Summa summae S. Thomae sive compendium theologiae

I say 1°. God, as he is in himself, cannot be seen by a bodily eye, even if glorified¹. This is against Master Bona Spes and his disciples, the Calced Carmelite Fathers.

Proof 1° from the Fathers. Origen, contra Celsum, says: « Celsus therefore falsely charges us, saying that we hope to see God with bodily eyes. » And he adds that the mind alone sees God. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cathec. 9: « God indeed cannot be discerned with the eyes of the flesh; for the incorporeal cannot fall under bodily eyes. » St. Athanasius, in St. Augustine, Epist. 147², says that God, « according to the property of his deity, is altogether invisible..., except insofar as he can be known by mind and spirit. » St. Ambrose, in the same, ibid., c. 6, n. 18, as will be cited below. St. Jerome, in the same, ibid., c. 23, n. 53, asserts the same thing, and proves it « because an incorporeal thing is not seen with bodily eyes. »

As for St. Augustine, about whom the difficulty is greatest, that he constantly held our opinion is shown by many proofs. In Epist. 92³, ad Italicam, he says, n. 3: « This [namely, God] the eye of the body can neither see now, nor will be able to see then; » which he proves with many arguments, and he calls the opposite opinion folly and madness in Epist. 147, or the book de videndo Deo, after he had confirmed the same opinion in the former, and in this letter, from the Scriptures, from Sts. Ambrose, Jerome, and Athanasius cited, he concludes thus in the words of Ambrose: « God is not seen in a place, nor is he sought with bodily eyes; » and he adds: « But I confess that this is also my own opinion. » In Psalm. XLI, after the beginning: « God indeed cannot be seen except with the mind. » And elsewhere, many times. Finally, St. Fulgentius, his disciple, to whom the mind of the Holy Doctor was better understood than it is to certain more recent writers, in his answer to the third Quaest. of Ferrandus, testifies that this was the opinion of his master, and subscribes to it in these words: « God the Spirit is not seen with bodily eyes; » and: « God promises the vision of himself not to the eyes of the body, but to those of the soul. »

Proof 2° by reason. God is a spirit. But it is absolutely impossible for a spirit to be seen by a bodily eye. Therefore. — Proof of the minor. It is impossible for any power to be carried outside the range of its adequate and extensive object, otherwise it would be adequate and extensive, as is supposed, and it would not be, because beyond that the power would supernaturally extend itself. But a spirit is not contained within the range of the adequate and extensive object of the bodily eye. Therefore. — Proof of the minor. The adequate object of the bodily eye, like that of every material power, is something corporeal and material, namely color for the eye, sound for the ear, odor for the sense of smell, etc.: which is clear both from the common sense of mankind, and from the definition of these powers; for sight is commonly defined as the power perceptive of lucid color; hearing, the power perceptive of sound; and so of the rest. Therefore.

It is confirmed. God is further removed, in the nature of an object, from sensible objects, than one sensible thing is from another sensible thing, e.g., than color is from sound. But it is absolutely impossible for the eye alone to hear, and the ear to see color, otherwise there would no longer be two distinct senses, but the eye would be the ear, and the ear the eye. Therefore, a fortiori, it cannot be that God is seen by a bodily eye.

Proof 3° from incongruity. If God could supernaturally be seen by the bodily eye of man, he could likewise be seen supernaturally by the eye of a brute animal, say an ox or a dog; for the sensitive powers of brute animals are of the same, indeed sometimes of greater, perfection than the sensitive powers of man. But the consequent seems absurd, as will be declared more fully below. Therefore.

The disciples of Bona Spes, together with their master, answer that all this proves that the bodily eye cannot see God by a bodily vision, but not that it cannot see him by a spiritual vision united to it. But on the contrary: 1° The Fathers cited in the first proof say that God cannot be seen except by the mind alone. 2° Vision is a vital action: as an action it must necessarily be from an agent, for the concept of action is formally the concept of an outgoing; as vital it must necessarily be from something moving itself from within, for it is by this that we distinguish living things from non-living things, that living things move themselves from within, whereas dead things do not. Therefore it is impossible for a bodily eye to see by a spiritual vision united to it. 3° Spiritual vision is an act of understanding, but it cannot happen that a bodily eye should understand; because that which is not intellective in first act can no more understand in second act than a stone or a piece of wood. Finally, from this it would likewise follow that the eye of a brute animal could see God by a spiritual vision united to it, and be blessed.