Scholastica commentaria in Primam Partem Summae Theologicae

SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE.

Conclusion: No mere man can see God through the Essence, unless he be separated from mortal life.

COMMENTARY.

IN this article it is to be noted, first, that its conclusion is not to be understood of the natural faculty. For already above, art. 4, St. Thomas explained that through the natural faculty no created intellect can see the Divine Essence. Hence the conclusion is to be understood of supernatural power. Second, it is to be noted that, since supernatural power is twofold, one ordinary, namely that which is bound by the laws established by God, the other absolute, which is constrained by no laws, the conclusion of St. Thomas is not to be understood of absolute power, but of ordinary power. For as St. Thomas himself confesses in the reply to the second objection, St. Paul and Moses, though set in this mortal life, saw the Divine Essence through the absolute power of God. Ferrara, 3 Cont. Gent. chap. 47, seems to expound this conclusion of St. Thomas of the absolute power of God, so that it would be unfeasible by any power of God for anyone in this mortal life to behold the Divine Essence. But Cajetan, in this commentary, expounds the conclusion of the letter of the ordinary power of God. Yet there is no contradiction between these authors, since they understand that conclusion of St. Thomas in different ways. Cajetan so understands it, that no man in this mortal life can see the Divine Essence, even if in that Vision he should use no sense, nor see without a turning to phantasms. And the conclusion, in that sense, without doubt cannot be verified except of ordinary power, because through the absolute power of God it does not involve a contradiction that such a vision of the Divine Essence be communicated to a man existing in mortal life. Ferrara, however, so expounds the conclusion, that no man in this life can see the Divine Essence in such a way that his vision would depend on the use of some sense, and come about through a turning to phantasms; and the conclusion, expounded in this sense, holds true even according to the absolute power of God. But it is to be observed that the conclusion of St. Thomas, expounded in the sense of Ferrara, is not certain according to faith, though it is the common opinion of the theologians. And it is proved by a most efficacious reason: since the Divine Essence, insofar as it is the likeness through which that vision comes about, has no dependence or connection with a phantasm, nor can it have any: therefore it is impossible that a vision which comes about through the Divine Essence should depend on a phantasm. For the rest, if the conclusion is taken in the sense expounded by Cajetan, and understood according to ordinary power, it is manifest faith, defined in the Council of Vienne against the Beghards and Beguines. And it is proved from John 1: No man hath seen God at any time, and chap. 3: He that is of the earth, of the earth he speaketh; he that cometh from heaven is above all; what he hath seen, that he testifieth. In which place Christ the Lord openly declares that no man besides Himself, who descended from heaven, has seen the mysteries of faith in the Divine Essence. And 1 Tim. 6: Who inhabiteth light inaccessible, whom no man hath seen, nor can see. Exod. 33: Man shall not see Me and live. These testimonies and the like are at minimum to be understood according to the ordinary power of God.

Concerning those words of St. Thomas in the body, namely that man in sleep is fitter for perceiving spiritual revelations than in waking, etc., it is to be noted, first, that the intellect in its operation has two offices: one to apprehend, and the other to judge. Now I say that this sentence of St. Thomas holds true as regards apprehension, but not as regards judgment. And the reason is: because for perceiving the likenesses of spiritual things a man is disposed by the fact that he ceases from operation concerning material and sensible things — which cessation takes place above all in sleep; but judgment comes about through resolution to sensible things perceived by the senses; and hence judgment is better done in waking than in sleep. This truth can be gathered from Gen. 28, where Jacob, after he had seen in sleep a ladder touching heaven, said upon waking: Indeed the Lord is in this place, and I knew it not. Behold how Jacob in sleep had seen the ladder touching heaven, and angels ascending and descending by it; yet until his waking he had not perfectly judged that God was truly in that place. Second, it is to be noted that this sentence of St. Thomas is to be understood of sleep in which the imagination is not dulled and disturbed, as it is in those who sleep after much food and drink; but it is required that in sleep only the exterior senses be bound, while the imagination remains free so that it can minister subtler likenesses to the intellect of the sleeper. See Cajetan on this article.

There is a grave doubt concerning the reply to the second objection: whether St. Paul and Moses saw the Divine Essence while they were in this mortal life? This question has its proper place in 2-2, q. 174, art. 4, and q. 175, art. 3. But since that passage of St. Thomas is rarely treated in the Schools, it will therefore be disputed here. And first, the negative side is urged from all those testimonies which we adduced to prove that the conclusion of the letter is to be held according to faith. For in those testimonies it is openly declared that no man, Christ the Lord excepted, has in this life seen the Divine Essence. But above all that passage of John 1 is to be weighed: No man hath seen God at any time. For in the preceding words the Evangelist had said: The law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. And he at once subjoins: No man hath seen God at any time, but the Only-begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. By which words the Evangelist assigns as the reason why the law was given through Moses, and yet grace and truth came not through Moses but through Christ, that Christ alone had seen God: therefore Moses did not see the Divine Essence.

Second, it is argued from the testimonies of the Holy Fathers. St. Jerome, book 3 Against the Pelagians near the end, and on chap. 6 of Isaiah, most openly says that no prophet ever, nor any man, has seen God in His Essence, but in figures and enigmas. The same teaches St. Chrysostom concerning Moses, Homily 14 on John, and he says the same of Paul, though not so assertively, on 2 Cor. chap. 12. Gregory Nazianzen, book 2 of his Theology from the beginning; Gregory the Great, book 18 of the Morals, chaps. 37 and 38; and St. Cyril on John, book 1, chap. 22. These Holy Fathers speak more openly of Moses than of Paul. The same opinion teaches Dionysius in the book On Mystical Theology, chap. 1. But what presses most vehemently: this opinion is taught most assertively by Pope Evaristus in his first Decretal Epistle, expounding those words of Paul 1 Tim. 6: Who inhabiteth inaccessible light, etc.; he says that no prophet ever saw God in His Essence, but only in enigma and figure.

Third. It is never licit to except anyone from a general rule contained in Sacred Scripture without a most grave foundation; but it is a general rule contained in Sacred Scripture that no one ever saw the Divine Essence, or can see it: therefore to except anyone from this general rule is not licit without a most grave foundation. All this needs no proof. Further, but there is no foundation for saying that Moses and Paul saw God through the Essence in this life: therefore. This last antecedent is proved. First concerning Moses: for all the testimonies of Sacred Scripture in which it is asserted that Moses saw God face to face, or spoke with God mouth to mouth, can fittingly be expounded through that understanding by which St. Thomas in the reply to the first expounds those words of Gen. 32 spoken of Jacob: «I have seen the Lord face to face». Moreover, concerning St. Paul, what is contained in 2 Cor. 12, that he was caught up even to the third heaven, does not compel, since these words have manifold understandings, as may be seen in St. Thomas, 2-2, q. 175, art. 3, to the last. But there is no other passage in Sacred Scripture from which we could gather that Moses and Paul saw the Divine Essence: therefore there is no foundation.

Fourth. From Sacred Scripture it is gathered that neither Moses nor Paul saw the Divine Essence: therefore. The antecedent is proved. And first concerning Moses, from Exod. 33, where after Moses had asked the Lord to show him His glory, it was answered him: «Thou canst not see My face»; face, that is, Essence. Concerning St. Paul it is gathered from 2 Cor. 12: «I heard secret words, etc.». For hearing pertains more to faith, as St. Paul says to the Romans 10, «Faith cometh by hearing», than to Vision. And indeed it is unusual, both among sacred and among profane authors, that hearing be taken for seeing. Lastly. From the opposite opinion it follows that St. Paul in the rapture did not have faith, even in habit. The consequent is false: because Paul was then a wayfarer, and consequently a believer. The consequence is proved. For the clear vision of God could not have been had by Paul without the light of glory, but faith even in habit cannot stand with the light of glory: therefore. You will say with St. Thomas, 2-2, q. 175, art. 3, to 2, that the light of glory in Paul did not have permanent being, but was given him after the manner of something transient, and thus was compatible with faith in habit. Against: the clear and the obscure light are opposed as habit and privation: therefore they cannot be together, not even for one instant, just as a man cannot at once be seeing and blind, not even for one instant; but faith and the light of glory are related as the obscure and the clear light: therefore. And it is confirmed. From the opposite opinion it follows that St. Paul, even with that clear Vision ceasing, could not have an act of faith; the consequent is most false: therefore. The consequence is proved. St. Paul, with the vision ceasing, remembered having seen in the Divine Essence all the mysteries of faith, as St. Thomas teaches in this question above, art. 8, to 2; but an act of faith is not compossible with such recollection, just as he who remembers having seen Rome has not faith, but rather evidence, that he was once at Rome: therefore.

The opposite affirmative opinion is taught by most weighty men. St. Augustine, book 12 on Genesis according to the letter, chaps. 27 and 28, and in Epistle 112 to Paulinus, and Sermon 46 to the brethren in the Desert, most expressly affirms that both Paul and Moses saw the Divine Essence, just as the blessed angels see it. The same teaches concerning Moses St. Basil in Homily 1 on the Six Days from the beginning; St. Ambrose, book 1 on the Six Days, chap. 2; he teaches the same concerning Moses and St. Paul. He holds the same on 2 Cor. chap. 12, expounding that word, Paradise. St. Anselm and the Venerable Bede teach the same on this passage of Paul. And Hugh of St. Victor on the same passage, quest. 34; Lyra and Burgensis teach the same in the same place. Abulensis, on chap. 5 of Matthew, q. 47, reckons this opinion the more common. Durandus teaches the same in 4, dist. 49, q. 6. Finally St. Thomas with nearly his whole School unhesitatingly teaches this opinion in 2-2, in the passages cited. Cajetan, in 2-2, q. 175, art. 3, follows St. Thomas; but he deserts his opinion on chap. 12 of Numbers. And this opinion is proved: first concerning Moses; Exod. 33: after Moses had asked the Lord to show him His glory, the Lord said to him: «I will show thee all good»; but the showing of all good cannot come about unless the Divine Essence, which is all good, be shown: therefore at some time God fulfilled this promise to Moses. Likewise Num. 12: God, wishing to show the excellence of Moses above all the prophets, says: «Plainly, and not by enigmas and figures, he saw God». Behold a manifest testimony. Concerning St. Paul it is proved from that celebrated testimony 2 Cor. 12: «I heard secret words, which it is not granted to man to utter». In which passage it is asserted that Paul was caught up to the third heaven, and into paradise. In this testimony three things are to be weighed. First, that word, third heaven: which is most certainly and fittingly expounded of the vision of the Divine Essence, as the Interlinear Gloss expounds it. Second, that word, Paradise: which is also most aptly expounded of the Vision of the Divine Essence, insofar as from it there results delight and enjoyment in the will. And this acceptation of Paradise is customary in Sacred Scripture; and so Christ hanging on the Cross said to the thief: Today thou shalt be with Me in paradise, which consists in the vision of the Divine Essence. Third, that phrase, I heard secret words which it is not granted to man to utter; these secret words were certainly the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation. With this supposed, the passage is thus weighed. It is granted to man to utter these mysteries, if they are taken only as revealed through faith; therefore for the saying of Paul to be verified, these mysteries must be taken as they were revealed to him in the Divine Essence. Then, this opinion is proved by reason: Moses was instituted by God to be the first master and doctor of the Synagogue; and Paul was assumed by God to be the master of the Gentile people, who had before heard nothing of God: therefore it appears most fitting that God should reveal the mysteries of faith to these Saints by open vision, that they might be eyewitnesses of them, so as to be able to say: what we have heard and seen, this we testify.

For the resolution of this doubt, let the first conclusion be. The negative opinion is quite probable, and the arguments proposed strongly confirm it; but the second affirmative opinion appears more probable and more likely, as being more in agreement with Sacred Scripture, as is plain from the testimonies adduced, Exod. 33, Num. 12, and 2 Cor. 12.

Second conclusion. It is not licit to extend this privilege of seeing the Divine Essence in this life to any other of the Saints. I say this on account of certain theologians who extend this privilege to St. Benedict. They are moved by a certain miracle related by St. Gregory, book 2 of the Dialogues, chap. 35, where he relates a certain wonderful vision by which St. Benedict thought he saw the whole universe. But as St. Thomas proves most efficaciously, Quodlibet 1, art. 1, that Vision of the whole universe was not had in the Divine Essence, but through a certain illustration made outside the Divine Essence. Moreover, it is not credible that St. Gregory granted this privilege of seeing the Divine Essence to St. Benedict, when he denied it to Moses and St. Paul. The conclusion is briefly proved: to except anyone from a general rule of Sacred Scripture without great foundation is signal rashness; but there is no such foundation for excepting any saint besides Moses and Paul from that general rule, No man hath seen God at any time: therefore. In this second conclusion we do not comprehend the Blessed Virgin, for without any rashness, indeed with great probability, it could be said that she saw the Divine Essence when she conceived the Only-begotten Son, or when she bore Him, or at another time. And the reason is: because, as Cajetan learnedly observes, 3rd part, q. 27, last art.: «Every grace and prerogative granted to any saint is to be granted to the Blessed Virgin»: therefore the privilege granted to Paul and Moses is to be granted also to the Blessed Virgin. Whether the first parent Adam saw the Divine Essence when God, Gen. 2, cast a deep sleep upon him, is not a settled matter: St. Thomas, below q. 94, art. 1, lightly touched on this matter, but did not define it. The affirmative opinion seems gathered from Augustine, book 9 on Genesis according to the letter, last chap., where he says: «Adam in that sleep was present at the court of the angels»; and from St. Bernard, in Sermon 2 for Septuagesima, where he says: «Adam then slept with his gaze upon unchangeable truth». Briefly, however, I say that it can be said with less improbability that Adam saw the Divine Essence than that St. Benedict or any other Saint saw it. It is proved, because it has a probable foundation in the testimonies of St. Augustine and Bernard, and also in that passage of Genesis 2, as gathered by St. Bernard in the place above. And moreover, because Adam was the head and first master of the whole human race. But yet, I say second, this opinion has little probability, namely that Adam saw the Essence of God; because it can scarcely be gathered with any show of reason from that testimony of Gen. 2. And to the testimonies of Augustine and Bernard it is answered that these Fathers teach only that Adam in that sleep was in ecstasy, and had a wonderful and divine revelation, yet in prophetic manner and outside the Word. See on this question Peter of Palude on the second chapter of Genesis; William Pepin cites him on this passage of Genesis.

To the arguments. To the first it is answered that those testimonies are to be understood according to the ordinary power of God; but Paul and Moses were admitted by the absolute power of God to the vision of the Divine Essence. Second, it is answered that those testimonies speak of the comprehensive Vision of God, which no creature can have. And to that weighed testimony from John 1, it is answered with Cajetan in the same place that Christ the Lord excelled Moses in this, and even the blessed angels: that Christ, as the natural Son of God, was admitted to the Vision of the Divine Essence by hereditary right. Moses, however, and also the Blessed, were admitted from the grace and liberality of God. Moreover, it can be said, second, that Christ excelled Moses in that He comprehended the Divine Essence insofar as He was God, and thus comprehended all the mysteries of grace. To Moses, however, there were revealed in the Divine Essence some particular mysteries of grace, according to the disposition of the divine Will. To the second it is answered that those holy Fathers held the opposite opinion, which we reckon probable. Pope Evaristus, however, in teaching that opinion, bore himself as a particular doctor, expounding a private opinion, and not as a Pope defining. To the third it is answered that, as is established from the arguments made for the second opinion, we have sufficient foundation for excepting Moses and Paul from that general rule.

To the fourth it is answered; and first to that passage Exod. 33, «Thou canst not see My face, etc.». It is answered, following St. Augustine in Epistle 112, chaps. 11 and 12, on Genesis according to the letter, chap. 27, that in this sense God denied to Moses the vision of His Essence: that he could not at once use the senses and the other powers, but it was necessary that he be abstracted from all sensible operation; and the following words insinuate this: «No man shall see Me and live». In which place it is to be observed with St. Thomas in this reply to the second objection that every man who in this life shall have seen the Divine Essence must be wholly abstracted from the senses; and this abstraction befell Moses and Paul, from the fact that Paul says, 2 Cor. 12, that he knows not whether in the body or out of the body he was caught up to the third heaven. St. Thomas assigns the reason for this in 2-2, q. 175, art. 4, On Truth, q. 15, art. 3, in the body near the end. Second, it is answered that the vision of the Divine Essence was denied to Moses by God not absolutely, but for that time for which he was asking; yet at another time it was granted him. To that passage concerning Paul, I heard secret words, etc., it is answered that the vision of the Divine Essence is there called hearing, because through that vision Paul was instructed concerning the mysteries of grace as through the teaching of the highest mastership and as a disciple of God, that he might afterwards become the master of the Gentiles. To the last it is answered that the solution assigned there is sufficient. To the rejoinder it is answered that the habit of faith is not a formal light, but a causal light, that is, productive of actual light, and I say the same of the light of glory. Hence the habit of faith and the light of glory are not properly opposed as habit and privation, but as two contrary habits. To the confirmation, Cajetan, 2-2, q. 175, art. 5, says that Paul in the rapture did not see all the mysteries of faith, but some. Then he gathers that, with the divine vision ceasing, in respect of those mysteries which he had not seen in the rapture he could have an act of faith; but in respect of the others which he had seen, he had faith only in readiness of soul, just as we now have faith that God is one. This solution is probable. But Master Medina, 1-2, q. 67, art. 4, second doubt, says that, just as an act of faith is compatible with evidence in the attester, so with that evidence of the mysteries of grace which Paul had from remembering that he had seen them in the rapture, an act of faith was compatible, since that evidence was evidence only in a qualified sense, because it did not proceed from likenesses clearly and distinctly representing those mysteries. This solution is quite likely, if it be well expounded. For its explication, the teaching of St. Thomas is to be recalled, art. 9 of this question, to the second, that St. Paul in the rapture, from the vision of the Divine Essence, could form in himself likenesses representing the particular mysteries which he beheld in the Divine Essence. Hence it is to be noted that this teaching can be understood in two ways. First, that Paul, with the beatific vision continuing, formed in himself such likenesses, which afterwards remained with the Vision ceasing. Second, that Paul formed those likenesses at once as the beatific Vision ceased; and each of these ways is probable. The first, however, is intimated by St. Thomas in that reply, and by Cajetan below, q. 56, last art., at the end of the Commentary. For the rest, whether in the first or in the second way those likenesses were formed, this is most certain to me: that those likenesses could not produce a certain and determinate recollection of those mysteries unless aided by the light of faith, yet strengthened and fortified from the conjunction it had with the light of glory in the rapture. And the reason for this is: since those likenesses needed a light by which they might be ordered to effecting that recollection of the mysteries; and moreover that light had to be of the supernatural order. From this it follows, first, that if, with the beatific vision ceasing, the intellect of Paul had not been endowed with the light of faith, it would not have had a certain and determinate memory of those mysteries which it had seen in the Divine Essence; but its recollection would have been confused and uncertain. It follows, second, that the certitude inhering in that memory was not to be resolved wholly into that evidence which Paul had in the beatific Vision, because it depended in great part on the light of glory. It follows, third, that that recollection of the mysteries had greater clarity and evidence than any act of faith, since it rested not only on the light of faith but also on the past beatific Vision and the light of glory. From whose conjunction the light of faith remained strengthened in order to making that recollection together with the likenesses formed in virtue of the Divine Essence. Hence I would believe that that recollection was a more evident knowledge of the mysteries of grace than any prophetic knowledge. Yet it was not simply evident, because it rested on faith, and therefore was compatible with an act of faith, even in respect of those same mysteries. And in this sense the solution of Master Medina is to be expounded. Read the two following articles.