The Final Cause of Creation and Divine Providence

Chapter III: The Final Cause of Creation and

CHAPTER III THE FINAL CAUSE OR END OF CREATION, AND 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? 79 SECTION i THE FINAL CAUSE OR OBJECT OF CREATION i. Preliminary Remarks. — An end, object, or purpose (finis, «Aos) is that for the sake of which the effect or result of an action is produced.1 Aristotle calls it simply ™ ov Ivaca. Since infinite progression is impossible, there must somewhere exist a “last cause” (finis ultimus)y 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 1 Finis est id, cuius gratia aliquid fit, 80 THE ” FINIS OPERANTIS ” 81 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: (i) 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 2 … in se et ex se beatissimus. — Cone. Vatic, Sess. Ill, cap. I. exists outside Himself. Furthermore, being substantial goodness or love,8 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, 1 1: “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 8 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His 5 I am Alpha and Omega, the Knowdbility, Essence, and Attri- beginning and the end, saith the butes, pp. 423 sqq. Lord God.” (Apoc. I, 8.) 4 Cone. Vatican,, Sess. Ill, cap. J. THE ” FINIS OPERIS * 33 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 9De Princip., II, 9, 6. 7 Enchirid., c. 9. Cfr. also St. John Damascene, De Fide Orth., II, 2. The philosophical argument is developed somewhat at length by St. Thomas in the Summa Theologica, ia, qu. 19, art. 2-3. 8Medit., 4. 9 Concilium Vaticanum, Sess. Ill, can. 5. &4 THE FINAL OBJECT OF CREATION 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 ipso 10 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 efhciens: Propter quern omnia et per quern omnia — St’ bv ra wdvra koL St 0$ ra wavTa.* 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 D$um tuum timebis et ex 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 lOe/y ai>r6v = finis ultimus. 12 Cfr. Rom. I, 19 sqq. 11 Is. XLIII. 7. THE ” FINIS OPERIS 85 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 Dominant” and of Daniel, “All ye works of the Lord, bless the Lord.”18 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 Apologeticutn.1* c) The Schoolmen draw an important distinction, which is based on the teaching of Scripture, between gloria obiectiva and gloria formalist 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 at18 Dan. Ill, 57.— Why God’s zeal for His own glory does not imply egoism and vainglory, we have explained in God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, pp. 432 sqq. uEp. ad Corinth., I, n. 33. IB For the teaching of St. Augustine, see that holy Doctor’s work, Doctrina Christiana, I, 32. The philosophical argument is forcibly stated by St Thomas, Contr. Gent., Ill, 16 sq. (Rickaby, Of God and His Creatures, pp. 196 sqq.). Cfr. also Lessius, De Perfect. Moribusque Div., 1. XIV. 16 Cfr. Lessius, /. c, c. 10, n. 7. 17 Cfr. Rom. I, 19 sqq. tained. 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 Giinther, 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 i8Tcpe, InstiU Theol., Vol. II, n. 461. 19 Cfr. Pohle, Die Sternemvelten und ihre Bewohner, 6th ed., pp. 467 sqq., 495 sqq., Cologne 19 10. 20 Cfr. Cone, Vatic, Sess. Ill, cap, 2, THE ” FINIS OPERIS 99 87 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 sec* ondary, 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.: u 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 gloriUcaverit 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 Godman, glorified 21 E. g.t Gen. I, 28: “And God blessed them [our first parents], saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.* 88 THE FINAL OBJECT OF CREATION 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: “Digitus 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. Ill, 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 quern 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.* 28 In his commentary on the Psalms 24 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 22 Adv. Haer., IV, 14. consult St. Augustine’s treatise De 23 1 Cor. X, 31. On this text Doctrina Christiana, ch. 22. 24 In Ps.t 55. THE ” FINIS OPERIS 89 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 26 Lessius explains the intrinsic relation existing between the glory of God and the beatitude of His creatures as follows: ” Itaque in summa Dei gloria extrinseca formaliter et intrinsece includitur summum bonum nostrum, ita ut sine Mo concipi nequeat; et hoc ipso quod Deus Mam gloriam intendit et quaerit, intendit et quaerit summum bonum et commodum nostrum. Unde non minus Deo gratias agere debemus, quod quaerit gloriam suam, quam quod quaerat salutem nostram, quia gloria eius est salus nostra.’* De Perfect. Moribusque 9o THE FINAL OBJECT OF CREATION Readings: — Kleutgen, Theologie der Vorseit, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Sec. 5, Minister 1867. — Palmieri, De Creatione et de Praecipuis Creaturis, thes. 10-11, Romae 1910. — Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol. II, §§ 132-133, Freiburg 1878 (Wilhelm- Scanners Manual, 2nd ed., Vol. I, pp. 369 sqq.). — Stentrup, De Deo Uno, thes. 6&-73, Oeniponte 1878. — Heinrich, Dogmatische Theologie, 2nd ed., Vol. V, §§ 265-276, Mainz 1888. — Tepe, Instit. Theol, Vol. II, pp. 453 sqq., Paris 1895. Divin., XIV, 3, n. 36. For a ref- gen, Theologie der Vorzeit, Vol. I, utation of the false theories of Sect. 5. Hermes and Gunther consult Klcut 

SECTION i. Definition of the Term. — St. Thomas defines as the all-regulating and stable plan by which God, as the Supreme Ruler of the universe, ordains all things.1 This definition postulates the existence of two divine operations, one of which is proper to the divine Intellect, vis.: foreknowledge of all, especially the conditioned events of the future,2 whereas the second, viz.: a preordainment of whatever is to happen or not to happen, with due regard to the free will of rational creatures, belongs to the divine Will. In a wider sense Providence is called the divine government of the world (gubernatio mundi), in as far as it is the successive execution of the divine plan in time. Providence, therefore, is related to the divine government of the world as a design is related to its execution. Providence is eternal, while the divine government of the world is exercised in time. Nor are ” Providence ” and ” divine disposition ” synonymous terms. What is usually called a divine disposition (dispositio) has reference to the ordering of things to one another, while Providence ordains things 1 S. Theol., ia, qu. 22, art 1. Knowability, Essence and Attri2 See Pohle-Preuss, God: His butes, pp. 361 sqq.

to their final end. Because of their intrinsic relation to the final object of the universe, the various divine dispositions must be conceived as necessary functions of Providence. The same is true of the divine Preservation of the universe and also of divine Concurrence, with both of which we have dealt in a preceding chapter.

2. The Dogma. — The existence of an all-governing Providence was formally defined as an article of faith by the Council of the Vatican: “Universa vero> quae condidit Deus, providentid sua tuetur atque gubernat, attingens a fine usque ad finem fortiter et disponens omnia suaviter; omnia enim nuda et aperta sunt oculis eius, ea etiam, quae libera creaturarum actione futura sunt — God protects and governs by His Providence all things which He hath made, ‘reaching from end to end mightily, and ordering all things sweetly/ For ‘all things are bare and open to His eyes/ even those which are yet to be by the free action of creatures/’ 3 This definition excludes the pagan notion of “fate” (wS), which had already been rejected by the Council of Braga (A. D. 561), and also modern Deism, which either denies Providence point-blank, or represents God as an idle, uninterested spectator of mundane affairs. For the Scriptural argument we must refer the reader to our work entitled God: His 8 Cone. Vatican., Sess. Ill, c. I. (Denzinger-Bannwart’s Enchiridion, n. 1784.) DEISM 93 Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, pp. 260 sqq. Among Patristic texts we would call special attention to Theodoret’s ten beautiful discourses on God’s Providence in the government of the world,4 and to the last of St. Chrysostom’s three books to Stagirius, a treatise of consolation written for the benefit of a sorely tried and nearly despairing friend.5

3. Deism. — By Deism we understand a conception of the universe which acknowledges the existence of a personal Creator, distinct from the world, but holds that He does not care for the universe which He has created, simply letting it shift for itself. Deism differs not only from Christian Theism, but likewise from and Materialism, and consequently also from Atheism. It may be fitly described as an incomplete, defective, and halting Theism.6 Deism originated in the seventeenth century, in England, by way of reaction against the Episcopal Church. Under the leadership of Toland (1696), Collins (+1724), Tindal (1730), who is called “the great apostle of Deism,” Thomas Morgan (1737), and other notorious Freethinkers, it began by attacking the super*Hepl wpopolas \6yoi I. 6 Hpbs Zrayelpiov 6.

natural truths of Christianity and, under Dodwell (1742) and David Hume (+ 1776), sank deep into the quagmire of religious scepticism. German Rationalism (die Aufklarung) — whose leading champions were G. E. Lessing and Im. Kant — like the Freethought of the French Encyclopedists, was merely an offshoot of English Deism. In Germany Deism ultimately developed into Pantheism. In France it engendered Atheism, which celebrated its terrible triumphs in the Revolution. At present Deism is leading a shadowy existence in certain Freemasonic lodges which have not yet adopted rank Pantheism. It is a comfortable creed, for, while freely acknowledging the existence of a ” Grand Architect of the Universe,” it cares not how He is worshipped or whether He be worshipped at all. The God of the Deists allows the mighty engine of the universe to run at rovers and permits the droll little creatures called men to disport themselves as they please. Of course, if the universe is ruled by immutable laws and left to itself by its Creator, there can be no room for miracles; supernatural Revelation is impossible and the Christian world-view must be set down as a chimera. In its last analysis, therefore, Deism is pure Naturalism, or Rationalism, and utterly incompatible with revealed religion. It cannot even keep up the appearance of a ” religion of pure reason ” upon which it loves to plume itself. Having cut loose from God it has lost all semblance of religion and must lead to rank Atheism. Thus the most effective refutation of Deism is its own history.7 7 On God’s relation to evil, espe- ity, Essence, and Attributes, pp. daily moral evil or sin, — a relation 442 sqq. See also our remarks on which Deism blandly ignores, — cfr. Pessimism, supra, pp. 48 sq. St. Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowabil- Thomas deals with this aspect of

DEISM 95 Readings: — St. Thomas, Contr. Gent, III, 64-97 (Rickaby, Of God and His Creatures, pp. 235 sqq.). — Ruiz, De Providentia Dei, disp. 1-4. — Lessius, De Perfect. Moribusque Div.,

1. XLIdem, De Providentia Numinis, etc. — Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., t II, 3rd ed., pp. 173 sqq., Friburgi 1906. — Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 372 sqq., London 1899. — B. Boedder, Natural Theology, pp. 381 sqq., 2nd ed., London 1899.— A. Lehmkuhl, Die gottliche Vorsehung, 5th ed., Koln 1906. — K. Gutberlet, Gott und die Schopfung, pp. 106 sqq., Ratisbon 1910.— F. Aveling, art. ” Deism ” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV. the subject in his Summa Theo- Natural Theology, Appendix VI, logica, 1a, qu. 49. On the Opti- pp. 467 sqq. mism of St. Thomas, cfr. Boedder, “A