Chapter III, Section 1: The Final Cause or Object of Creation

Pohle, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, Part I, Chapter III, §1 (pp. 79–90)

Chapter III: The Final Cause or End of Creation, and Divine Providence

Having treated of the efficient and the exemplary cause of the created universe, we now proceed to inquire into its final cause or end. What is the final cause or ultimate object of Creation? And by what means is that object attained?

Section 1: The Final Cause or Object of Creation

1. Preliminary Remarks

An end, object, or purpose (finis, τέλος) is that for the sake of which the effect or result of an action is produced.¹ Aristotle calls it simply οὗ ἕνεκα. Since infinite progression is impossible, there must somewhere exist a “last cause” (finis ultimus), in respect of which all other causes are but means (fines intermedii). Thus man has a last end, an ultimate goal, beyond which there can be no other, and to the attainment of which he must subordinate all other ends for which he may be striving. The created universe, too, must have such a final cause, or last end, and this we now proceed to examine.

It is important for the purpose of our present inquiry to draw a clean-cut distinction between finis operis and finis operantis. A finis operis is an end immanent in the act or work itself, such as the alleviation of poverty in giving alms, or the indication of time on the part of a clock. A finis operantis, on the other hand, is that particular end or purpose which guides or impels an agent in acting and which constitutes the motive or cause of his action. The finis operantis may or may not coincide with, though it can never frustrate, the finis operis. Thus some men give alms out of vanity, or to be reputed charitable, while clock-makers in constructing horologes are usually impelled by motives of gain or love of art. Similarly, in inquiring into the ultimate end of the created universe, we must carefully distinguish between these two questions: (1) What induced God (finis operantis) to create the universe? (2) What is the ultimate end or object (finis operis) for which the universe was created? Divine Revelation returns a clear and distinct answer to both these questions.

2. The Teaching of Revelation

The teaching of Revelation on this head can be stated in two propositions: (1) God in creating the universe was impelled by His benevolence; (2) The final object of Creation is, primarily, the glorification of the Creator, and secondarily, the beatitude of His rational creatures.

Thesis I: God’s sole motive in creating the universe (finis operantis) was His benevolence.

This is de fide.

Proof. God is the Sovereign Lord and infinitely perfect, and therefore the motive of His external operations must be within Himself. For, being eternally self-sufficient and enjoying absolute beatitude in and for Himself,² He requires for His being or happiness nothing that exists outside Himself. Furthermore, being substantial goodness or love,³ He must have been impelled by His own goodness or love in creating the universe, and, since creation is free, by a free act of His Love. This is in fact the express teaching of Holy Church. “Deus bonitate sua … non ad augendam suam beatitudinem nec ad acquirendam, sed ad manifestandam perfectionem suam per bona, quae creaturis impertitur, liberrimo consilio … utramque de nihilo condidit creaturam” — God, of His own goodness, … not for the increase or acquirement of His own happiness, but to manifest His perfections by the blessings which He bestows on creatures, and with absolute freedom of counsel, created out of nothing … both [the spiritual and the corporeal] creature…⁴ According to Holy Scripture, God is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end,⁵ i.e., the final and the first Cause, who derives the motives of His operation solely from Himself. Isaias XLVIII, 11: “Propter me, propter me faciam, ut non blasphemer, et gloriam meam alteri non dabo” — For my own sake, for my own sake will I do it, that I may not be blasphemed: and I will not give my glory to another. Origen couches this fundamental theological verity in the words: “When in the beginning He created the things He willed to create, He had no other motive for His action than His own self, that is, His goodness.”⁶ St. Augustine says: “It is sufficient for a Christian to assume that the goodness of the Creator was the sole cause of creation.”⁷

Thesis II: The ultimate purpose of Creation (finis operis) is, primarily, the glorification of God, secondarily, the beatification of His rational creatures.

Proof of the First Part of the Thesis (which is de fide). The proposition that the glory of God is the ultimate end of Creation, was denied by Descartes, who insisted that we cannot conceive God as influenced by egoism and vainglory.⁸ Against this error the Vatican Council defines: “Si quis … mundum ad Dei gloriam conditum esse negaverit; anathema sit” — If any one … shall deny that the world was made for the glory of God, let him be anathema.⁹

a) The same truth is implicitly taught in all those Scriptural texts which describe God as the absolutely final as well as the highest end and object of all created things. The universe serves its ultimate end by revealing and proclaiming the divine perfections, and thereby glorifying God as the last end of all things. It is in this sense that Sacred Scripture again and again says that God created the universe for Himself. Prov. XVI, 4: “Universa propter semetipsum operatus est Dominus” — The Lord hath made all things for himself. That propter Deum here means ad gloriam Dei is patent from Rom. XI, 36: “Ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso¹⁰ sunt omnia: ipsi gloria in saecula” — For of him, and by him, and in him, are all things: to him be glory for ever. In his letter to the Hebrews (II, 10) St. Paul, by an inimitable play upon words, identifies the causa finalis of the world with its causa efficiens: “Propter quem omnia et per quem omnia” (δι’ ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα). For this reason Yahweh Himself says: “Omnem, qui invocat nomen meum, in gloriam meam creavi eum, formavi eum et feci eum” — And every one that calleth upon my name, I have created him for my glory, I have formed him and made him.¹¹ The material universe glorifies God by objectively reflecting His majesty. Ps. XVIII, 2: “Coeli enarrant gloriam Dei et opera manuum eius annuntiat firmamentum” — The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands. Rational creatures have the additional and higher mission of converting the objective glory of the Creator (gloria obiectiva) into a subjective glorification (gloria formalis) by means of knowledge, love, and praise.¹² This obligation is solemnly enjoined upon them by divine command. Deut. X, 20 sq.: “Dominum Deum tuum timebis et ei soli servies; ipsi adhaerebis iurabisque in nomine illius. Ipse est laus tua, et Deus tuus” — Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him only: to him thou shalt adhere, and shalt swear by his name. He is thy praise and thy God. Hence the Christmas hymn of the angelic hosts, “Gloria in excelsis Deo”; hence also the incessant exhortation of the Psalmist, “Laudate Dominum,” and of Daniel, “All ye works of the Lord, bless the Lord.”¹³

b) The teaching of the Fathers on this point agrees so perfectly with that of Sacred Scripture that we need not rehearse it at length. “What we adore,” says St. Clement of Rome, “is the one God, who has made this whole mass out of nothing and fashioned it as an ornament to His majesty.”¹⁴ Tertullian copies this passage word for word in the seventeenth chapter of his Apologeticum.¹⁵

c) The Schoolmen draw an important distinction, which is based on the teaching of Scripture, between gloria obiectiva and gloria formalis.¹⁶ By gloria obiectiva they understand the objective grandeur of the created universe as a mute manifestation of divine wisdom, benevolence, beauty, etc. Gloria formalis is the subjective glorification of the Creator by His rational creatures, in so far as they are moved by the beauty and grandeur of the physical universe to know, love, and praise Him.¹⁷ It is in this manner, and in this manner only, that the ultimate object of Creation (which consists in the glorification rather than in the simple glory of God) can be truly, completely, and perfectly attained. We conclude that, in creating the universe, God aimed principally at being glorified by those of His creatures whom He has endowed with reason. Had He omitted to kindle the light of reason, at least in some of His creatures, the universe would be “a book without a reader, a voice with no one to listen, an altar without a priest, a dwelling without inmates.”¹⁸ In view of these considerations it has justly been argued that a purely material world without rational denizens would be repugnant.¹⁹

Proof of the Second Part of the Thesis. That the happiness of rational creatures is one of the ultimate objects of Creation, is denied by two classes of opponents. Descartes, King, Stattler, and Kant regard the happiness of the rational creature as the sole object of Creation, irrespective of the glory of God. Others, like Hermes and Günther, hold that the chief end of Creation is the beatification of rational creatures, and that the glory of the Creator must be subordinated to this end. The opinion of the former has already been refuted. It remains to show that the happiness of rational creatures, though one of the chief purposes of Creation, is not its highest end, but essentially subordinate to the glorification of God. In other words, beatitude is merely the secondary object of Creation.²⁰

a) Holy Scripture teaches, (1) that the material universe is subject to man and exists for his benefit and use; (2) that man’s well-being is not an end in itself, but a means to the glorification of God. The former purpose being subordinate to the latter, it follows that the happiness of man (and of the Angels) is the secondary, not the primary end of Creation. Many Scriptural texts could be quoted to show that all irrational creatures are subject to, and destined to serve man,²¹ and that his eternal happiness is one of the ends of Creation. It is on this truth that theologians base what is known as the voluntas Dei salvifica, that is, the earnest and sincere will of God to free all men from sin and lead them to supernatural happiness. But as He is the Sovereign Good, the Creator must ultimately refer the eternal happiness of His rational creatures to Himself, i.e., He must seek in it His own glorification. Eph. I, 5 sq.: “Qui praedestinavit nos in adoptionem filiorum per Iesum Christum … in laudem gloriae gratiae suae … ut simus in laudem gloriae eius” — Who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ unto himself … unto the praise and glory of his grace … that we may be unto the praise of his glory. Only in this way can those who despise the divine glory be confounded. 1 Kings II, 30: “Quicunque glorificaverit me, glorificabo eum; qui autem contemnunt me, erunt ignobiles” — Whosoever shall glorify me, him will I glorify: but they that despise me, shall be despised. There is no exception to this fundamental rule. Even Christ, the God-man, glorified His Heavenly Father in all things. John XVII, 4: “Ego te clarificavi super terram, opus consummavi” — I have glorified thee on the earth, I have finished the work. Hence the life of the Elect in Heaven is nothing but an unceasing hymn of praise in honor of the Creator. Apoc. IV, 11: “Dignus es, Domine Deus noster, accipere gloriam et honorem et virtutem, quia tu creasti omnia” — Thou art worthy, O Lord our God, to receive glory, and honor, and power: because thou hast created all things. Cfr. 1 Cor. III, 22: “Omnia vestra sunt, … vos autem Christi, Christus autem Dei” — For all things are yours, … and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

b) There is no need of elaborating the argument from Tradition. The Fathers all teach in perfect conformity with Sacred Scripture that the material universe was made for man. “Non quasi indigens Deus hominis plasmavit Adam,” says St. Irenaeus,²² “sed ut haberet, in quem collocaret sua beneficia” — God formed Adam, not as if He had need of him, but as a subject upon which to confer His benefits. On the other hand, however, the Fathers insist that man should be constantly mindful of the honor and glory he owes to God, according to the exhortation of St. Paul: “Sive ergo manducatis sive bibitis sive aliud quid facitis, omnia in gloriam Dei facite” — Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatsoever else you do, do all to the glory of God.²³ In his commentary on the Psalms²⁴ St. Augustine says: “Quo fine facias, vide. Si eo id facis, ut tu glorificeris, hoc prohibuit Deus; si autem ideo, ut Deus glorificetur, hoc iussit” — Look to the end thou hast in view. If thou dost it in order to glorify thyself, thou dost something which God has forbidden; but if thou dost it in order that God be glorified, thou compliest with His command.

c) The glory of God and the happiness of His creatures are two ends which can never clash, because the one is subordinate to the other, and the two are so intimately bound up that the attainment of either promotes that of the other. In the last analysis, therefore, Creation has but one adequate end, viz., the glory of God, and this is accomplished by the beatification of His rational creatures, which consists in knowing, loving, and praising the Creator. In fact, the higher purpose is attained in direct proportion to the attainment of the lower — the greater the happiness of the creature, the more ardent will be its love, the more intense its glorification of God. And conversely, the more intense the love and praise which the creature renders to God, the greater will be its own beatitude.

It has been objected that, as some of God’s rational creatures are eternally damned, Creation does not attain its last end and purpose. God inevitably obtains that measure of external glory which He wills; and Hell itself is ultimately a revelation and glorification of the divine justice, though, of course, God does not, voluntate antecedente, seek His glory in the tortures of the reprobate sinners, but in the jubilant hymns of the Elect.²⁵

Notes

Readings

Kleutgen, Theologie der Vorzeit, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Sec. 5, Münster 1867. Palmieri, De Creatione et de Praecipuis Creaturis, thes. 10–11, Romae 1910. Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. II, §§ 132–133, Freiburg 1878 (Wilhelm-Scannell’s Manual, 2nd ed., Vol. I, pp. 369 sqq.). Stentrup, De Deo Uno, thes. 68–73, Oeniponte 1878. Heinrich, Dogmatische Theologie, 2nd ed., Vol. V, §§ 265–276, Mainz 1888. Tepe, Instit. Theol., Vol. II, pp. 453 sqq., Paris 1895.

Note on this transcription: footnotes 14–17 sit close together amid heavy column-interleaving, and while all four citations were recovered with confidence, the exact clause each attaches to (rather than a neighboring one) involved some judgment — the content of each note is accurate to the source either way. Two Greek phrases (οὗ ἕνεκα and the Heb. II, 10 wordplay) were reconstructed from garbled characters; German titles had umlauts restored.