Tractatus de Deo uno secundum naturam

On the extensive breadth of the beatific vision, with regard to its principal object and to its secondary objects.

« The blessed, by the very fact that they see God as he is in himself, 1° see both all God's absolute perfections and the divine persons. 2° Among things distinct from God, it is to be judged that there is an object of vision for all the comprehensors, which for wayfarers is the object of faith; but other things are seen by them, so far as follows from the intuitive vision of the first cause, and so far as the status and rank of each in the heavenly hierarchy requires. »

I. The first part of this thesis is wholly certain, given what is demonstrated below concerning the perfection and simplicity of absolute Being, and concerning the identity of the persons with the divine essence in the Treatise on the Trinity. The one most simple divine essence is itself absolute Being, that is, without any distinction in itself is every perfection that can be conceived without imperfection. We do not intuit that absolute Being as it is in itself, but from creatures we form notions of perfections (of intellect, will, wisdom, goodness, holiness, justice, etc.), and according to these notions of perfections we understand analogically what God is. Hence in God we distinguish diverse perfections, not of course judging them to be distinct in God himself, but conceiving the one without an express concept of the other. To these reasons of perfections and to our notions there corresponds one most simple divine Being, which in reality is both infinite wisdom and infinite justice, etc. Accordingly, each of those perfections is in God every perfection and is God himself, since they are the infinite Being itself. Hence to intuit this divine Being as it is in itself, means the same as to intuit it as being all absolute perfection. It is therefore an evident contradiction to affirm that God is seen by the blessed as he is in himself, and yet that some perfection which is formally in God is not seen. For by the very fact that some perfection which is the absolute Being itself is not seen, that Being is not seen as it is in itself; or better, it is not seen intuitively in itself at all; for in itself there is every perfection without any distinction. Compare the doctrine of the Bishops of Armenia cited above (th. XV. n. II.).

The same holds entirely of the intuition of the three divine persons. For the divine essence as it is in itself is, by its intrinsic perfection, the Father expressing the Word by understanding, and the Father and the Son producing the Holy Spirit by love; the paternal intellect necessarily has the Word as its intrinsic term, and the love of the Father and of the Son equally necessarily has the proceeding love as its intrinsic term. Whoever does not intuit these things does not intuit the essence as it is in itself. See above, loc. cit., the definition of the Council of Florence.

This is the common doctrine of the theologians; nevertheless, there are not lacking some who dissent. For although they agree unanimously regarding the fact of the vision of the Most Holy Trinity, since the truth has been defined at the Council of Florence; yet as to possibility, not a few teach that the intuitive vision of the divine essence is not repugnant even though neither all the absolute perfections nor the persons are seen. Indeed Cardinal Toletus, in 1 q. 12. a. 7, and Thomassinus, De Deo l. VI. cc. 19. 20 (destroying what he himself had affirmed shortly before in c. 17), teach that in fact by the blessed « not every perfection of God is perceived, » as Toletus says; or « the blessed do not see more and more degrees of the perfections of God to infinity, » and so « it is not seen by them with such acuity that they see the whole, or wholly from the whole. » But in holding that every perfection of God cannot be seen by any created intellect, however elevated, the same theologians, Toletus¹ and Thomassinus, constitute the incomprehensibility of God, of which we shall speak below.

Both opinions, the former regarding possibility and still more the latter regarding the fact of the vision of the essence without the vision of all the divine perfections, derive from a less sincere concept of the fullness and simplicity of divine Being; and hence they are easily refuted from what we have said. Setting aside Thomassinus, in whose hands there is great confusion of things, Toletus, moreover, a great man, has some points whose explanation can help to illustrate the true doctrine.

The most learned Cardinal's arguments for proving his opinion are four. 1°. Augustine defines comprehension thus: to comprehend is, when nothing of the thing lies hidden from the one seeing, ep. 112. (now 147. n. 21.). Therefore, if « nothing of God remains unknown, » God is comprehended by the blessed, which by the confession of all is false and impossible. 2°. « To perceive ten attributes distinctly is of greater power than to perceive eight; therefore to perceive infinite things is of infinite power. The divine perfections are infinite. Therefore it is impossible for them all to be perceived by the created intellect. » 3°. The reason² for the common opinion of theologians is drawn from the simplicity of God, because « all the perfections of God are one single thing and are formally in God. » But Toledo replies: « by this argument it would also be proved that all creatures, even possible ones, are seen in God, because they are one in him, and the eminence of creatures is formally in God. » But theologians do not admit this; « therefore simplicity does nothing to make God be seen totally. » 4°. « It would follow that all the judgments of God, all hidden wills, would be manifest to the blessed; because all such things are formally in God himself. » But to assert such a vision for the blessed would be erroneous. Thus far Toledo, l. c.

Reply to the first. In that letter Augustine distinguishes a threefold vision of God: that by which God was seen even with the bodily eyes, « not in his own nature but in a species, as he willed; » then another, mental, vision in this life³; and finally a third, « in that kingdom where his sons will see him as he is, » « in his own nature, » « in the form of God. » By the words of Augustine cited by Toletus, « comprehension » is clearly opposed by Augustine to vision received in the first and second ways. Nevertheless we shall not say against Toletus that comprehension is here to be taken in a looser sense for the very vision of God as he is in his own nature; although the meaning of these terms among the Fathers is not so fixed and established that comprehension is never taken for intuitive vision⁴ (cf. Didacus Ruiz, De scientia Dei disp. VI. sect. 1.), or conversely that under the name perfect vision comprehension, by which God alone comprehends himself, is not very often called. But we assume, as is in fact proved from the context of Augustine, that comprehension is understood in its proper sense, even in opposition to intuitive vision; and granting this, let us look at the very words of Augustine. « Not because anyone at some time comprehends the fullness of God, not only with the eyes of the body, but even with the mind itself. For it is one thing to see, another to comprehend the whole by seeing. For that is seen which is somehow felt as present; but the whole is comprehended by seeing when it is seen so that nothing of it lies hidden from the one seeing, or whose limits can be surveyed, just as nothing of your present will (volition) is hidden from you, and you can survey the limits of your ring » Aug. loc. cit. The saint does not place comprehension in this, that no perfection of the thing lies hidden; rather comprehension is said insofar as one reaches the limits of the knowable thing, that is, not only is the whole seen, but it is seen with that perfection of understanding which fully corresponds to the intrinsic knowability of the object. Augustine himself says elsewhere: « whatever is comprehended by knowledge is limited by the comprehension of the knower » Civ. Dei 1. XII. c. 18. Cf. S. Th. 1. q. 12. a. 7. ad 2; 4. dist. 49. q. 2. a. 3. ad 2. But according to his whole infinite knowability, God is comprehensible by no created intellect, but only by himself, the infinite intellect. Even if therefore the blessed see the whole, that is, the whole perfection which is formally in God and is God himself, they nevertheless do not see wholly, that is, not with such a perfection of vision as God is knowable. But we shall speak below of the comprehension of God compared with intuitive vision.

To the 2ᵘᵐ argument of Toledo the reply is easy. We distinguish many perfections and degrees of perfection in God, because we first draw the notions of the perfections from creatures; and according to these diverse reasons, to all of which one most simple fullness of the divine Esse corresponds, we know God analogically, but we do not intuit that Esse as it is in itself. But those who intuit the divine Esse as it is see its whole perfection without any distinction of many perfections and degrees, because in reality there is no such distinction there; although in intuiting that infinite perfection they see most clearly the foundation and reason why many perfections can and must be distinguished by those who know this Esse only through concepts derived from elsewhere. If therefore it is said that in God there are infinitely many distinct perfections in number, some of which can be seen as they are in themselves while others cannot be seen; this is entirely false. For whatever perfection were seen there without being seen at the same time as the fullness of all absolute perfection, would no longer be known intuitively, as it is in itself. But if it is said that in the finite vision itself there can be degrees of perfection without limit, so that the infinitely knowable essence of God may be known with ever greater intensity, this indeed is most true, but nothing⁵ pertains to the present question.

The reply to the third is this. Concerning possible creatures two entirely different things are to be considered. a) The divine essence, insofar as it is imitable outwardly by beings and created perfections, is the foundation and supreme norm of all possibles. Under this formal reason and this respect of outward imitability the same essence can be called the objective idea and the eminent being of creatures. Thus the eminent being of creatures, for example of an angel or of a man, in God is not angelic or human being, nor creatable or created being; but it is the divine essence itself under that formal reason, insofar as the divine perfection can be shadowed forth by angelic or human being, which before creation is nothing in itself actually, but is creatable. If, however, it is created, it is indeed a certain actual being; but in its whole nature it is different from the divine Being, and is only some shadow of this divine Being. Hence b) possibles can be considered in another way in themselves, according to their own creatable being, which indeed, as we said, is not actually; but it would be a created reality if it were produced by God.

This being so, those who intuit the divine essence as it is in itself undoubtedly see it as the foundation of all possibles, so that whatever analogous perfection can exist outside God, they see can exist only according to that essence as norm and exemplar cause, from it as efficient cause, and toward it as final cause; and thus they also see it as the eminent being of possible creatures. But from the fact that they see divine Being as it is in itself, it by no means follows that they also see the whole possible or creatable being, which is wholly different in its nature from that; or, to say the same thing in other words, from the fact that they see the divine essence as indefinitely imitable outwardly, it does not follow that they distinctly see all the beings in which it is imitable. It is true that all these things are knowable in the divine essence; but they are knowable only to him who knows the divine essence as far as it is knowable, that is, who comprehends it.

The solution to the fourth argument of Toletus can be gathered from what we have just said. For the counsels in God are the one simple essence itself under the formal reason of intellect and will, with a relation of reason to the outside, that is, with a connotation of an object wholly distinct and different from God. Hence the diversity of counsels in relation to creatures, whether there are some or not, whether these or others, introduces no diversity in God, or in those things which are formally in God; the whole change and diversity is outward, in creatures. Just as, therefore, one who sees the divine essence as it is in itself does not for that reason see all creatures, whether possible or real, which are something wholly different from God: in exactly the same way one who sees the essence, and therefore the divine wisdom and will, as they are in themselves, does not for that reason also see the divine wisdom and will insofar as they are related to all things to be created or created, nor all the effects of this wisdom and will. This connotation of effects, adding nothing real and changing nothing in God himself, is that by which the divine essence (wisdom and will) is conceived under the aspect of divine counsels. Therefore one who sees the divine essence, wisdom, and will as they are in themselves does not thereby see the divine counsels, unless he comprehends the divine essence according to its whole knowability.

II. Concerning the extent, perfection, and mode of the knowledge which, cohering with the beatific vision of God, relates to those things which are outside God and under God, or can be so, the Lord in his positive and explicit revelation willed to teach us little; so that, namely, from the very manner in which he clearly revealed and promised the vision of himself, and as it were kept silent about the vision of others, we might understand that God himself, a very great reward, and his glory when it appears, abundantly suffice to fulfil all our desire and to satiate the whole thirst for blessedness: « I shall be satisfied when your glory appears. » Nevertheless, certain principles are known to us, from which we can deduce something with certainty or probability about the very high perfection of this knowledge also in the blessed.

1°. In general, the exaltation of the intellect by supernatural illumination, which is called the light of glory, is there at its most sublime for the perfect understanding and penetration of things and truths, as far as befits those who intuit the infinite essence and the first truth, and as far as the status of each individual requires; who, although they differ among themselves as star from star, are nevertheless all blessed comprehensors of the last end.

Hence, 2° in particular: all the mysteries, all the truths revealed to wayfarers, the whole economy of revelation and of the supernatural order, which in the way pertain of themselves to the object of faith, are there at the terminus the object of intuition and understanding without veil. For vision succeeds faith as its perfection, as the inchoate to the complete. « When what is perfect has come, what is in part will be done away….. we see now through a mirror in an enigma, but then face to face » 1. Cor. XIII. 9. seqq. « We have… the prophetic word, to which you do well in attending as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts » ⁶ 2. Pet. I. 19. « There we shall see, and our heart shall rejoice. Nor has he expressed what we shall see; but what, except God? that the promise of the gospel be fulfilled in us: the blessed in heart, for they shall see God; and all those things which now we do not see, believing them according to the measure of human capacity far less than they are, and conceiving them incomparably… Here you believe, there you will see » Aug. Civ. Dei 1. XX. c. 21. n. 1. We are not speaking here of the truths of faith which are revealed to us immediately about God himself; for these pertain to the principal object of the beatific vision (n. I.); but the secondary object of vision consists of the things of faith which are outside God: the incarnation of the Word, how God is truly man, and what the exaltation of our nature in the Word is; the redemption of the human race through the blood of the immaculate Lamb; the Church, which as the mystical body of Christ, as founded, is nourished and cherished by Christ as a bride by her bridegroom, and is perpetually under the conservation, government, and assistance of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; the charisms and gifts of grace; the sacraments and the power of the sacraments from God the sanctifier and from the merits of Jesus Christ; in particular the sacrament and sacrifice of the Eucharist; these things, I say, and the others which are revealed to us by the word of God to be believed, lie open to the blessed without veil, in themselves, through spiritual vision, since with what is in part done away, what is perfect has come, and with the day dawning the morning star has risen in their hearts, that is, in their intellects.

3°. The saints in the beatific vision intuit God in himself, yet with many different degrees of intensity and clarity, as exemplary cause of all beings, which can be a certain shadowing forth and participation of him who is (יהוה ὁ ὤν); as efficient cause and conserving universal cause, on which all existing things necessarily depend, not only to be produced but also to persevere in being, as the light of the sun depends on the sun; as final cause, to which all things are ordered by the intrinsic necessary natures of things: « from him, and through him, and in him (εἰς αὐτον) are all things » (Rom. XI. 36.). Wherefore if the blessed saw the divine essence as far as it is knowable, that is, if they comprehended it, they would also perfectly comprehend in it all possibles and all things existing at any time. But this comprehension is of infinite perfection, and therefore proper to God alone (cf. S. Th. 1. q. 12. a. 8.).

Yet a) by the very fact that the blessed see the divine essence as it is in itself, they also intuit how that infinite Being is the exemplar and norm of all things that can have participated being; although for this reason they do not yet see all possibles, or each of them, in themselves, as we said above. Likewise they see how nothing besides God can actually exist except dependently on that infinite goodness, wisdom, and power, which they intuit as it is in itself; and how all that is must necessarily be ordered to that infinite good as to its essential end. Yet by this very fact they do not yet see all things, or each thing, actually existing.

But b) that same supernatural light by which the blessed minds are raised to intuit the first Being, true, and good, as it is, is also valid, according to its diverse degree of intensity and perfection, for knowing, with greater or lesser breadth, the possible beings, truths, and goods which have their exemplar and foundation in it; and for the proportionate vision of the things that actually exist, which depend on that first cause and final end. Cf. S. Th. 1. q. 57. a. 2. Although, indeed, the extent and intensity of this vision, even insofar as it is common to all the blessed comprehensors, cannot be defined by us one by one, it seems nevertheless to be said that that spiritual vision extends in all the blessed to the whole created universe, insofar as it consists of permanent substances; namely, to see perfectly the greatness, order, beauty, species and essences of the whole universe, as much as is needed for them to see perfectly in the whole universe the glory of God, that is, to see in the things that have been made the essence, power, goodness, wisdom, and beauty of God shining forth, who is the exemplary, efficient, conserving, and final cause of all. And so they see the divine ideas and the eternal reasons according to which all these things were made, and in the divine essence which they intuit in itself; or (speaking by appropriation) in the Word they see these created things, and in creatures they in turn see and glorify God. « The holy angels, to whom we shall be made equal after the resurrection…. without doubt first knew the whole creature, in which they themselves were principally created, in the Word of God himself, in whom are the eternal reasons of all things, even those made in time, as in that by which all things were made; and then in the creature itself, which they so knew as looking down from below, and referring it to the praise of him in whose unchangeable truth they principally see the reasons according to which it was made. There, therefore, as by day…. but here, as by evening; yet continually morning comes…. because angelic knowledge does not remain in what is created, but continually refers this to their praise and charity, in which it is known that this was not made but is to be made; in standing in this truth there is day ⁷ » S. Aug. Gen. ad litt. l. IV. c. 24; Civit. Dei 1. XI. c.7. 29. Vide Suarez de Deo 1. II. c. 28; Lessius de Summo bono 1. II. c. 9. 10.

4°. The blessed comprehensors, all of them, both angels and men (that is, the blessed souls), belong to the heavenly hierarchy, arranged in diverse grades: they are all citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, which is our mother; and so they are members of the Church in manifold variety, in which, according to its threefold division into the Church triumphant, the Church purgative and the Church militant, there is the communion of saints, which we profess in the very creed of faith. Of the Church still militant on earth it has been said: « You have come to Mount Sion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to the company (πανηγύρει) of many thousands of angels, and to the Church of the firstborn (πρωτοτόκων), who are enrolled in the heavens, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect » (καὶ πνεύμασι δικαίων τετελειωμένων) Heb. XIII. 22. 23. Cf. Eph.II. 19. Wherefore each of the blessed, according to his own state and grade in which they are established in the kingdom of heaven, has a different order in the communion of saints, and different relations to the whole Church. Moreover the very perfection of consummated spirits requires that each one intellectually see, in a manner befitting the light of glory, all the things which pertain to his state. Each one therefore sees first of all the whole heavenly Jerusalem: « they see all the orders, number, merits, dignity, and glory of the blessed angels and men; for it is fitting that they know their city and their father's house, and their brothers and fellow citizens, most thoroughly, and wonder at and praise the goodness and mercy of God in each one » Lessius de Summo bono 1. II. c. 9. n. 61. For all these things pertain above all to that perfect state of each one. But of those things which are done in the Church, whether purgative or militant, and in the human race, especially those which pertain to the supernatural order of grace (cf. Luc. XV. 7. 10.), each one knows those things which pertain to their own ministries according to their diverse state and order, which they hold in the heavenly hierarchy and in the communion of saints. Hence it is clear that the worship and supplications directed to the saints are known by them not only through a special revelation of God, but that this knowledge is fitting for them and connected with their own perfect state in the communion of saints. On this matter compare Bellarmin. de Beatitud. SS. 1. I. c. 20. ad argument. III.

Moreover, the blessed souls who have come from this pilgrimage on earth to the fatherland do not lose the knowledge of human affairs, nor their relations with human beings; but only what was imperfect is emptied out and raised to perfection. Just as their bodies, dead on earth, have an order to future life and glorification in heaven, so much more do the souls living in glory retain special relations to human things, with that perfection which befits the perfection of their charity toward God and toward men to be sanctified and saved by God. These things, therefore, insofar as they pertain to the state of each one, are to be judged to pertain to their knowledge, not only, but also to a special care. Vide S. Thom. contra gent. III. 59; Toletum in 1. q. 12 a. 8; Suarez de Deo 1. II. c. 28. n. 17; Lessius de Summo bono 1. II. c. 9. n. 66; c. 10. n. 69.