning of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was most well known in all the schools, and which, at least generically, for a supernatural aid or elevating gift, had a certain and established meaning; they could understand nothing other by it than this very gift or aid, whereas the Pontiff condemned the denial of the light of glory for the intellectual nature by those who denied its necessity. Although therefore the controversies which existed among Catholic theologians about the nature and properties of this light are not settled by that definition, at least that in which all the schools agreed has been authentically declared: namely, that the light of glory is given as a supernatural aid by which the soul is raised to see God. Moreover, this very thing, even leaving aside theological usage of speech, the very words of the definition state so clearly that this sense cannot be denied³. They are to be read: Vasquez disp. 42. c. 2; Hiquaeus in commentar. ad Scotum (inter Opp.

Scoti T. X. p. 566. seqq.); Petavius 1. VII. c. 7. n. 3; to be compared, Suarez 1. II. c. 14. n. 4. seqq.

4°. The Scriptures present God as the light which of itself illumines all the blessed minds in the heavenly Jerusalem. For God is spiritual light, that is, a spirit infinitely knowable, making every intellect to know by some participation (assimilation) in his infinite intellect. Hence in that supernatural vision face to face God, as the sun of spirits⁴ shining on the saints, and forming them, as it were, parelia, that is, mock suns, in his own image⁵ makes those who see him see him as he is in himself, since he is the immediate object and at the same time the cause that imparts the light or power for his own vision. « And they shall see his face, and his name shall be on their foreheads, and there shall be no night, and they shall need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God shall illuminate them » Apoc. XXII. 4. 5. Cf. Is. LX. 19. If now already, through faith (which is the root of all holiness), beholding the glory of God in the mysteries of Jesus Christ, as the Apostle testifies, we are formed by that glory as so many mirrors⁶ and are transformed into his image 2. Cor. III. 18: how much more, advancing from the inchoate light and brightness to perfect light and brightness, will our minds be transformed, so that through participation in the intellectual power by which God himself beholds himself and enjoys himself, we shall be deiform in the beatific vision: « we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. » Cf. Aug.Trin. l. XIV. c. 17; in Ps. 35. n. 14.

II. From what has been said, the proper reason of the light of glory is also deduced, what it is.

Here, first, it must be supposed as entirely certain that, just as all understanding, so also the intuitive vision of God is an immanent act of the seeing mind itself. It is therefore produced by the mind, continually depends on the mind, and informs the mind. For vision is a vital act in a living mind: and just as life is necessarily intimate to the living being, so every vital act is necessarily produced by the living being itself and proceeds from within. Hence two things are required, and sufficient, for intellectual vision: a) on the side of the object, that the object be present not only physically but intellectually, or what is the same, that the object be in itself actually intuitively knowable; b) on the side of the knower, that the intellectual powers be proportioned, in the order of knowledge, not indeed ontologically but logically, to the object to be seen intuitively. « For both sensible and intellectual vision two things are required, says St Thomas 1. q. 12. a. 2, namely visual power, and the union of the thing seen with the sight. » A defect may occur on either side, or on one of them, by which it comes about that the object cannot be seen. Thus in sensible things a body may be visible in itself, and may also be physically present to an eye sufficiently equipped with power for seeing; but unless the object is illuminated, it is neither optically, or visibly present to the eye, nor actually visible. Conversely the sun is visible in itself, can be visibly present to the eye, and thus is actually visible on its own side; but (as is customarily drawn from Aristotle) the eye of the owl, on account of a defect of visual power, cannot gaze at the sun. Although indeed both defects can at least be supplied supernaturally by a change in the visual power alone, namely by its supernatural elevation, nevertheless a distinction will always remain: either the defect of actual visibility on the side of the object must be supplied, even assuming proportion to its object on the side of the power; or the defect on the side of the power must be supplied, assuming the actual visibility of the object in itself.

Now, 1°, God in himself is spiritual light, that is, in himself most highly and infinitely knowable; and by his essence he is intimately present to every intellect, not only physically but knowably, as far as the power and actual disposition and proper mode of the created intellect is capable. On the side of the object, therefore, no other light is required by which it is rendered visible to the intellect, nor an intelligible species by which it is joined to the intellect⁷; but God himself, by himself, is present to the intellect as a visible object, provided the powers and proper mode of the knowing intellect are equal to the object to be seen.

But the defect is on the side of the powers of the knowing intellect; for no created intellect, by natural powers and according to its own connatural mode of knowing, can intuitively see God as he is in himself; as we demonstrated above in th. XIV. Therefore the powers of the intellect must necessarily be supplied, raised, and strengthened by a supernatural charism for the beatific vision; and this charism is, and is properly called, light of glory. But these things being posited, this charism can be understood in several ways. For⁸

2°. The aid could be conceived in the manner of a supernatural concurrence of God, so that no intrinsic change takes place in the faculty of the mind itself; but God, the created intellect remaining in its natural powers, uses it as an instrument to elicit the supernatural act of the beatific vision. For they say that in the intellect, besides the natural positive powers of understanding, there is an obediential power, by which the intellect, under the immediate operation of God, can elicit any intellectual act which in itself does not repugn to the creature. In this way the beatific vision is in fact produced: no theologian admits it (unless perhaps you except Durandus); on the contrary, most condemn this opinion with rather sharp censure, on account of the reasons which we have set forth in n. I. But if the question is about possibility, many very weighty theologians hold that the beatific vision through such extrinsic elevation does not repugn (see Suarez 1. II. c. 13; Toletus in 1. q. 12. a. 5. conclusione 3^a. etc.). I confess that I am unable, by any reasoning, to understand a vital act, supernatural, elicited by the mind itself through extrinsic aid, and without any change taking place in the mind itself and supernatural powers being added to it intrinsically. In this sense, therefore, the doctrine of Capreolus in 4. dist. 49. q. 4; of Dominic Soto ib. q. 2. a. 4; of Cajetan; of Bañez in 1. q. 12. a. 5, and of others, who hold that the beatific vision through supernatural concurrence alone, without the inhering light of glory, absolutely repugns, seems true to me. But whatever is thought about possibility, it is certain and established among all theologians, as I have said, that the light of glory does not in fact consist in such a concurrence of God.

3°. The light of glory can be conceived by way of actual aid, so that the natural powers of the intellect are raised and strengthened in themselves and intrinsically, or supernatural powers are added through the continuous operation of God; but it would not be a permanent quality by way of a habit. The opinion explained thus, of intrinsic actual aid, cannot be judged condemned by the Clementine definition cited above⁹. Yet the analogy of supernatural habits, and especially the habit of faith, which is infused in this life for the connatural elicitation of supernatural acts, and the habit of charity remaining also in the other life, and the common acceptance among theologians of light of glory for an inhering habitual gift, according to which usage light of glory must therefore also be understood in the Clementine decree, sufficiently demonstrate that the light of glory must be understood not only by way of actual aid but by way of an immanent habit, by analogy not to actual grace but to habitual grace. « It is fitting to inquire not only into the absolute omnipotence of God, but into what the due order of things requires. For God disposes all things sweetly. Therefore, since he has equipped natural things with their powers and virtues, and in regard to supernatural things has also given us infused habits by which we may exercise fitting actions, why should it be denied that, since the intellect cannot naturally see God, it can be divinely perfected for this office by some light and supernatural power? » Dominic. Soto 4. dist. 49. q. 2. a. 4.

4°. There were not lacking those who taught that the created mind in the beatific vision is related merely passively, and this in three ways: for either a) they said light of glory is an infused power by which alone the vision is produced, and this vision is received in the mind as in a subject; or b) they said that the act of vision itself is effected and infused immediately by God, so that the light of glory is nothing other than the actual vision itself; or c) the light of glory was conceived as a disposition of the subject for receiving the act of vision infused immediately by God. It is established that all these opinions are wholly false, from the fact that vision is essentially a vital act of the seeing mind itself, about which what has been said a little above is sufficient (see Suarez l. II. c. 10; c. 15. n. 22; Lessium de Summo bono l. II. c. 7.).

5°. Some are recorded (cf. Lessium l. c. c. 2.) who said that the vision of God in the blessed is the uncreated vision itself, by which God sees himself, and which he communicates to the blessed.

Thomassinus revived this opinion, or rather this fiction (De Deo l. VI. c. 16.), in ways of conceiving and speaking that are very confused and, in my own view, altogether false. He says a) that the Word itself is an impressed species in the blessed, by which they see the Father. « God is seen by the blessed through no other intelligible species than the Word himself informing the mind. The Father makes and perfects his works by impressing his Word... the last and most absolute impression of that same Word must therefore be such that the impressed species of the creature to be perfected is the Word itself » there, n. 1. 2. Further, b) for Thomassinus the light of glory is the Holy Spirit himself in his substance; in the blessed, therefore, God is seen by himself, because the power and force by which he is seen is the Holy Spirit. « Note, he says, that in your light we shall see light means the same as: in the Holy Spirit we shall see the Word; and therefore the light of glory by which God is seen is the Holy Spirit... Note how their parts are fittingly assigned to each of the divine persons... so that the mind, strengthened by the Spirit, enters into the form of the Word, through which it sees the Father.... Note that this light is not so much a gift, or some created light infused into the mind by the Holy Spirit, as the Holy Spirit himself flowing into the mind..... God is seen in such a way that the evangelical and apostolic axiom holds, that no creature can see God; for the mind informed by the Holy Spirit himself and tempered to him, now raised above creatures, is now carried on to God. Thus it is clear how the blessed see God, and yet God cannot be seen except by himself: God is not seen except by God, because the power and force by which he is seen is the Holy Spirit; the species by which he is seen is the Son himself; and yet the created mind under this species, hidden in this light, sees God.... Therefore the Holy Spirit is that very light which they call of glory, by which the mind is illumined so that it can sustain and gaze upon the face of the Father » ibid. n. 8–11.

At the outset, against this doctrine taken in general there are obvious arguments. Vision, as we said a little earlier, is a vital act of the seeing mind itself, and therefore elicited by the mind itself; it cannot therefore be an uncreated divine act: the blessed themselves see and love God by their own vital act, and are beatified by these very acts of theirs; but these acts cannot be formally acts of God, by which God sees himself and loves himself and is blessed in himself. In particular, moreover, the view and statement of Thomassinus, if understood in the obvious sense of the words, is refuted on several counts of absurdity. For a) that « fitting assignment of parts to each of the persons of the Most Holy Trinity » contradicts the very mystery of three persons, who are one in essence and operation, and who are intuitively seen by the blessed all in one and the same reason and vision, just as they are, identified with the divine essence; this distribution, I say, is contrary unless it is understood purely by appropriation, according to which the Fathers cited by Thomassinus speak, who nevertheless are not treating of the beatific vision but of grace and supernatural knowledge in the present life. b) If by appropriation the Word (for the divine essence under the formal reason of truth) is called impressed species, and the Holy Spirit (for the divine essence under the formal reason of illuminating cause) is called light of glory; this can be admitted only in the sense declared above: as regards the species, indeed, in a negative sense, that no species is given, but God in himself is the object of vision; as regards the light of glory, that God is light, or the object of vision, and at the same time the cause of that infused light by which the blessed minds are informed and raised to the intuitive vision of God; but in no way can God be, as Thomassinus says, the species and the light informing the mind. For to say nothing of the fact that every form is in itself imperfect and in potency toward a further perfection; a mind whose form, properly speaking, were God, would itself be God. This absurdity the words of Thomassinus, in their obvious sense, would express: « no creature can see God; for the mind informed by the Holy Spirit himself, now raised above creatures, is now carried on to God. »

6°. With the false notions of the light of glory set aside, its true and proper character, as is sufficiently clear from all that has been said so far, can be understood in no other way than according to the common explanation of theologians: that it is a certain supernatural power of understanding, more eminent than every natural power, superadded to the intellect of the blessed and informing the mind by way of a habit, and raising it to the intuitive vision of God, as he is in himself. For since the rational mind, as the image of God, has by its very nature an imperfect and inchoate power of knowing God, this power of knowing can be raised, or completed and perfected, by a superadded supernatural virtue, so that it can already clearly and perfectly intuit God in himself. Hence this superadded virtue of the intellect is a certain supernatural assimilation of the created mind to the divine intellect in the very mode of knowing the divine essence, and thus a certain supreme participation in that infinite light by which God sees himself: and so we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. « For our vision or rest will be in some way similar to his vision or rest; but it will not be equal. For.... in some way we go toward him; and this very going of ours is less than resting; and yet to go thus is perfectly to rest. And so there is a perfect rest, because God is discerned; and yet it is not to be equated with the rest of him who does not pass from himself to another in order to rest. Thus rest is, so to speak, similar and dissimilar, because what his rest is, ours imitates..... Nor are we excluded from him whom we can imitate; for both by seeing we participate, and by participating we imitate » S. Gregor. M. Moral. l. XVIII. n. 93. See Lessius, De Summo bono l. II. c. 8. n. 50. sqq.