|
Objection 1: It would seem that something of faith and hope remains
in glory. For when that which is proper to a thing is removed, there
remains what is common; thus it is stated in De Causis that "if you
take away rational, there remains living, and when you remove living,
there remains being." Now in faith there is something that it has in
common with beatitude, viz. knowledge: and there is something proper
to it, viz. darkness, for faith is knowledge in a dark manner.
Therefore, the darkness of faith removed, the knowledge of faith
still remains.
Objection 2: Further, faith is a spiritual light of the soul,
according to Eph. 1:17,18: "The eyes of your heart
enlightened . . . in the knowledge of God"; yet this light is
imperfect in comparison with the light of glory, of which it is written
(Ps. 35:10): "In Thy light we shall see light." Now an
imperfect light remains when a perfect light supervenes: for a candle
is not extinguished when the sun's rays appear. Therefore it seems
that the light of faith itself remains with the light of glory.
Objection 3: Further, the substance of a habit does not cease
through the withdrawal of its matter: for a man may retain the habit of
liberality, though he have lost his money: yet he cannot exercise the
act. Now the object of faith is the First Truth as unseen.
Therefore when this ceases through being seen, the habit of faith can
still remain.
On the contrary, Faith is a simple habit. Now a simple thing is
either withdrawn entirely, or remains entirely. Since therefore faith
does not remain entirely, but is taken away as stated above (Article
3), it seems that it is withdrawn entirely.
I answer that, Some have held that hope is taken away entirely: but
that faith is taken away in part, viz. as to its obscurity, and
remains in part, viz. as to the substance of its knowledge. And if
this be understood to mean that it remains the same, not identically
but generically, it is absolutely true; since faith is of the same
genus, viz. knowledge, as the beatific vision. On the other hand,
hope is not of the same genus as heavenly bliss: because it is compared
to the enjoyment of bliss, as movement is to rest in the term of
movement.
But if it be understood to mean that in heaven the knowledge of faith
remains identically the same, this is absolutely impossible. Because
when you remove a specific difference, the substance of the genus does
not remain identically the same: thus if you remove the difference
constituting whiteness, the substance of color does not remain
identically the same, as though the identical color were at one time
whiteness, and, at another, blackness. The reason is that genus is
not related to difference as matter to form, so that the substance of
the genus remains identically the same, when the difference is
removed, as the substance of matter remains identically the same, when
the form is changed: for genus and difference are not the parts of a
species, else they would not be predicated of the species. But even
as the species denotes the whole, i.e. the compound of matter and
form in material things, so does the difference, and likewise the
genus; the genus denotes the whole by signifying that which is
material; the difference, by signifying that which is formal; the
species, by signifying both. Thus, in man, the sensitive nature is
as matter to the intellectual nature, and animal is predicated of that
which has a sensitive nature, rational of that which has an
intellectual nature, and man of that which has both. So that the one
same whole is denoted by these three, but not under the same aspect.
It is therefore evident that, since the signification of the
difference is confined to the genus if the difference be removed, the
substance of the genus cannot remain the same: for the same animal
nature does not remain, if another kind of soul constitute the animal.
Hence it is impossible for the identical knowledge, which was
previously obscure, to become clear vision. It is therefore evident
that, in heaven, nothing remains of faith, either identically or
specifically the same, but only generically.
Reply to Objection 1: If "rational" be withdrawn, the remaining
"living" thing is the same, not identically, but generically, as
stated.
Reply to Objection 2: The imperfection of candlelight is not
opposed to the perfection of sunlight, since they do not regard the
same subject: whereas the imperfection of faith and the perfection of
glory are opposed to one another and regard the same subject.
Consequently they are incompatible with one another, just as light and
darkness in the air.
Reply to Objection 3: He that loses his money does not therefore
lose the possibility of having money, and therefore it is reasonable
for the habit of liberality to remain. But in the state of glory not
only is the object of faith, which is the unseen, removed actually,
but even its possibility, by reason of the unchangeableness of heavenly
bliss: and so such a habit would remain to no purpose.
|
|