Scholastica commentaria in Primam Partem Summae Theologicae

SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE.

The FIRST Conclusion is affirmative.

Second Conclusion: That one sees more perfectly than another will not be through any more perfect likeness of God in one than in another.

Third Conclusion: That difference of vision will be through this, that the intellect of one has a greater faculty and power for seeing God, not from its own nature, but through the light of glory.

Fourth Conclusion: He will share more in the light of glory who has had more charity in the present life.

COMMENTARY.

CONCERNING this article, note that the first conclusion is certain according to the Catholic faith and defined in the Church. For there was once the heretic Jovinian, asserting that all the Blessed will be equal in the future, as St. Jerome reports in the Exposition of the Symbol to Damasus, vol. 2, 57, and the reason of this heretic was that he held with the Stoics that all vices are equal, and likewise that virtues are equal, as St. Augustine reports in On Heresies to Quodvultdeus, heresy 42. Luther also held the same error, not because he thought sins to be equal or virtues, but because he held that all those justified from sin are justified by the sole justice of Christ imputed to them; and since it is one single justice, all were equally just, and consequently all equally Blessed. This error was once condemned at Rome through the efforts of Victorinus and Pamachius, as St. Jerome reports, bk. 2 against Jovinian. It was condemned also in the Council of Aquileia, assembled at Aprica by order of Pope Siricius. It was condemned also in the Council of Florence in the Letters of union, where it is said: «Those who depart this life wholly cleansed of sin are at once received into heaven, where they see God as He is, but according to diversity of merits one more perfectly than another». Likewise in Sacred Scripture the conclusion is proved from that passage John 14: «In my Father's house there are many mansions». Which all the Holy Doctors explain of the diversity of degrees in beatitude: so Anselm, St. Thomas on that passage, St. Augustine in the book On Holy Virginity, ch. 26, and St. Jerome in the place above, St. Gregory Nazianzen in bk. 1 of his Theology, and St. Gregory in bk. 4 of the Morals, ch. 42, St. Bernard in the Letter to Abbot William, first part, at the end.

It should be noted however that, for this conclusion to be of faith, it makes no difference whether beatitude essentially consists in vision or in love itself and fruition. For all theologians agree in this, that these three stand proportionately to one another, namely vision, love, and fruition: for he who enjoys more, loves more, and he who loves more sees more perfectly; wherefore in whatever act beatitude consists, it will not be equal in all. But the heretic Jovinian objected that in the parable found in Matt. 20, of the laborers in the vineyard, it is said that an equal reward was bestowed on those laboring unequally. To which however it must be said, with St. Thomas, 1-2, q. 5, art. 2, ad 1, and 3 Contra Gentiles, ch. 53, that by the denarius given to the laborers is understood the very object of beatitude, which is one; but by the diverse mansions are understood diverse degrees of attaining that object. And this is the common explanation of the Scholastics in 4, dist. 49; and it is that of St. Augustine and Jerome in the places cited.

There is however a DOUBT concerning the third conclusion: whether a more perfect intellect according to its own nature, with an equal light of glory, sees God more perfectly and intensely than another intellect naturally less perfect, with the same light nonetheless?

For the affirmative side, it is argued first: for a sharper bodily sight sees more perfectly than another less sharp with equal light: therefore proportionately it will be so in the spiritual eye. Second: the natural intellect concurs actively in the Vision of God, as the elicitive principle of the vital action: therefore, other things being equal, the more perfect intellect acts more perfectly and will see God. Third: the Blessed produce the Vision with their whole effort; but the more perfect intellect strives more vehemently: therefore with equal light it will see more perfectly. Lastly it is argued from St. Thomas, 3rd part, q. 10, art. 4, ad 2, where he says that the degrees of intensity of beatitude are taken more from the order of grace than from the order of nature: therefore in some way they are considered from the order of nature.

In this difficulty Cajetan, in the 3rd part in the place above, on account of the arguments made holds the affirmative side. But for the decision of this question note that one must beware of the error of some who assert that a more imperfect intellect can never attain the degree of perfection in beatitude which a more perfect intellect has: e.g. that a man through grace can never attain to the perfection of the degree of beatitude of the lowest angel. St. Thomas refutes this error, 3 Contra Gentiles, ch. 57, from that passage Matt. 22: They shall be as the angels of God. But most of all from that passage ch. 10 of the Apocalypse: «The measure of man and of angel shall be the same!» And it is the common consensus of the Church that the Blessed Virgin has been exalted above the choirs of angels in beatitude. It is true however that among the angels themselves, according to the common opinion of the Scholastics, the comparison of grace to grace and of nature to nature holds proportionately, so that those more excellent in nature received more excellent grace and glory, etc.

This supposed, let the conclusion be: the least intellect, as far as lies on the side of its own nature, will see God more perfectly if it has been illumined by a more perfect light of glory, and will see equally if it has been illumined by an equal light as even the most perfect angel. And so the whole ground of the measure of the perfection of beatitude must be considered precisely from the quantity of the light of glory. It is proved first from St. Thomas in this article, ad 3, where he says that the diversity of seeing will be through a diverse faculty of the intellect, not indeed natural but glorious. Likewise in the Council of Florence in the place above: «the diversity of degrees of the beatific Vision is reduced to the diversity of merits». And it is confirmed: for from Cajetan's view it follows that if some man should merit by equal merits as much as another, if he be of more perfect intellect, he will be more blessed. It is proved: because he will receive an equal supernatural light as the reward of equal merits. But to say that he receives less light so that a proportion of quality may come about in the blessed Vision — this is utterly unfitting: because hence it would follow that some degree of essential beatitude would not be radically from grace or from merits, but rather from nature itself; and consequently would not be from the merits of Christ. Third it is proved: for from Cajetan's view it would follow that one having less light of glory could see God more perfectly than another who has more intense light of glory. The consequence is proved: suppose, e.g., an angel who with a light of glory as six sees God with an intensity as eight on account of the vivacity of his intellect; and suppose likewise an archangel who with an equal light as six will see God more intensely than the angel, e.g. as ten: then if some supreme Seraph had had an equal light with the angel and the archangel, he would exceed notably in intensity of vision, e.g. as sixteen. Whence it is gathered that the supreme Seraph, with less light, would see more intensely than the angel, because nature supplies what is less in light. Fourth it is proved: the natural intellect and the light of glory are not of the same order: therefore they cannot concur to increase the intensity of one species, namely of the divine order; but rather the whole ground of intensity must be taken from the side of the light elevating the intellect above its own nature, and consequently to a supernatural operation: therefore if it elevates to that more perfect operation, it is necessary that the intellect be more perfectly elevated by a more perfect light, according to that maxim: as the unqualified stands to the unqualified, so the more stands to the more.

To the arguments to the contrary it is answered. To the first, the consequence is denied. The ground of the difference is that bodily sight has a natural power for seeing color, and is of the same order as the visible object: but God, as He is in Himself, has no connaturality with the created intellect. Hence the natural power of the intellect makes no difference to a more perfect vision. To the second, the consequence is denied: because the intellect is elevated to concur actively in that vision by the light of glory alone; and so the quantity of activity arises from the quantity of the light, since that action is entirely of a higher order. To the third, the minor is denied: because the greater effort does not arise from perfection of nature, but only from the supernatural faculty. To the last it is answered that that particle «more» is not taken there comparatively, but rather adversatively, as if he said that it is considered from the order of grace, and not from nature itself. It must be noted here however that if anyone holds that view that by God's absolute power the created intellect can see God by a mere supernatural aid, without any infused light, he will scarcely be able to reduce the intensity of the Vision to any cause. For if he reduces it to a greater aid of God, it does not seem intelligible how that aid is greater or less except in some effect, since in God Himself there is nothing greater or less. But to distinguish that greater or less on the side of the effect will be, according to this opinion, just the same as saying that this vision is more intense because it is more intense: the consequence is clear, since there is there no other effect to which that greater and less is reduced, except only the vision itself.