Dist. 23, Art. 2, Q. 3
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/2/d/23/q/bon-sent-II-d23-a2-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether Adam in the state of innocence knew God in the same way as God is known in the state of glory.*

Third, the question is raised with respect to the completion and state of Adam's knowledge, and the question is whether Adam, in the state of innocence, knew God by that kind of knowledge by which we expect to know God in the state of glory. And that this is so seems to be the case.

1. Master Hugh of Saint Victor, in his book *On the Sacraments*: « Man knew his Creator not by that knowledge by which he is now sought by believers, being absent, through faith, but by that by which he was then, through the presence of contemplation, more manifestly discerned by one who knew »; but to discern God manifestly is the mark of the beatific vision: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, the Master, in the first distinction of the fourth book, in the chapter: *Triplici* *autem ex causa* etc.: « Man, who before sin saw God without a medium » etc.; but to see God without a medium is to see *face to face*, and this is the vision of glory: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, Exodus thirty-three: *The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man is wont to speak to his friend*; but the state of established nature was much more excellent than the fallen state: if, then, God was seen without a medium by Moses, much more strongly so by man in the state of established nature. If you should say that this took place in a subjected creature; the objection is made by what is said in Numbers twelve: *Plainly, and not by figures and riddles does he see God.*

4. Likewise, this very thing is shown by reason. As the Saints commonly hold, Adam was not only set in a bodily paradise, but indeed also in a spiritual paradise with respect to the delights of the mind. For he enjoyed God, as Damascene says, and Augustine; and this too is plain of itself. For man, in the time of established nature, loved God himself *in himself* and immediately: therefore, if the intellect is as ready for knowing, by nature, as the affection is for loving; it seems that, just as he loved God *in himself*, so too he saw him *in himself*.

5. Likewise, every upright soul desires to see God: therefore Adam desired this. Either, then, his desire was not fulfilled, and so he was already afflicted, which is not fitting; or in some way he saw God. But he did not see by an *imaginary* nor a *bodily* vision, therefore by an *intellectual* one; but this is the vision by which God is seen in his essence: therefore, etc.

6. Likewise, nothing is nearer to God than the human mind, when it is free of all sin; but Adam's mind, in the state of uncorrupted nature, did not have any malice of sin, nor did his eye have any cloud of darkness: therefore it seems that he was able to fix his gaze immediately upon God himself; and this is the vision which we expect in glory, that we may see God's very substance: therefore, etc.

7. Likewise, that in glory God is not seen otherwise than he was seen by Adam, is shown: for either in glory God is seen immediately, or mediately. If mediately; but thus he could be seen by Adam on the way. If immediately; it is shown that this is false, by a persuasion drawn from a threefold medium. The *first* of these is that the knower, with respect to the knowable, must have a power

proportioned to that by which it knows; but the created intellect cannot, of itself, rise above the uncreated light, however much it be elevated by grace or by glory, because that light always exceeds it infinitely: therefore it is impossible that the intellect should see the uncreated light in itself. — But should you say that this reasoning does not compel, because the cognitive power is more in receiving than in acting; this same thing is shown by a second persuasion: that there ought to be a proportion of the knower to the knowable, especially in that knowledge in which there is great delight. If, then, with respect to that highest light there is, for our intellect, a disproportionate and so great an excess that by nothing added can our intellect be proportioned to it, but it always exceeds infinitely; it seems that our intellect can never contemplate God in the fount of light. — But should you say that proportion of quantity is not required there, but only of conformity; this same thing is shown by a *third* persuasion. For if in glory God is seen in himself and without any medium; since he has in himself no diversity, he would be seen by all entirely uniformly. But if it is established that there are differences of rewards in glory, it does not seem that God is seen by the glorified soul without any medium. — If, therefore, he is seen through a *medium*; and thus he was seen by Adam: it remains, therefore, that Adam knew by that kind of knowledge by which the blessed souls are to know.

**On the contrary:**

1. Exodus thirty-three: *Man shall not see me, and live.* It is established that this is not understood of spiritual life, but of animal life. If, then, Adam in the state of innocence lived an animal life: therefore he could not see God.

2. Likewise, John one: *No one has ever seen God, except the only-begotten* etc.: if, then, no one ever saw God before the coming of Christ, therefore neither did Adam.

3. Likewise, on that of Isaiah six: *I saw the Lord seated* etc., Gregory: « However much the mind advances in contemplation, it always sees that which is below God »: therefore it seems that, since some men attain to that eminence of grace which was in Adam; and no one in the present, by an act of contemplation, sees God: therefore he did not yet have that vision which the holy soul awaits.

4. Likewise, the vision of God is the whole reward: therefore whoever has the full vision of God has the reward, and whoever has this has full glory, and no such one can fall: if, then, Adam fell, therefore he did not see God in himself.

5. Likewise, the uncreated light will delight the beholders with perfect delight: therefore if Adam had beheld that highest light, he would have been perfectly delighted in it: therefore he would never have consented to be turned away from it.

6. Likewise, the state of the way and the state of the fatherland ought to be distinct: therefore, by parity of reasoning, the contemplation of the way and the contemplation of the fatherland; but Adam was a wayfarer, therefore he was not a comprehensor: therefore he did not see by that kind of vision by which we expect to see in the fatherland.

### Conclusion

> Adam, in the state of innocence, did not know God immediately and in his substance, as he is known in glory, but through a mirror, yet not in a riddle.

**I respond:** For the understanding of what has been said, it must be noted that all commonly hold the knowledge which Adam had of God to be midway between the knowledge which is in the state of misery and the knowledge which will be in the state of glory; but in the manner of positing it there is the greatest difference.

For some, relying on authorities ill-understood and on sophistical arguments, said that God is never seen immediately, neither on the way nor in the fatherland. For Chrysostom says: « Him who is God, not only the prophets, but not even the Angels see ». And other similar authorities are found, which, misunderstanding and supposing that the saying meant that God could not be seen immediately on account of the disproportion of the uncreated light to the eye of the created mind, they said that God is to be seen through certain effulgences both in the state of the way, and was seen in the state of innocence, and in the state of glory. And in those luminous influences they said that God is seen in these states more clearly and less clearly, according as God wills to temper himself more to our eye and to show himself by clearer theophanies. — But this position is heretical and reproved; and not without reason, because it is both against *reason*, since the soul cannot rest perfectly until it sees God in himself; and against sacred *Scripture*. For in First

Corinthians thirteen it is said: *Then I shall know, even as I am known*; and in First John three: *We shall see him as he is*. To this very point too innumerable authorities of the doctors are found, and by adhering to all of these, that error is to be reproved; and the authorities, if any seem to be for it, are all to be expounded, because they speak of the knowledge of *comprehension*, by which something is said to be known totally; and by this knowledge God is knowable to himself alone, as will be made clear in the third book.

The second mode of speaking is that God is to be seen in himself by purged minds not only in the fatherland, but also in the state of innocence and in the state of the way; nor is there a difference except in degree, in that he will be seen more clearly and more perfectly in the state of glory, and less perfectly in the state of innocence, and least of all in the state of fallen nature. Now the difference of these degrees comes from this, that the soul in the state of glory is entirely freed from the burden of the body, or entirely has a spiritual body, which in no way impedes it from being able to tend immediately toward God and according to its whole power. But in the state of fallen nature, because it has a corruptible and animal body, it is impeded and weighed down by its earthly dwelling, so that it cannot tend perfectly into that light. But in the state of established nature it held itself in a middle way, because the body of Adam, although it was not subject to the necessity of dying and to passibility, nevertheless was in need of nourishment and the soul had to be occupied at times about the governance and sustenance of its body; and therefore the first man did not behold God so excellently as the Blessed behold him in glory, nor so faintly as holy men behold him in present misery. — Now they draw out this position of theirs from the authorities of Augustine, who says in many places in the book *On the Trinity* that even in the present life a man can have God more known to him than his brother, and this in the eighth book; and elsewhere he says that « he is discerned by the most purged minds ». He also teaches, in the eighth book, that God is beheld through an intuition of truth and goodness. — But this position, although it is not so adverse to the truth as the first, nevertheless does not accord with the sayings of the Saints. For Dionysius says in the book *On Mystical Theology* that the most excellent mode of contemplating is *to ascend unknowingly*, because not even Moses himself was able to see God, and therefore he is said to have been led into the darkness. Hence Dionysius calls those untaught who say that they know him *who made darkness his hiding-place*. And Gregory also says that « however much the mind advances in contemplation, it does not arrive at the sight of God ». And the doctors commonly agree in this, understanding that which the Apostle says, that *as long as we are in this body, we are pilgrims from the Lord and walk by faith, not by sight*. — Hence if any authorities are found to say that God is seen and discerned in the present by man, they are not to be understood as that he is seen in his *essence*, but that he is known in some *interior effect*, as will now better appear; unless perhaps in those who are rapt, as we believe was the case with Paul, who by a special privilege transcend the state of wayfarers, and there do nothing, but are only acted upon.

The third mode of speaking is that in the fatherland God is seen immediately and fully, as far as is on the part of the one seeing; but in the state of misery mediately and half-fully; but in the state of innocence in a middle way, namely immediately and half-fully: half-fully, I say, because he had not yet received the full reward; immediately, however, because he had no interposition of a veil. And the words of the Master and of Hugh seem to sound this. — Yet neither is it to be understood thus, that man in the state of innocence saw God in his essence, or face to face. For the reasons and authorities adduced before stand against this.

And therefore there is a fourth mode of speaking on this matter, that in truth the knowledge of the state of innocence is midway between the knowledge of the state of glory and that of the state of misery, just as the place of paradise too is midway between this valley of misery and the heavenly fatherland; and just as the earthly paradise holds itself more with earth than with heaven, so Adam's *knowledge*, or the state of innocence, is more conformed to the knowledge of the present state than to that of the future. Hence only in the state of glory will

God be seen immediately and in his substance, so that there will be no obscurity there. But in the state of innocence and of fallen nature God is seen by means of a mirror; yet differently, because in the state of innocence God was seen *through a clear mirror*; for there was no cloud of sin in the soul. But in the state of misery he is seen through a mirror darkened by the sin of the first man; and therefore now he is seen *through a mirror and in a riddle*. « For a riddle, as Augustine says in the fifteenth book *On the Trinity*, is an obscure likeness ».

Hence note that there is a fourfold mode of knowing God, namely through *faith*, through *contemplation*, through *apparition*, and through *open vision*. And the first is of *common* grace, the second is of *excellent* grace, the third of *special* grace, and the fourth of *consummating* glory. — And the sufficiency of these modes is gathered thus. For everything that is known, is known through something *present*; if, therefore, God is known, it is necessary that he be known to the intellect through something present; and here I call *present* that which, as Augustine calls it, is present to the intellect for being seen. Either, then, I know God through that which is present *to me*, or through that which is present *to another*. If through that which is present *to another*, thus it is the knowledge of *faith*. For that God is three and one, this I believe on the word of the Son of God, who narrated and preached this, and on the Holy Spirit, who inspired this. « For what we believe, we owe to authority », as Augustine says in *On the Usefulness of Believing*. — But if I know God through that which is present *to me*, this can be in three ways: either through that which is present to me in its *proper effect*; and then it is *contemplation*, which is the more eminent the more a man feels in himself the effect of divine grace, or the better too he knows how to consider God in exterior creatures. — Or it is present to me in a *proper sign*; and thus it is *apparition*, as God appeared to Abraham in a subjected creature, which figured God himself; and as the Holy Spirit appeared in a dove. — Or

God is present in his *own light* and in himself; and thus it is the knowledge by which God is seen in his *own countenance*, or *face to face*; and thus it is *open vision*, which is wholly called the reward of all merits.

The *first*, therefore, and the *last* kind of knowledge did not belong to the state of innocence: the first, on account of *riddling* knowledge, and on account of this, that the knowledge of faith is for the most part *from hearing*, as the Apostle intimates; but the last could not be there on account of its *supreme perfection*; therefore it was not exhibited to man, but rather promised as a reward. But the two *middle* ones, namely of *contemplation* and of *apparition*, could be common to either state, especially the knowledge of *contemplation*, which is in either state. Yet there it flourished most fully both on account of the purity of the soul, and also on account of the subjection of the flesh and the lower powers; and because the soul for the most part lacks these two in the state of fallen nature, therefore it cannot attain to that degree of contemplation. — The arguments, therefore, showing that Adam did not know God by that kind of knowledge which we expect in glory, are to be granted; but to those which are adduced to the opposite, it is easy enough to respond.

**To the arguments for the affirmative part:**

*To 1, 2, 3.* For to those three authorities adduced first the response is now clear. For all are understood of the knowledge of contemplation, not through the removal of *any medium whatever*, but through the removal of the veil and of the obscurity, such as is in those who are infected by some vice of sin.

*To 4.* But to that which is objected, that he loved God immediately; it must be said that it is not alike. For love, as Bernard holds, extends itself much further than vision; for from mere estimation love sometimes follows. And he himself also says, in the book *On the Love of God*, that where the intellect falls short, there the affection advances. And the reason for this is that vision is only of a thing present, but love is not only of a thing present, but also of an absent one. Moreover, vision does not signify any mode whatever of knowing, but a completed mode of knowing; whereas love
<!-- page 546b -->
can be both perfect and imperfect: therefore, although immediate *love* of God is on the way, it is nevertheless not necessary that there be immediate vision or *knowledge*.

*To 5.* To that which is objected, that Adam desired to see God etc.; it must be said that it is true; but he so desired to see that he *had* some knowledge in which he was refreshed, and he *awaited* some as a reward and prize. And that which he awaited was the knowledge of the fatherland; but that which he had was the contemplation of the way, which was a vision *through a mirror*. — And if you should ask whether it was an *intellectual* vision or a *bodily* one; it must be said that it was intellectual; yet not of the divine itself in the least in itself, but of some grace or influence; and that he was able to know and see in himself by experience, as the holy soul feels when it melts, when the Spouse addresses it.

*To 6.* To that which is objected, that the human mind in that state was immediate to God; it must be said that it was immediate as to the *being of nature*, since no nature is higher than it; but as to *state* it was not immediate; for it was to be advanced to a further state. For then it was in the likeness of grace, but it was to be led on to the deiformity of glory, in which it would not only gaze upon the divine *effect*, but also upon the desired *countenance* itself. — Yet nonetheless I grant that the gaze of the eye can be fixed upon God, so that it look at nothing else; yet it will not perceive or see the brightness of that light itself, but rather will be elevated into the darkness, and to this knowledge it will be elevated through the removal of all things, as Dionysius says in the book *On Mystical Theology*, and he calls this knowledge *learned ignorance*. For this is the knowledge in which the affection is wondrously inflamed, as is clear to those who have at times been accustomed to be elevated to anagogical raptures. This mode of knowing I judge to be worth seeking by every just man on this way; but if God should do anything beyond, this is a special privilege, not of the common law.

*To 7.* To that which is asked, whether God in
<!-- page 546c -->
the fatherland is seen through a medium, or without a medium; it must be answered that to see *through a medium* can be understood in three ways: either through a *disposing medium*, or through a *conveying medium*, or through a *leading medium*. By a *disposing medium* it is rightly and catholically held that God is to be seen in the fatherland, because the soul in the fatherland, by means of deiformity and the influence of glory, will be disposed to this, that it may most clearly be able to see God in himself. For the deiformity of glory is a sufficient disposition for this, that the soul may be able to see God in himself. For in order that it may see, it is not necessary that the soul be capable of acting upon God; for to see is rather in receiving than in acting, especially when light is seen. Nor is it necessary that it be proportioned quantitatively, namely as to infinity, so that it be as great as God is in power; but it suffices qualitatively, as to an expressed likeness, according to whose greater and lesser participation there will be an order in the degrees of rewards in future glory. And thus it is clear that if it be held that God is seen through a *disposing medium*, the persuasions which were posited before are dissolved, and the truth is unfolded.

But that God is seen through a *conveying medium*, no one held, since he is immediate to the rational creature; but some held that God is seen through a *leading* or tempering *medium*, lest by the excellence of the light the keenness of the intellect be dulled and rather cast down than gladdened. But to posit this, as was touched on before, is neither sound nor has reason, because that light is rather salvific than corruptive; hence its excellence in no way harms, but rather confers benefit. And because that peace and joy and light surpasses every sense, therefore the whole man is everywhere filled, so that he seeks nothing else, but rather our intelligence is absorbed by the eminence of the light, as our affection is by the torrent of pleasure. And this was determined above in the first book, distinction one, on enjoyment.

Now, however, it must be firmly held that, although Adam did not see God in his substance in the state of innocence, he will nevertheless be seen in glory in his

substance. Nor is it permitted to hold or say the contrary of this. For this is one of the ten articles reproved by the university of the masters of Paris in the time of Bishop William and of Odo the Chancellor and of brother Alexander of Hales, our father and master, which, that they may be avoided, are written down below.

#### THE ARTICLES CONDEMNED AT PARIS.

The first article is that the divine essence in itself will be seen neither by man nor by Angel.

The second is that, although the divine essence is one in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, nevertheless as in the formal character it is one in the Father and the Son, and not one in these and the Holy Spirit, and yet the form is the same as the divine essence.

The third is that the Holy Spirit as love or bond does not proceed from the Son, but only from the Father.

The fourth is that the glorified souls are not in the empyrean heaven with the Angels, nor will the glorified bodies be there, but in the watery or crystalline heaven, which is above the firmament.

The fifth is that the bad angel in the first instant of his creation was bad and was never good.

The sixth is that an Angel in one instant can be in diverse places and even everywhere, if he should will it.

The seventh is that there are many truths from eternity which are not God.

The eighth is that the first *now* and creation-passion is neither Creator nor creature.

The ninth is that whoever has better natural endowments will of necessity have more of grace and glory.

The tenth is that the bad angel never had anything whereby he could stand, nor even Adam in the state of innocence.

All these errors were prohibited and condemned by the aforesaid persons, and therefore they are to be avoided as pestilential.