to give glory according to the measure of grace given or irrespective of foreseen merits in the predestinate.
OF GOD IN HIS REVELATION Google BOOK IV OF GOD IN HIS REVELATION CHAPTER l-Treface* LO, these things that have been said are but a part of his ways; and whereas we have heard scarce one little drop of his speech^ who shall be able to loo% upon the thunder of his greatness? (Job xxvi, 14.) It is the nature of the human mind to gather its knowledge from sensible things; nor can it of itself arrive at the diredt vision of the divine substance, as that substance is in itself raised above all sensible things and all other beings to boot, and beyond all proportion with them. But because the perfeft good of man consists in his knowing God in such way as he can, there is given man a way of ascending to the knowledge of God, to the end that so noble a crea- ture should not seem to exist altogether in vain, unable to attain the proper end of his existence. The way is this, that as all the perfections of creatures descend in order from God, who is the height of perfec- tion, man should begin from the lower creatures, and ascend by de- grees, and so advance to the knowledge of God. Of this descent of perfec- tions from God there are two processes. One is on the part of the first origin of things: for the divine wisdom, to make things perfe6t, produced them in order, that the universe might consist of a complete round of creatures from highest to lowest. The other process belongs to the things them- selves: for, as causes are nobler than effects, the first and highest produdts of causation, while falling short of the First Cause, which is God, nevertheless are superior to the effects which they themselves produce; and so on in order, until we come to the lowest of creatures.t And because in that 4 roof and crown of all things' (summo rerumvertice), God, we find the most perfe6t unity; and everything is stronger and more excellent, the more thoroughly it is one; it follows that diversity and variety increase in things, the further they are re- moved from Him who is the first principle of all. Therefore the process of derivation of creatures from their first principle may be represented by a sort of pyramid, with unity at the apex, and the widest multiplicity at the base. J And thus in the diversity of things there is apparent a diversity of ways, beginning from one principle and terminating in different terms. By these ways then our understanding can ascend to God.
But the weakness of our understanding prevents us from knowing these * This fourth book is wanting in the mutilated Every organism is a One in Many. The more per- Bergamo autograph in the Vatican Library. feci the organism, the more perfect the unity, as St t See B. Ill, Chap. LXXVIII, with notes. Thomas says, i.e., the more perfect the central con- I A somewhat free translation, still, I think, a trol. And this central control again is more perfect, fair rendering of the sense of the Latin: Oportet igitur the greater the variety and multiplicity and power processum emanationis a Deo uniri quidem in ipso principio9 of subordinates over which this unifying control multipRcari autem secundum res infimas ad quas termina- effectually extends. In the lowest types of creatures, tur. How reconcile this statement with the law of we get either multiplicity with little of unity, as in biology, that simplicity (one organ for all work) pre- a heap of stones, e.g., the moraine on the side of a vails in the lower types, differentiation in the higher? high hill; or unity with little of multiplicity, as in A reconciliation may be sought from St Thomas the first elements of matter, — 4 electrons,' or whathimself, B. Ill, Chap. LXXVII, where he argues ever else they may be. God, the Sovereign Unity, is that perfection implies unity of direction, with multi- likewise virtually all things (B. I, Chapp. XXXI, plicity of subordinates, — in one word, organisation. LIII, LIV).
ways perfeftly. Our knowledge begins with sense; and sense is concerned with exterior accidents (phenomena), which are of themselves sensible, as colour, smell, and the like. With difficulty can our mind penetrate through such exterior phenomena to an inner knowledge of things, even where it perfectly grasps by sense their accidents.* Much less will it be able to attain to a comprehension of the natures of those objefts of which we perceive only a few phenomena by sense;f and still less of those natures no accidents of which lie open to sense, but certain effefts which they produce, inadequate to their power, enable us to recognise them. J But even though the very natures of things were known to us, still we should have but slight know- ledge of their order, of their mutual relations, and direftion by divine provi- dence to their final end, since we cannot penetrate the plan of Providence.§ The ways themselves then being so imperfeftly known to us, how shall we travel by them to any perfect knowledge of the First Beginning of all things, which transcends all created ways and is out of all proportion with them? Even though we knew the said ways perfectly, we should still fall short of perfedt knowledge of their origin and starting-point. || Feeble and inadequate then being any knowledge to which man could arrive by these ways, God has revealed to men facts about Himself which surpass human understanding; in which revelation there is observed an order of gradual transition from imperfeft to perfeft. In man's present state, in which — from the inexperience of a youthful and untravelled * For instance, such a piece of 1 inner knowledge* as the reduction of colour to vibrations, took civilised man centuries to learn.
t The stars, for example.
I He means the angels. Sensu capi and percipiantur (not participetur) are the readings followed.
$ To transfer the remark from physics to an- other domain, — though we had mastered the whole of history, how much could we read therein of the divine counsels and plan of government? In every direction, does not the universe and man's life in it grow more puzzling, the more we know of it, if we seek to trace any exact economy and purpose? Hence St Thomas argues the need of divine revelation.
II We know so much more of the ways of creatures than was known in St Thomas's time, so much more of history and antiquities, so much more astronomy, dynamics, chemistry, molecular physics, biology: has there been any proportionate increase in our know- ledge of God? Has theology grown with the growth of other sciences? The question is one to furnish matter for a long and curious dissertation, in which the results, professedly arrived at, would differ widely according to the various theological preconceptions, whether of faith or prejudice, with which the several writers took up their pens. Yet an outline statement of results may be hazarded. Growth in truth must surely bring out truth. If theology has gained nothing by the advance of * science/ either ' science ' or theo- logy must be condemned. Theology then has gained in at least three respects. It has gained in the over- throw of superstition, — notably astrology and witch- craft. It has gained in a better appreciation of everything which, for want of a better name, I must call * vastness ' in God, — His immensity, filling all stellar space; His incomprehensibility; His all-embra- cing, all-sustaining wisdom; and His tremendous power. Once more, theology has gained in kindliness. Harshness and narrowness of sympathy so often proceed, not from any particular love of truth or zeal for justice, but simply from want of experience, mind. With the weight of past ages upon us, the youngest of the really educated in our theological schools is no longer young in the depreciatory sense of that term. We have found out that men and women are not the easy subjects of moral dissection that unpractised eyes take them for. We recognise the wisdom of the Judge who made proclamation to the bystanders in court, Judge not (Matt, vii, i).
Accidentally, a quarrel has arisen between theo- logy and modern science. This quarrel marks no intrinsic opposition: it is the fault of persons. Revealed theology is essentially a distinct king- dom from secular science. But it is a frontier kingdom; and the two kingdoms cannot but have relations with one another. These relations have been unfriendly, not without some fault on both sides. Theologians have repeated what other theo- logians have said before them, not considering the advance of physical science, or of history, since the authors whom they follow lived and wrote. Now if it were mere matter of dogmatic, or revealed, theo- logy, this disregard of physics would be justified; but when itisquestion of providing, say, a biological setting for a theological truth, this neglect of modem progress in biology becomes deplorable. On the other hand, it goes without saying that some votaries of physics, or history, or criticism, cherish an acrimonious hatred for divine revelation, and even the very name of God; and chiefly value science as a weapon of offence against theology, — thereby assuming a mental atti- tude the reverse of scientific. For the provisional adjustment of the contested frontier, we seem to require a sort of boundary commission of physicists, historians, critics, philosophers, and theologians work- ing with one common endeavour, as the Jesuit rule lays it down, ut suus Veritati sit locus, no* ut in e* re superior es videantur. Such a commission would sit per- manently in a Catholic University, if ever such an institution could be planted anywhere in the British Isles.
OF GOD IN HIS REVELATION his understanding is tied to sense, his mind cannot possibly be elevated to any clear discernment of truths that surpass all proportions of sense: in that state the revelation is given him, not to be understood, but to be heard and be- lieved.* Only when he is delivered from the thraldom of sensible things, will he be elevated to an intuition of revealed truth. Thus there is a threefold knowledge that man may have of divine things. The first is an ascent through creatures to the knowledge of God by the natural light of reason. The second is a descent of divine truth by revelation to us; truth exceeding human under- standing; truth accepted, not as demonstrated to sight, but as orally delivered for belief. The third is an elevation of the human mind to a perfect insight into things revealed.
This triple knowledge is suggested by the text above quoted from Job. These things that have been said are but a part of his ways, applies to that know- ledge whereby our understanding ascends by way of creatures to a knowledge of God. And because we know these ways but imperfectly, that is rightly put in, but a part, for we know in part (i Cor. xiii, 9). The next clause, and whereas we have heard scarce one little drop of bis speech, refers to the second knowledge, whereby divine truths are revealed for our belief by means of oral declaration: for faith is of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ (Rom. x, 17). And because this imperfect knowledge is an effluent from that perfedt knowledge whereby divine truth is seen in itself, — a revelation from God by the ministry of angels, who see the face of the Father (Matt, xviii, io),f he rightly terms it a drop, as it is written: In that day the mountains shall drop sweetness (Joel iii, 1 8). But because revelation does not take in all the mysteries which the angels and the rest of the blessed behold in the First Truth, there is a meaning in the qualification, one little drop: for it is said: Wh, shall magnify him as he is from the beginning? many things are hidden greater than these, for we see but a few of his wor\s (Ecclus xliii, 35): J have many things to say to you, but ye cannot bear them now (John xvi, 2). These few points that are revealed to us are set forth under similitudes and obscurities of expression, so as to be accessible only to the studious, hence the expressive addition, scarce, marking the difficulty of the enquiry. The third clause, who shall be able to loo{ upon the thunder of his greatness? points to the third knowledge, whereby the First Truth shall be known, not as believed, but as seen: for we shall see him as he is (1 John iii, 2). No little fragment of the divine mysteries will be perceived, but the Divine Majesty itself, and all the perfect array of good things: hence the Lord said to Moses: I will show thee all good (Exod. xxxiii, 19). Rightly therefore we have in the text the words loo{ upon his greatness. And this truth shall not be proposed to man under the covering of any veils, but quite plain: hence the Lord says to His disciples: The hour cometh,when I will no longer speak to you in proverbs, but will tell you openly of my Father (John xvi, 25): hence word thunder in the text, indicative of this plain showing.
The words of the above text are adapted to our purpose: for whereas in the previous books we have spoken of divine things according as natural * The mystery which is beyond understanding is mer might mistake the effect of chromatic aberration likewise beyond imagination. The exercise of imagina- in his telescope for colours in the stars. Dulness of tion upon the mysteries of faith is a necessary and imagination is a great obstacle to religious belief, wholesome process: it is part of mental prayer. But t The law given on Sina being ordained, ordered, the result remains quite inadequate to the objecl. set forth in detail, by angels (Gal. iii, 19: Heb.
Forgetting this piece of psychology, people take for Adls vii, 53). The angels may have been the immeobjeclively incredible that which is subjectively un- diate authors of the prodigies on Mount Sina: nay, imaginable: and the childish shortcomings and vaga- an angel there may have spoken in the place of God ries of the imagination are mistaken for absurdities (Exod. xix, 16 sq.) in the mystery proposed for belief as a boy astronoreason can arrive through creatures to the knowledge of them, — but that imperfectly, according to the limitations of the author's capacity, so that we can say with Job: Lo> these things that have been said are but a part of his ways; it remains now to treat of truths divinely revealed for our belief, truths tran- scending human understanding. And the words of the text are a guide to our procedure in this matter. As we have scarce heard the truth in the statements of Holy Scripture, those being as it were one little drop coming down to us, and no man in this life can look upon the thunder of his greatness^ our method will be as follows. Taking as first principles the statements of Holy Scripture, we will endeavour to penetrate their hidden meaning to the best of our ability, without presuming to claim perfect knowledge of the matter. Our proofs will rest on the authority of Holy Scripture, not on natural reason: still it will be our duty to show that our assertions are not contrary to natural reason, and thereby defend them against the assaults of unbelievers. And since natural reason ascends by creatures to the knowledge of God, while the knowledge of faith descends by divine revelation from God to us, and it is the same way up and down, we must proceed in these matters of supra-rational belief by the same way in which we proceeded in our rational enquiries concerning God. Thus we shall treat first of the supra-rational truths that are proposed for our belief concerning God Himself, as the confession of the Trinity [Chapp. I- XXVI: cf. I,Chap.IX: this answers to Book I]. Secondly, of the supra-rational works done by God, as the work of the Incarnation and its consequences [Chapp. XXVII-LXXVIII: answering to Book II]. Thirdly, of the supra- rational events expected at the end of human history, as the resurrection and glorification of bodies, the everlasting bliss of souls, and events therewith connected [Chapp. LXXIX-XCVII: answering to Book III].
CHAPTER II— Of (generation. Paternity > and Sonship in God WE find in the New Testament frequent attestations that Jesus Christ is the Son of God: Matt, xi, 27: Mark i, 1: John iii, 35: v, 21: Rom. i, 1: Heb. i, 1. And the same, though more rarely, in the Old Testament: Prov. xxx, 4: Ps. ii, 7: Ps. lxxxviii, 27. On the two last passages we must understand that as some expressions in the context may suit David, others not at all, these words are spoken of David and Solomon, according to the custom of Scripture, as prefiguring some one else, in whom all that is said is fulfilled.
And because the names of ' Father ' and 'Son* are consequent upon some generative process, Scripture has not omitted to speak of divine generation, Ps. ii, 7: Prov. viii, 24, 25: John i, 14, 18: Heb. i, 6.* * St Thomas also appeals to Isaias lxvi, 9, in the exist in a nobler way in the cause than in the things Vulgate reading. He says: "To whatever meaning caused." But the reading in Isaias is uncertain, and the term * generation ' is applied, still the reasoning the application to the eternal generation of the Word put in the mouth of God remains firm and stable, has seemed to many, even Catholic commentators, not that if He gives generation to others, He should not to suit the text. Revelation is gradual, and must not Himself be barren: since a perfection must always be antedated.
OF GOD IN HIS REVELATION CHAPTER lll-That the Son of God is God WE must not however fail to observe that divine Scripture uses the above names also to denote the creation of things: thus it is said: Who is the father of rain? or who hath begotten the drops of dew? From whose womb hath ice gone forth, and who hath begotten the frost from heaven? (Job xxxviii, 28.) Lest then by these names of paternity, sonship, and generation, nothing further should be understood than an a<5t of creative energy, Scrip- ture has further not failed to call Him God also, whom it has named Son and Begotten, — John i, 1, 14: Titus iii, 11: Ps. xliv, 7, 8 [Heb. i, 8, 9]: Isa. ix, 6. And that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Peter confessed, Matt, xvi, 16.
CHAPTERS IV, IX- The Opinion of Photinus touching the Son of God, and its rejeElion* IT is customary in Scripture for those who are justified by divine grace to be called sons of God, — John i, 12: Rom. viii, 16: 1 John iii, 1: and begotten of God, James i, 15: 1 John iii, 9; and, what is more wonderful, even the name of Godhead is ascribed to them, Exod. vii, 1: Ps. lxxxi, 6: John x, 35. Going upon this usage, some wrong-headed men took up the opinion that Jesus Christ was a mere man, that His existence began with His birth of the Virgin Mary, that He gained divine honours above the rest of men through the merit of His blessed life, that like other men He was the Son of God by the Spirit of adoption, and by grace was born of God, and by a certain assimilation to God is called in the Scriptures God, not by nature, but by some participation in the divine goodness, as is also said of the saints, 2 Pet. i, 4- And this position they endeavoured to confirm by authority of Holy Scripture: All power is given to me in heaven and on earth (Matt, xxviii, 18): but, say they, if He were God before all time, He would not have received power in time. Also it is said of the Son that He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and predestinated the Son of God in power (Rom.
i, 3, 4): but what is made and predestinated is not eternal. Again the text, He was made obedient unto death, even the death of the cross: wherefore hath Qod exalted him, and given bim the name that is above every name (Phil, ii, 8, 9), seems to show that by merit of His obedience and suffering He was granted divine honours and raised above all. Peter too says: Let all the house of Israel most certainly fyolfi that this Jesus, whom ye have crucified, God bath made Lord and Qhrist (Acts ii, 36). He seems then to have become God in time, not to have been born so before all ages. They also allege in support of their opinion those texts of Scripture which seem to point to defeft in Christ, as that He was carried in woman's womb (Luke i, 42: ii, 5), that He grew in age (Luke ii, 52), that He suffered hunger (Luke iv, 2) and fatigue (John iv, 6), and was subject to death, that he continually advanced (Luke ii, 40, 52), that He confessed He did not know the day of judgement (Mark xiii, 32), that He was stricken with fear of death (Luke xxii, 42, 44), and other weak- nesses inadmissible in one who was God by nature.
But careful study of the words of Holy Scripture shows that there is not that meaning in them which these Photinians have supposed. For when * Photinus, bishop of Sirmium, in the middle of the fourth century, a Unitarian in his doctrine of the Godhead, denied the divinity of Jesus Christ, though he allowed His miraculous birth.
Solomon says: The abysses as yet were not, and I {Wisdom) was already con- ceived (Prov. viii, 24), he sufficiently shows that this generation took place before all corporeal things. And though an endeavour has been to wrest away these and other testimonies by saying that they are to be understood of predestination, in the sense that before the creation of the world it was arranged that the Son of God should be born of the Virgin Mary, not that her Son existed before the world; nevertheless the words which follow show that He was before Mary not only in predestination, but really. For it fol- lows: When he weighed the foundations of the earthy I was with him arranging all things: but if He had existed in predestination only, He could have done nothing. This conclusion may be drawn also from the Evangelist John: for, that none might take as referring to predestination the words, In the begin- ning was the Word, he adds: All things were made by him, and without him was made nothing: which could not be true, had He not real existence before the world was. Likewise from the texts John iii, 13: vi, 38, it appears that He had real existence ere He descended from heaven. Besides, whereas according to the above-mentioned position, a man by the merit of His life was advanced to be God, the Apostle contrariwise declares that, being God, He was made man: Being in the form of God, he thought it no robbery, etc. (Phil, ii, 6.)
Again, among the rest who had the grace of God, Moses had it abun- dantly, of whom it is said: The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man is wont to spea\ to his friend (Exod. xxxiii, 11). If then Jesus Christ were only called c Son of God ' by reason of the grace of adoption, as is the case with other Saints, Moses might be called ' Son of God ' on the same title as Christ, allowing all the while that Christ was endowed with more abundant grace: for among the rest of the saints one is filled with greater grace than another, and still they are all called ' Sons of God.' But Moses is not called 'Son' on the same title as Christ: for the Apostle distinguishes Christ from Moses as the son from the servant: Moses indeed was faithful in his house as a servant: but Christ as the Son in his o*ton house (Heb. iii, 5).
The like argument may be gathered from many other places of Scrip- ture, where Christ is styled ' Son of God ' in a singular manner above others, as at His baptism, This is my beloved Son (Matt, iii, 17); or where He is called * the Only-begotten,' — The Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared (John i, 18): for were He Son in a general way, as others are, He could not be called c Only-begotten ': sometimes too He is designated as ' First-born,' to show that there is a derivation of sonship from Him to others: To be made conformable to the image of his Son, that he may be the first-born among many brethren (Rom. viii, 29): God bath sent bis Son, that we might receive the adoption of sons (Gal. iv, 4): which texts show that He, by the likeness of whose Sonship others are called sons, is Son Himself after another way than they.
Furthermore, in the Holy Scriptures some works are set down as so peculiarly proper to God as to be never attributable to any one else, e.g., the sanctification of souls and the forgiveness of sins: for it is said, I am the Lord who sanctify you (Levit. xx, 8): / am he who blot out thy sins Jor mine oVw sake (Isai. xliii, 25). Yet both these works Scripture attributes to Christ, Heb. ii, 11: xiii, 1 2. He declared of Himself that He had the power of forgiving sins, and proved His assertion by a miracle (Matt, ix, 1-8); and the angel foretold of Him that He should save his people from their sins (Matt, i, 21). Christ therefore as san6tifier and forgiver of sins is not called OF GOD IN HIS REVELATION ' God ' in the same sense as others are called 4 gods/ who are san&ified and whose sins are forgiven, but as one having the power and nature of the Godhead.
As for those testimonies of Scripture whereby the Photinians endeavoured to show that Christ is not God by nature, they do not serve their purpose: for we confess in Christ the Son of God after the Incarnation two natures, a human and a divine: hence there are predicated of Him at once attributes proper to God, by reason of His divine nature, and attributes seeming to involve some defedt, or shortcoming, by reason of His human nature. Thus His saying, All potter is given to me, does not mean that He then received the power as a new thing to Him, but that the power, which the Son of God had enjoyed from all eternity, had now begun to appear in the same Son made man, by the victory which He had gained over death by rising again.* Hereby it is also clear that Peter's saying (A6ts ii, 36) of God having made him [Jesus] Lord and Christ, is to be referred to the Son in His human nature, in which He began to have in time what in His divine nature He had from eternity.t