a) The pre-Eunomian Fathers simply teach, in full accord with the Bible, that the angels and saints in Heaven are vouchsafed a real "face to face" vision of God. We have already adverted to the admirably lucid teaching of St. Irenaeus. Corroborative passages can be cited from the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, and others.35

B) The rise of the Eunomian heresy led to a change of tactics, though the doctrine remained unchanged. Whenever the Fathers of Eunomius's time were not engaged in controversy, they employed the traditional phraseology with which the Christians of that era were so familiar.

It is important to exonerate especially St. John Chrysostom from the charge of material heresy made against him by Vasquez.36 Treating of the Transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor, Chrysostom says: 37 "If the bliss produced by a dark vision of the future was sufficient to induce St. Peter to cast away everything, what will man say when once the reality bursts upon him; when the doors of the royal chamber are thrown open, and he is permitted to look upon the King Himself no longer enigmatically as in a mirror, but face to face; no longer in the faith,88 but in reality." " Again he says: 40 "The just, however, dwell there with their King, ... not as in a vestibule, not in the faith,

35 Cfr. Petavius, De Deo, VII, 7. 36 Comment. in S. Th., I p., disp.

37, cap. 3.

37 Ad Theod. Laps., n. II.

38 διὰ πίστεως,

41

39 διὰ εἴδους.

39

40 Hom. in Phil., 3, n. 3.

41 dià eloódov is probably a more correct reading than διὰ εἴδους.

but face to face." 42 It is only when he combats Eunomianism, or at least when he has this heresy in view, that St. Chrysostom uses expressions which might strike the careless reader as a denial of the beatific vision in Heaven, or a limitation of it to the Blessed Trinity. Vasquez points especially to Hom. de Incompreh., 3, n. 3: "Nulli creatae virtuti Deum esse comprehensibilem,43 et a nulla plene ** videri posse." To understand this and similar passages correctly, we must consider in the first place, that in St. Chrysostom's time the distinction between such terms as knowing (yvwσis), seeing (Oewpía), and comprehending (karáλŋyis) was not yet clearly defined, and that the Saint was not minded to deny the simple visio intuitiva, but merely combated the comprehensio adaequata asserted by Eunomius. Hence such guarded phrases as these: “ γνῶσις ἀκριβής, ἀκριβὴς κατάληψις τῆς οὐσίας, ἀκριβῶς γινώσκειν,” etc. An adequate comprehension of God, such as that taught by Eunomius, is plainly not granted to either angels or men, but, as St. Chrysostom himself elsewhere explains, is proper only to the three Divine Persons. By putting a different construction on St. Chrysostom's teaching, we should not only muddle the sense and violate the context of his writings, but make him contradict himself.47

7) Vasquez's accusations against certain other Fathers must be appraised in the light of this typical example. If St. Basil asserts that "the angels do not see the

Godhead as It sees Itself," he expresses no doubt as to the beatific vision, but merely wishes to emphasize the dogma of God's absolute incomprehensibility, which makes Him inscrutable even to the Elect in Heaven. "The face to face vision and the perfect cognition of the incomprehensible majesty of God," 48 he says, "is promised to all who are worthy of it as a reward in the hereafter." 49 Such was also the teaching of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who, after declaring that "the angels do not see God as He is," 50 immediately adds: They see Him according to the measure of their ability, . . . the Thrones and Powers [see Him] more perfectly than the [mere] angels, yet short of His excellency; 51 only the one Holy Ghost, besides the Son, can see Him in a becoming manner." 52

8) We can spare ourselves the trouble of defending the other Fathers who have been attacked by Vasquez, because it is quite plain to any one who reads their writings carefully and without bias, that they teach just the contrary of what Vasquez imputes to them. If the one or other of them does here and there appear to deviate from the orthodox view (as, e. g., Gregory of Nyssa), he must be interpreted in the same way as St. Chrysostom. There is no solid reason for charging a single one of these Fathers with heterodoxy. St. Augustine already showed 53 how certain utterances of St. Ambrose and St. Jerome can be construed in a perfectly orthodox sense. The only false note in the

48 τὸ μὲν γὰρ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον καὶ ἡ τελεία ἐπίγνωσις. 40 Basil, Serm. de Imp. et Potest. 50 οὐ καθώς ἐστιν ὁ Θεός. 51 ἔλαττον δὲ τῆς ἀξίας.

52 ws xph. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech., 6, n. 6.

53 Ep. 148, alit. 111; Migne, P. L., XXXIII, 622.

54 For St. Augustine's own teaching the reader is referred to De Civ. Dei, XI, 29, XXII, 29, and De Trinit., XIV, 16.

harmonious concert is an expression of Theodoretus, who says that the Angels "do not see the Divine Essence, but only a certain lustre,55 which is adapted to their nature." It is likely that this passage is the source of the heresy of the fourteenth century Palamites, who alleged that the divine attributes can be contemplated separately from the divine Substance in the form of a "garb of light" enveloping the Godhead.57

ARTICLE 2

THE LIGHT OF GLORY A NECESSARY MEDIUM FOR THE INTUITIVE VISION OF GOD

1. WHAT THE LIGHT OF GLORY IS.-The term "light" (lumen), like "vision" (visio), has been transferred from the material world to the realm of intellectual cognition. As material light is the condition and the cause of bodily vision, so intellectual light is necessary for intellectual vision, i. e., cognition. As there are three states: that of nature, that of grace, and that of glory; so there are three specific modes of cognition, with as many different "lights" adapted and pro

55 δόξαν τινα.

56 On the heresy of the Palamites (from Gregory Palamas), cfr. Hergenröther's Handbuch der Allgemeinen Kirchengeschichte, 4th ed. by J. P. Kirsch, vol. II, pp. 804 sqq.; Blunt, Dictionary of Sects, etc., pp. 191 sq.

57 Possibly Gregory the Great alluded to Theodoretus when he wrote (Moral. XVIII, nn. 90 sq.):

"Fuere nonnulli, qui Deum dicerent etiam in illa regione beatitudinis in claritate quidem sua conspici, sed in natura minime videri. Quos nimirum minor inquisitionis subtilitas fefellit; neque enim illi simplici essentiae aliud est claritas et aliud natura, sed ipsa ei natura sua claritas, ipsa claritas natura est." On the whole subject, see Franzelin, De Deo Uno, thes. 19, Romae 1883.

portioned to each; viz.: the "light of reason" (lumen rationis), which comes from the Creator; the "light of grace" (lumen gratiae, fidei), which comes from the Sanctifier, and the "light of glory" (lumen gloriae), which comes from the Divine Remunerator.

Here we have to deal with the light of glory. What is the light of glory? Like the light of reason and the light of grace, the light of glory must be immanent in the human intellect, and hence cannot be objectively identical with the majesty or splendor of God (lumen quod videtur). Nor can it be the actus videndi of the Elect, inasmuch as this act, though immanent in the human intellect, is impossible without the light of glory, just as cognition depends of necessity on the light of reason, and faith on the light of grace. The theologians accordingly define the light of glory as a supernatural force or power imparted to the intellect of the Blessed in Heaven, like a new eye (or principle of vision), enabling them to see God as He is.5

58

2. THE DOGMA.-The Council of Vienne (A. D. 1311) defined the necessity (and hence implicitly the existence) of the lumen gloriae, when, through the mouth of Clement V, it condemned the heresy of the Beguines and Beg

58 Cfr. W. Humphrey, "His Divine Majesty," pp. 48 sqq.