|
The difficulty arises from the fact that creatures are
contingent and not eternal, whereas the Word is necessary
and eternal. But, as is noted in the sed contra, St.
Augustine says that the name "Word" signifies not only
the relation to the Father but also to creatures.
Reply. The reply is in the affirmative, because in the
one act by which God knows Himself He also knows
creatures, for in God there is only one intellection.
Thus the one and only Word is expressive not only of the
Father but of all creatures. Moreover, the Word with
reference to creatures is not only expressive but also
operative. In us, on the other hand, there are various
words according to which by different acts of intellection
we understand different things. An angel, however,
understands all things interior to it by one word, as we
shall see below.[389]
Doubt. Whether the name "Word" refers to possible
creatures in the same way as it refers to future
creatures.
Reply. From the body of the article and from the reply
to the second objection the reply is that the name
"Word" of itself implies a reference to possible
creatures, and only per accidens and concomitantly a
reference to future creatures.
Proof. The first part is proved as follows. The divine
essence is known by God per se comprehensively, that is,
to the full extent of its knowability. But it would not
be known comprehensively if the divine omnipotence and the
possible effects virtually contained in it were not known.
Therefore the Word, by which the divine essence is
expressed, has a reference per se to possible creatures.
The second part is proved as follows. Per se the Word
does not contain a reference to future creatures or even to
futurables, because the knowledge from which the Word
proceeds per se is natural and necessary, since the Word
proceeds naturally and necessarily. But the knowledge of
futures and futurables in God is not natural and necessary
but presupposes God's free decree. Hence, if the
knowledge of the same nature as now.
But per accidens the Word contains a reference to future
creatures, presupposing the eternal decree of free
creation, since the Word in expressing the divine nature
expresses it as operating freely ad extra.
Consequently we say that the blessed see creatures in the
Word as in their exemplary and efficient cause;[390]
but they do not see all possible creatures because this
would imply the possession of comprehensive vision.
Besides this vision of creatures in the Word, the
blessed have knowledge of creatures outside the Word by
representations and proper species,[391] and this
second knowledge is inferior to the first, being clouded
and hazy as in the dusk, whereas the first knowledge is
clear as in the morning light. Hence many of St.
Thomas' commentators, such as John of St. Thomas,
point out that the theologians in heaven who while on earth
engaged in the study of theology, not only because of a
natural desire of learning and teaching but also for the
love of God and souls, see the object of theology in the
Word, whereas other theologians who studied theology only
because of their desire for learning see the object of
theology outside the Word, with a knowledge that is
inferior and cloudy.
Many mystics, like Tauler, teach that an intellectual
creature, elevated to grace, will not be perfect with the
ultimate perfection unless it sees God immediately and
sees itself in the Word. It is a higher kind of
knowledge to see our soul in the Word than to see it in
itself and through itself. The mystics often say that the
soul must return to its principle, and that the soul will
love itself most perfectly when, beholding itself in the
Word, it loves itself in the Lord without any inordinate
self-love. St. Thomas says: "So far as a thing is
perfect it will attain to its principle."[392] This
is the return to the bosom of the Father, in some sense
similar to what is said of the only-begotten Son, who is
"in the bosom of the Father."[393] Then the soul
will not live for itself but for God.
|
|
