"
Reply to Objection 1: Sometimes by the figure of synecdoche a part of
man, especially the soul which is the principal part, denotes a man.
Reply to Objection 1: Sometimes by the figure of synecdoche a part of
man, especially the soul which is the principal part, denotes a man.
Summa Theologica
For from the
very fact that the appetite is strongly affected towards something, it
may happen, owing to the violence of his affection, that a man is
carried away from everything else. Moreover, it has an effect on the
appetitive power, when for instance a man delights in the things to
which he is rapt. Hence the Apostle said that he was rapt, not only "to
the third heaven"---which pertains to the contemplation of the
intellect---but also into "paradise," which pertains to the appetite.
Reply to Objection 1: Rapture adds something to ecstasy. For ecstasy
means simply a going out of oneself by being placed outside one's
proper order [*Cf. [3694]FS, Q[28], A[3]]; while rapture denotes a
certain violence in addition. Accordingly ecstasy may pertain to the
appetitive power, as when a man's appetite tends to something outside
him, and in this sense Dionysius says that "the Divine love causes
ecstasy," inasmuch as it makes man's appetite tend to the object loved.
Hence he says afterwards that "even God Himself, the cause of all
things, through the overflow of His loving goodness, goes outside
Himself in His providence for all beings. " But even if this were said
expressly of rapture, it would merely signify that love is the cause of
rapture.
Reply to Objection 2: There is a twofold appetite in man; to wit, the
intellective appetite which is called the will, and the sensitive
appetite known as the sensuality. Now it is proper to man that his
lower appetite be subject to the higher appetite, and that the higher
move the lower. Hence man may become outside himself as regards the
appetite, in two ways. In one way, when a man's intellective appetite
tends wholly to divine things, and takes no account of those things
whereto the sensitive appetite inclines him; thus Dionysius says (Div.
Nom. iv) that "Paul being in ecstasy through the vehemence of Divine
love" exclaimed: "I live, now not I, but Christ liveth in me. "
In another way, when a man tends wholly to things pertaining to the
lower appetite, and takes no account of his higher appetite. It is thus
that "he who fed the swine debased himself"; and this latter kind of
going out of oneself, or being beside oneself, is more akin than the
former to the nature of rapture because the higher appetite is more
proper to man. Hence when through the violence of his lower appetite a
man is withdrawn from the movement of his higher appetite, it is more a
case of being withdrawn from that which is proper to him. Yet, because
there is no violence therein, since the will is able to resist the
passion, it falls short of the true nature of rapture, unless perchance
the passion be so strong that it takes away entirely the use of reason,
as happens to those who are mad with anger or love.
It must be observed. however, that both these excesses affecting the
appetite may cause an excess in the cognitive power, either because the
mind is carried away to certain intelligible objects, through being
drawn away from objects of sense, or because it is caught up into some
imaginary vision or fanciful apparition.
Reply to Objection 3: Just as love is a movement of the appetite with
regard to good, so fear is a movement of the appetite with regard to
evil. Wherefore either of them may equally cause an aberration of mind;
and all the more since fear arises from love, as Augustine says (De
Civ. Dei xiv, 7,9).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Paul, when in rapture, saw the essence of God?
Objection 1: It would seem that Paul, when in rapture, did not see the
essence of God. For just as we read of Paul that he was rapt to the
third heaven, so we read of Peter (Acts 10:10) that "there came upon
him an ecstasy of mind. " Now Peter, in his ecstasy, saw not God's
essence but an imaginary vision. Therefore it would seem that neither
did Paul see the essence of God.
Objection 2: Further, the vision of God is beatific. But Paul, in his
rapture, was not beatified; else he would never have returned to the
unhappiness of this life, but his body would have been glorified by the
overflow from his soul, as will happen to the saints after the
resurrection, and this clearly was not the case. Therefore Paul when in
rapture saw not the essence of God.
Objection 3: Further, according to 1 Cor. 13:10-12, faith and hope are
incompatible with the vision of the Divine essence. But Paul when in
this state had faith and hope. Therefore he saw not the essence of God.
Objection 4: Further, as Augustine states (Gen. ad lit. xii, 6,7),
"pictures of bodies are seen in the imaginary vision. " Now Paul is
stated (2 Cor. 12:2, 4) to have seen certain pictures in his rapture,
for instance of the "third heaven" and of "paradise. " Therefore he
would seem to have been rapt to an imaginary vision rather than to the
vision of the Divine essence.
On the contrary, Augustine (Ep. CXLVII, 13; ad Paulin. , de videndo
Deum) concludes that "possibly God's very substance was seen by some
while yet in this life: for instance by Moses, and by Paul who in
rapture heard unspeakable words, which it is not granted unto man to
utter. "
I answer that, Some have said that Paul, when in rapture, saw "not the
very essence of God, but a certain reflection of His clarity. " But
Augustine clearly comes to an opposite decision, not only in his book
(De videndo Deum), but also in Gen. ad lit. xii, 28 (quoted in a gloss
on 2 Cor. 12:2). Indeed the words themselves of the Apostle indicate
this. For he says that "he heard secret words, which it is not granted
unto man to utter": and such would seem to be words pertaining to the
vision of the blessed, which transcends the state of the wayfarer,
according to Is. 64:4, "Eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what
things Thou hast prepared for them that love [Vulg. : 'wait for'] Thee"
[*1 Cor. 2:9]. Therefore it is more becoming to hold that he saw God in
His essence.
Reply to Objection 1: Man's mind is rapt by God to the contemplation of
divine truth in three ways. First, so that he contemplates it through
certain imaginary pictures, and such was the ecstasy that came upon
Peter. Secondly, so that he contemplates the divine truth through its
intelligible effects; such was the ecstasy of David, who said (Ps.
115:11): "I said in my excess: Every man is a liar. " Thirdly, so that
he contemplates it in its essence. Such was the rapture of Paul, as
also of Moses [*Cf. Q[174], A[4]]; and not without reason, since as
Moses was the first Teacher of the Jews, so was Paul the first "Teacher
of the gentiles" [*Cf. [3695]FP, Q[68], A[4]].
Reply to Objection 2: The Divine essence cannot be seen by a created
intellect save through the light of glory, of which it is written (Ps.
35:10): "In Thy light we shall see light. " But this light can be shared
in two ways. First by way of an abiding form, and thus it beatifies the
saints in heaven. Secondly, by way of a transitory passion, as stated
above ([3696]Q[171] , A[2]) of the light of prophecy; and in this way
that light was in Paul when he was in rapture. Hence this vision did
not beatify him simply, so as to overflow into his body, but only in a
restricted sense. Consequently this rapture pertains somewhat to
prophecy.
Reply to Objection 3: Since, in his rapture, Paul was beatified not as
to the habit, but only as to the act of the blessed, it follows that he
had not the act of faith at the same time, although he had the habit.
Reply to Objection 4: In one way by the third heaven we may understand
something corporeal, and thus the third heaven denotes the empyrean [*1
Tim. 2:7; Cf. [3697]FP, Q[12], A[11], ad 2], which is described as the
"third," in relation to the aerial and starry heavens, or better still,
in relation to the aqueous and crystalline heavens. Moreover Paul is
stated to be rapt to the "third heaven," not as though his rapture
consisted in the vision of something corporeal, but because this place
is appointed for the contemplation of the blessed. Hence the gloss on 2
Cor. 12 says that the "third heaven is a spiritual heaven, where the
angels and the holy souls enjoy the contemplation of God: and when Paul
says that he was rapt to this heaven he means that God showed him the
life wherein He is to be seen forevermore. "
In another way the third heaven may signify a supra-mundane vision.
Such a vision may be called the third heaven in three ways. First,
according to the order of the cognitive powers. In this way the first
heaven would indicate a supramundane bodily vision, conveyed through
the senses; thus was seen the hand of one writing on the wall (Dan.
5:5); the second heaven would be an imaginary vision such as Isaias
saw, and John in the Apocalypse; and the third heaven would denote an
intellectual vision according to Augustine's explanation (Gen. ad lit.
xii, 26,28,34). Secondly, the third heaven may be taken according to
the order of things knowable, the first heaven being "the knowledge of
heavenly bodies, the second the knowledge of heavenly spirits, the
third the knowledge of God Himself. " Thirdly, the third heaven may
denote the contemplation of God according to the degrees of knowledge
whereby God is seen. The first of these degrees belongs to the angels
of the lowest hierarchy [*Cf. [3698]FP, Q[108], A[1]], the second to
the angels of the middle hierarchy, the third to the angels of the
highest hierarchy, according to the gloss on 2 Cor. 12.
And since the vision of God cannot be without delight, he says that he
was not only "rapt to the third heaven" by reason of his contemplation,
but also into "Paradise" by reason of the consequent delight.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Paul, when in rapture, was withdrawn from his senses?
Objection 1: It would seem that Paul, when in rapture, was not
withdrawn from his senses. For Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 28):
"Why should we not believe that when so great an apostle, the teacher
of the gentiles, was rapt to this most sublime vision, God was willing
to vouchsafe him a glimpse of that eternal life which is to take the
place of the present life? " Now in that future life after the
resurrection the saints will see the Divine essence without being
withdrawn from the senses of the body. Therefore neither did such a
withdrawal take place in Paul.
Objection 2: Further, Christ was truly a wayfarer, and also enjoyed an
uninterrupted vision of the Divine essence, without, however, being
withdrawn from His senses. Therefore there was no need for Paul to be
withdrawn from his senses in order for him to see the essence of God.
Objection 3: Further, after seeing God in His essence, Paul remembered
what he had seen in that vision; hence he said (2 Cor. 12:4): "He heard
secret words, which it is not granted to man to utter. " Now the memory
belongs to the sensitive faculty according to the Philosopher (De Mem.
et Remin. i). Therefore it seems that Paul, while seeing the essence of
God, was not withdrawn from his senses.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 27): "Unless a man
in some way depart this life, whether by going altogether out of his
body or by turning away and withdrawing from his carnal senses, so that
he truly knows not as the Apostle said, whether he be in the body or
out of the body, he is not rapt and caught up into that vision. *" [*The
text of St. Augustine reads: "when he is rapt," etc. ]
I answer that, The Divine essence cannot be seen by man through any
cognitive power other than the intellect. Now the human intellect does
not turn to intelligible objects except by means of the phantasms [*Cf.
[3699]FP, Q[84], A[7]] which it takes from the senses through the
intelligible species; and it is in considering these phantasms that the
intellect judges of and coordinates sensible objects. Hence in any
operation that requires abstraction of the intellect from phantasms,
there must be also withdrawal of the intellect from the senses. Now in
the state of the wayfarer it is necessary for man's intellect, if it
see God's essence, to be withdrawn from phantasms. For God's essence
cannot be seen by means of a phantasm, nor indeed by any created
intelligible species [*Cf. [3700]FP, Q[12], A[2]], since God's essence
infinitely transcends not only all bodies, which are represented by
phantasms, but also all intelligible creatures. Now when man's
intellect is uplifted to the sublime vision of God's essence, it is
necessary that his mind's whole attention should be summoned to that
purpose in such a way that he understand naught else by phantasms, and
be absorbed entirely in God. Therefore it is impossible for man while a
wayfarer to see God in His essence without being withdrawn from his
senses.
Reply to Objection 1: As stated above (A[3], OBJ[2]), after the
resurrection, in the blessed who see God in His essence, there will be
an overflow from the intellect to the lower powers and even to the
body. Hence it is in keeping with the rule itself of the divine vision
that the soul will turn towards phantasms and sensible objects. But
there is no such overflow in those who are raptured, as stated (A[3],
OBJ[2], ad 2), and consequently the comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 2: The intellect of Christ's soul was glorified by
the habit of the light of glory, whereby He saw the Divine essence much
more fully than an angel or a man. He was, however, a wayfarer on
account of the passibility of His body, in respect of which He was
"made a little lower than the angels" (Heb. 2:9), by dispensation, and
not on account of any defect on the part of His intellect. Hence there
is no comparison between Him and other wayfarers.
Reply to Objection 3: Paul, after seeing God in His essence, remembered
what he had known in that vision, by means of certain intelligible
species that remained in his intellect by way of habit; even as in the
absence of the sensible object, certain impressions remain in the soul
which it recollects when it turns to the phantasms. And so this was the
knowledge that he was unable wholly to think over or express in words.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether, while in this state, Paul's soul was wholly separated from his
body?
Objection 1: It would seem that, while in this state, Paul's soul was
wholly separated from his body. For the Apostle says (2 Cor. 5:6,7):
"While we are in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by
faith, and not by sight" [*'Per speciem,' i. e. by an intelligible
species]. Now, while in that state, Paul was not absent from the Lord,
for he saw Him by a species, as stated above [3701](A[3]). Therefore he
was not in the body.
Objection 2: Further, a power of the soul cannot be uplifted above the
soul's essence wherein it is rooted. Now in this rapture the intellect,
which is a power of the soul, was withdrawn from its bodily
surroundings through being uplifted to divine contemplation. Much more
therefore was the essence of the soul separated from the body.
Objection 3: Further, the forces of the vegetative soul are more
material than those of the sensitive soul. Now in order for him to be
rapt to the vision of God, it was necessary for him to be withdrawn
from the forces of the sensitive soul, as stated above [3702](A[4]).
Much more, therefore, was it necessary for him to be withdrawn from the
forces of the vegetative soul. Now when these forces cease to operate,
the soul is no longer in any way united to the body. Therefore it would
seem that in Paul's rapture it was necessary for the soul to be wholly
separated from the body.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Ep. CXLVII, 13, ad Paulin. ; de videndo
Deum): "It is not incredible that this sublime revelation" (namely,
that they should see God in His essence) "was vouchsafed certain
saints, without their departing this life so completely as to leave
nothing but a corpse for burial. " Therefore it was not necessary for
Paul's soul, when in rapture, to be wholly separated from his body.
I answer that, As stated above (A[1], OBJ[1]), in the rapture of which
we are speaking now, man is uplifted by God's power, "from that which
is according to nature to that which is above nature. " Wherefore two
things have to be considered: first, what pertains to man according to
nature; secondly, what has to be done by God in man above his nature.
Now, since the soul is united to the body as its natural form, it
belongs to the soul to have a natural disposition to understand by
turning to phantasms; and this is not withdrawn by the divine power
from the soul in rapture, since its state undergoes no change, as
stated above (A[3], ad 2,3). Yet, this state remaining, actual
conversion to phantasms and sensible objects is withdrawn from the
soul, lest it be hindered from being uplifted to that which transcends
all phantasms, as stated above [3703](A[4]). Therefore it was not
necessary that his soul in rapture should be so separated from the body
as to cease to be united thereto as its form; and yet it was necessary
for his intellect to be withdrawn from phantasms and the perception of
sensible objects.
Reply to Objection 1: In this rapture Paul was absent from the Lord as
regards his state, since he was still in the state of a wayfarer, but
not as regards the act by which he saw God by a species, as stated
above (A[3], ad 2,3).
Reply to Objection 2: A faculty of the soul is not uplifted by the
natural power above the mode becoming the essence of the soul; but it
can be uplifted by the divine power to something higher, even as a body
by the violence of a stronger power is lifted up above the place
befitting it according to its specific nature.
Reply to Objection 3: The forces of the vegetative soul do not operate
through the soul being intent thereon, as do the sensitive forces, but
by way of nature. Hence in the case of rapture there is no need for
withdrawal from them, as from the sensitive powers, whose operations
would lessen the intentness of the soul on intellective knowledge.
__________________________________________________________________
Did Paul know whether his soul were separated from his body?
Objection 1: It would seem that Paul was not ignorant whether his soul
were separated from his body. For he says (2 Cor. 12:2): "I know a man
in Christ rapt even to the third heaven. " Now man denotes something
composed of soul and body; and rapture differs from death. Seemingly
therefore he knew that his soul was not separated from his body by
death, which is the more probable seeing that this is the common
opinion of the Doctors.
Objection 2: Further, it appears from the same words of the Apostle
that he knew whither he was rapt, since it was "to the third heaven. "
Now this shows that he knew whether he was in the body or not, for if
he knew the third heaven to be something corporeal, he must have known
that his soul was not separated from his body, since a corporeal thing
cannot be an object of sight save through the body. Therefore it would
seem that he was not ignorant whether his soul were separated from his
body.
Objection 3: Further, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 28) that "when
in rapture, he saw God with the same vision as the saints see Him in
heaven. " Now from the very fact that the saints see God, they know
whether their soul is separated from their body. Therefore Paul too
knew this.
On the contrary, It is written (2 Cor. 12:3): "Whether in the body, or
out of the body, I know not, God knoweth. "
I answer that, The true answer to this question must be gathered from
the Apostle's very words, whereby he says he knew something, namely
that he was "rapt even to the third heaven," and that something he knew
not, namely "whether" he were "in the body or out of the body. " This
may be understood in two ways. First, the words "whether in the body or
out of the body" may refer not to the very being of the man who was
rapt (as though he knew not whether his soul were in his body or not),
but to the mode of rapture, so that he ignored whether his body besides
his soul, or, on the other hand, his soul alone, were rapt to the third
heaven. Thus Ezechiel is stated (Ezech. 8:3) to have been "brought in
the vision of God into Jerusalem. " This was the explanation of a
certain Jew according to Jerome (Prolog. super Daniel. ), where he says
that "lastly our Apostle" (thus said the Jew) "durst not assert that he
was rapt in his body, but said: 'Whether in the body or out of the
body, I know not. '"
Augustine, however, disapproves of this explanation (Gen. ad lit. xii,
3 seqq. ) for this reason that the Apostle states that he knew he was
rapt even to the third heaven. Wherefore he knew it to be really the
third heaven to which he was rapt, and not an imaginary likeness of the
third heaven: otherwise if he gave the name of third heaven to an
imaginary third heaven, in the same way he might state that he was rapt
in the body, meaning, by body, an image of his body, such as appears in
one's dreams. Now if he knew it to be really the third heaven, it
follows that either he knew it to be something spiritual and
incorporeal, and then his body could not be rapt thither; or he knew it
to be something corporeal, and then his soul could not be rapt thither
without his body, unless it were separated from his body. Consequently
we must explain the matter otherwise, by saying that the Apostle knew
himself to be rapt both in soul and body, but that he ignored how his
soul stood in relation to his body, to wit, whether it were accompanied
by his body or not.
Here we find a diversity of opinions. For some say that the Apostle
knew his soul to be united to his body as its form, but ignored whether
it were abstracted from its senses, or again whether it were abstracted
from the operations of the vegetative soul. But he could not but know
that it was abstracted from the senses, seeing that he knew himself to
be rapt; and as to his being abstracted from the operation of the
vegetative soul, this was not of such importance as to require him to
be so careful in mentioning it. It follows, then, that the Apostle
ignored whether his soul were united to his body as its form, or
separated from it by death. Some, however, granting this say that the
Apostle did not consider the matter while he was in rapture, because he
was wholly intent upon God, but that afterwards he questioned the
point, when taking cognizance of what he had seen. But this also is
contrary to the Apostle's words, for he there distinguishes between the
past and what happened subsequently, since he states that at the
present time he knows that he was rapt "fourteen years ago," and that
at the present time he knows not "whether he was in the body or out of
the body. "
Consequently we must assert that both before and after he ignored
whether his soul were separated from his body. Wherefore Augustine
(Gen. ad lit. xii, 5), after discussing the question at length,
concludes: "Perhaps then we must infer that he ignored whether, when he
was rapt to the third heaven, his soul was in his body (in the same way
as the soul is in the body, when we speak of a living body either of a
waking or of a sleeping man, or of one that is withdrawn from his
bodily senses during ecstasy), or whether his soul went out of his body
altogether, so that his body lay dead.
"
Reply to Objection 1: Sometimes by the figure of synecdoche a part of
man, especially the soul which is the principal part, denotes a man. or
again we might take this to mean that he whom he states to have been
rapt was a man not at the time of his rapture, but fourteen years
afterwards: for he says "I know a man," not "I know a rapt man. " Again
nothing hinders death brought about by God being called rapture; and
thus Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 3): "If the Apostle doubted the
matter, who of us will dare to be certain about it? " Wherefore those
who have something to say on this subject speak with more conjecture
than certainty.
Reply to Objection 2: The Apostle knew that either the heaven in
question was something incorporeal, or that he saw something
incorporeal in that heaven; yet this could be done by his intellect,
even without his soul being separated from his body.
Reply to Objection 3: Paul's vision, while he was in rapture, was like
the vision of the blessed in one respect, namely as to the thing seen;
and, unlike, in another respect, namely as to the mode of seeing,
because he saw not so perfectly as do the saints in heaven. Hence
Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 36): "Although, when the Apostle was
rapt from his carnal senses to the third heaven, he lacked that full
and perfect knowledge of things which is in the angels, in that he knew
not whether he was in the body, or out of the body, this will surely
not be lacking after reunion with the body in the resurrection of the
dead, when this corruptible will put on incorruption. "
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE GRACE OF TONGUES (TWO ARTICLES)
We must now consider those gratuitous graces that pertain to speech,
and (1) the grace of tongues; (2) the grace of the word of wisdom and
knowledge. Under the first head there are two points of inquiry:
(1) Whether by the grace of tongues a man acquires the knowledge of all
languages?
(2) Of the comparison between this gift and the grace of prophecy.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether those who received the gift of tongues spoke in every language?
Objection 1: It seems that those who received the gift of tongues did
not speak in every language. For that which is granted to certain
persons by the divine power is the best of its kind: thus our Lord
turned the water into good wine, as stated in Jn. 2:10. Now those who
had the gift of tongues spoke better in their own language; since a
gloss on Heb. 1, says that "it is not surprising that the epistle to
the Hebrews is more graceful in style than the other epistles, since it
is natural for a man to have more command over his own than over a
strange language. For the Apostle wrote the other epistles in a
foreign, namely the Greek, idiom; whereas he wrote this in the Hebrew
tongue. " Therefore the apostles did not receive the knowledge of all
languages by a gratuitous grace.
Objection 2: Further, nature does not employ many means where one is
sufficient; and much less does God Whose work is more orderly than
nature's. Now God could make His disciples to be understood by all,
while speaking one tongue: hence a gloss on Acts 2:6, "Every man heard
them speak in his own tongue," says that "they spoke in every tongue,
or speaking in their own, namely the Hebrew language, were understood
by all, as though they spoke the language proper to each. " Therefore it
would seem that they had not the knowledge to speak in all languages.
Objection 3: Further, all graces flow from Christ to His body, which is
the Church, according to Jn. 1:16, "Of His fullness we all have
received. " Now we do not read that Christ spoke more than one language,
nor does each one of the faithful now speak save in one tongue.
Therefore it would seem that Christ's disciples did not receive the
grace to the extent of speaking in all languages.
On the contrary, It is written (Acts 2:4) that "they were all filled
with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues,
according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak"; on which passage a
gloss of Gregory [*Hom. xxx in Ev. ] says that "the Holy Ghost appeared
over the disciples under the form of fiery tongues, and gave them the
knowledge of all tongues. "
I answer that, Christ's first disciples were chosen by Him in order
that they might disperse throughout the whole world, and preach His
faith everywhere, according to Mat. 28:19, "Going . . . teach ye all
nations. " Now it was not fitting that they who were being sent to teach
others should need to be taught by others, either as to how they should
speak to other people, or as to how they were to understand those who
spoke to them; and all the more seeing that those who were being sent
were of one nation, that of Judea, according to Is. 27:6, "When they
shall rush out from Jacob [*Vulg. : 'When they shall rush in unto
Jacob,' etc. ] . . . they shall fill the face of the world with seed. "
Moreover those who were being sent were poor and powerless; nor at the
outset could they have easily found someone to interpret their words
faithfully to others, or to explain what others said to them,
especially as they were sent to unbelievers. Consequently it was
necessary, in this respect, that God should provide them with the gift
of tongues; in order that, as the diversity of tongues was brought upon
the nations when they fell away to idolatry, according to Gn. 11, so
when the nations were to be recalled to the worship of one God a remedy
to this diversity might be applied by the gift of tongues.
Reply to Objection 1: As it is written (1 Cor. 12:7), "the
manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit"; and
consequently both Paul and the other apostles were divinely instructed
in the languages of all nations sufficiently for the requirements of
the teaching of the faith. But as regards the grace and elegance of
style which human art adds to a language, the Apostle was instructed in
his own, but not in a foreign tongue. Even so they were sufficiently
instructed in wisdom and scientific knowledge, as required for teaching
the faith, but not as to all things known by acquired science, for
instance the conclusions of arithmetic and geometry.
Reply to Objection 2: Although either was possible, namely that, while
speaking in one tongue they should be understood by all, or that they
should speak in all tongues, it was more fitting that they should speak
in all tongues, because this pertained to the perfection of their
knowledge, whereby they were able not only to speak, but also to
understand what was said by others. Whereas if their one language were
intelligible to all, this would either have been due to the knowledge
of those who understood their speech, or it would have amounted to an
illusion, since a man's words would have had a different sound in
another's ears, from that with which they were uttered. Hence a gloss
says on Acts 2:6 that "it was a greater miracle that they should speak
all kinds of tongues"; and Paul says (1 Cor. 14:18): "I thank my God I
speak with all your tongues. "
Reply to Objection 3: Christ in His own person purposed preaching to
only one nation, namely the Jews. Consequently, although without any
doubt He possessed most perfectly the knowledge of all languages, there
was no need for Him to speak in every tongue. And therefore, as
Augustine says (Tract. xxxii in Joan. ), "whereas even now the Holy
Ghost is received, yet no one speaks in the tongues of all nations,
because the Church herself already speaks the languages of all nations:
since whoever is not in the Church, receives not the Holy Ghost. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the gift of tongues is more excellent than the grace of prophecy?
Objection 1: It would seem that the gift of tongues is more excellent
than the grace of prophecy. For, seemingly, better things are proper to
better persons, according to the Philosopher (Topic. iii, 1). Now the
gift of tongues is proper to the New Testament, hence we sing in the
sequence of Pentecost [*The sequence: 'Sancti Spiritus adsit nobis
gratia' ascribed to King Robert of France, the reputed author of the
'Veni Sancte Spiritus. ' Cf. Migne, Patr. Lat. tom. CXLI]: "On this day
Thou gavest Christ's apostles an unwonted gift, a marvel to all time":
whereas prophecy is more pertinent to the Old Testament, according to
Heb. 1:1, "God Who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in times
past to the fathers by the prophets. " Therefore it would seem that the
gift of tongues is more excellent than the gift of prophecy.
Objection 2: Further, that whereby we are directed to God is seemingly
more excellent than that whereby we are directed to men. Now, by the
gift of tongues, man is directed to God, whereas by prophecy he is
directed to man; for it is written (1 Cor. 14:2,3): "He that speaketh
in a tongue, speaketh not unto men, but unto God . . . but he that
prophesieth, speaketh unto men unto edification. " Therefore it would
seem that the gift of tongues is more excellent than the gift of
prophecy.
Objection 3: Further, the gift of tongues abides like a habit in the
person who has it, and "he can use it when he will"; wherefore it is
written (1 Cor. 14:18): "I thank my God I speak with all your tongues. "
But it is not so with the gift of prophecy, as stated above
([3704]Q[171], A[2]). Therefore the gift of tongues would seem to be
more excellent than the gift of prophecy.
Objection 4: Further, the "interpretation of speeches" would seem to be
contained under prophecy, because the Scriptures are expounded by the
same Spirit from Whom they originated. Now the interpretation of
speeches is placed after "divers kinds of tongues" (1 Cor. 12:10).
Therefore it seems that the gift of tongues is more excellent than the
gift of prophecy, particularly as regards a part of the latter.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 14:5): "Greater is he that
prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues. "
I answer that, The gift of prophecy surpasses the gift of tongues, in
three ways. First, because the gift of tongues regards the utterance of
certain words, which signify an intelligible truth, and this again is
signified by the phantasms which appear in an imaginary vision;
wherefore Augustine compares (Gen. ad lit. xii, 8) the gift of tongues
to an imaginary vision. On the other hand, it has been stated above
([3705]Q[173], A[2]) that the gift of prophecy consists in the mind
itself being enlightened so as to know an intelligible truth.
Wherefore, as the prophetic enlightenment is more excellent than the
imaginary vision, as stated above ([3706]Q[174], A[2]), so also is
prophecy more excellent than the gift of tongues considered in itself.
Secondly, because the gift of prophecy regards the knowledge of things,
which is more excellent than the knowledge of words, to which the gift
of tongues pertains.
Thirdly, because the gift of prophecy is more profitable. The Apostle
proves this in three ways (1 Cor. 14); first, because prophecy is more
profitable to the edification of the Church, for which purpose he that
speaketh in tongues profiteth nothing, unless interpretation follow (1
Cor. 14:4,5). Secondly, as regards the speaker himself, for if he be
enabled to speak in divers tongues without understanding them, which
pertains to the gift of prophecy, his own mind would not be edified (1
Cor. 14:7-14). Thirdly, as to unbelievers for whose especial benefit
the gift of tongues seems to have been given; since perchance they
might think those who speak in tongues to be mad (1 Cor. 14:23), for
instance the Jews deemed the apostles drunk when the latter spoke in
various tongues (Acts 2:13): whereas by prophecies the unbeliever is
convinced, because the secrets of his heart are made manifest (Acts
2:25).
Reply to Objection 1: As stated above ([3707]Q[174], A[3], ad 1), it
belongs to the excellence of prophecy that a man is not only
enlightened by an intelligible light, but also that he should perceive
an imaginary vision: and so again it belongs to the perfection of the
Holy Ghost's operation, not only to fill the mind with the prophetic
light, and the imagination with the imaginary vision, as happened in
the Old Testament, but also to endow the tongue with external
erudition, in the utterance of various signs of speech. All this is
done in the New Testament, according to 1 Cor. 14:26, "Every one of you
hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation," i. e.
a prophetic revelation.
Reply to Objection 2: By the gift of prophecy man is directed to God in
his mind, which is more excellent than being directed to Him in his
tongue. "He that speaketh in a tongue "is said to speak "not unto men,"
i. e. to men's understanding or profit, but unto God's understanding and
praise. On the other hand, by prophecy a man is directed both to God
and to man; wherefore it is the more perfect gift.
Reply to Objection 3: Prophetic revelation extends to the knowledge of
all things supernatural; wherefore from its very perfection it results
that in this imperfect state of life it cannot be had perfectly by way
of habit, but only imperfectly by way of passion. on the other hand,
the gift of tongues is confined to a certain particular knowledge,
namely of human words; wherefore it is not inconsistent with the
imperfection of this life, that it should be had perfectly and by way
of habit.
Reply to Objection 4: The interpretation of speeches is reducible to
the gift of prophecy, inasmuch as the mind is enlightened so as to
understand and explain any obscurities of speech arising either from a
difficulty in the things signified, or from the words uttered being
unknown, or from the figures of speech employed, according to Dan.
5:16, "I have heard of thee, that thou canst interpret obscure things,
and resolve difficult things. " Hence the interpretation of speeches is
more excellent than the gift of tongues, as appears from the saying of
the Apostle (1 Cor. 14:5), "Greater is he that prophesieth than he that
speaketh with tongues; unless perhaps he interpret. " Yet the
interpretation of speeches is placed after the gift of tongues, because
the interpretation of speeches extends even to the interpretation of
divers kinds of tongues.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE GRATUITOUS GRACE CONSISTING IN WORDS (TWO ARTICLES)
We must now consider the gratuitous grace that attaches to words; of
which the Apostle says (1 Cor. 12:8): "To one . . . by the Spirit is
given the word of wisdom, and to another the word of knowledge. " Under
this head there are two points of inquiry:
(1) Whether any gratuitous grace attaches to words?
(2) To whom is the grace becoming?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether any gratuitous grace attaches to words?
Objection 1: It would seem that a gratuitous grace does not attach to
words. For grace is given for that which surpasses the faculty of
nature. But natural reason has devised the art of rhetoric whereby a
man is able to speak so as to teach, please, and persuade, as Augustine
says (De Doctr. Christ. iv, 12). Now this belongs to the grace of
words. Therefore it would seem that the grace of words is not a
gratuitous grace.
Objection 2: Further, all grace pertains to the kingdom of God. But the
Apostle says (1 Cor. 4:20): "The kingdom of God is not in speech, but
in power. " Therefore there is no gratuitous grace connected with words.
Objection 3: Further, no grace is given through merit, since "if by
grace, it is not now of works" (Rom. 11:6). But the word is sometimes
given to a man on his merits. For Gregory says (Moral. xi, 15) in
explanation of Ps. 118:43, "Take not Thou the word of truth utterly out
of my mouth" that "the word of truth is that which Almighty God gives
to them that do it, and takes away from them that do it not. " Therefore
it would seem that the gift of the word is not a gratuitous grace.
Objection 4: Further, it behooves man to declare in words things
pertaining to the virtue of faith, no less than those pertaining to the
gift of wisdom or of knowledge. Therefore if the word of wisdom and the
word of knowledge are reckoned gratuitous graces, the word of faith
should likewise be placed among the gratuitous graces.
On the contrary, It is written (Ecclus. 6:5): "A gracious tongue in a
good man shall abound [Vulg. : 'aboundeth']. " Now man's goodness is by
grace. Therefore graciousness in words is also by grace.
I answer that, The gratuitous graces are given for the profit of
others, as stated above ([3708]FS, Q[111], AA[1],4). Now the knowledge
a man receives from God cannot be turned to another's profit, except by
means of speech. And since the Holy Ghost does not fail in anything
that pertains to the profit of the Church, He provides also the members
of the Church with speech; to the effect that a man not only speaks so
as to be understood by different people, which pertains to the gift of
tongues, but also speaks with effect, and this pertains to the grace
"of the word. "
This happens in three ways. First, in order to instruct the intellect,
and this is the case when a man speaks so as "to teach. " Secondly, in
order to move the affections, so that a man willingly hearkens to the
word of God. This is the case when a man speaks so as "to please" his
hearers, not indeed with a view to his own favor, but in order to draw
them to listen to God's word. Thirdly, in order that men may love that
which is signified by the word, and desire to fulfill it, and this is
the case when a man so speaks as "to sway" his hearers. In order to
effect this the Holy Ghost makes use of the human tongue as of an
instrument; but He it is Who perfects the work within. Hence Gregory
says in a homily for Pentecost (Hom. xxx in Ev. ): "Unless the Holy
Ghost fill the hearts of the hearers, in vain does the voice of the
teacher resound in the ears of the body. "
Reply to Objection 1: Even as by a miracle God sometimes works in a
more excellent way those things which nature also can work, so too the
Holy Ghost effects more excellently by the grace of words that which
art can effect in a less efficient manner.
Reply to Objection 2: The Apostle is speaking there of the word that
relies on human eloquence without the power of the Holy Ghost.
Wherefore he says just before (1 Cor. 4:19): "I . . . will know, not
the speech of them that are puffed up, but the power": and of himself
he had already said (1 Cor. 2:4): "My speech and my preaching was not
in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in the showing of the
spirit and power. "
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above, the grace of the word is given
to a man for the profit of others. Hence it is withdrawn sometimes
through the fault of the hearer, and sometimes through the fault of the
speaker. The good works of either of them do not merit this grace
directly, but only remove the obstacles thereto. For sanctifying grace
also is withdrawn on account of a person's fault, and yet he does not
merit it by his good works, which, however, remove the obstacles to
grace.
Reply to Objection 4: As stated above, the grace of the word is
directed to the profit of others. Now if a man communicates his faith
to others this is by the word of knowledge or of wisdom. Hence
Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1) that "to know how faith may profit the
godly and be defended against the ungodly, is apparently what the
Apostle means by knowledge. " Hence it was not necessary for him to
mention the word of faith, but it was sufficient for him to mention the
word of knowledge and of wisdom.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the grace of the word of wisdom and knowledge is becoming to women?
Objection 1: It would seem that the grace of the word of wisdom and
knowledge is becoming even to women. For teaching is pertinent to this
grace, as stated in the foregoing Article. Now it is becoming to a
woman to teach; for it is written (Prov. 4:3,4): "I was an only son in
the sight of my mother, and she taught me [*Vulg. : 'I was my father's
son, tender, and as an only son in the sight of my mother. And he
taught me. ']. " Therefore this grace is becoming to women.
Objection 2: Further, the grace of prophecy is greater than the grace
of the word, even as the contemplation of truth is greater than its
utterance. But prophecy is granted to women, as we read of Deborah
(Judges 4:4), and of Holda the prophetess, the wife of Sellum (4 Kings
22:14), and of the four daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9). Moreover the
Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:5): "Every woman praying or prophesying," etc.
Much more therefore would it seem that the grace of the word is
becoming to a woman.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (1 Pet. 4:10): "As every man hath
received grace ministering the same one to another. " Now some women
receive the grace of wisdom and knowledge, which they cannot minister
to others except by the grace of the word. Therefore the grace of the
word is becoming to women.
very fact that the appetite is strongly affected towards something, it
may happen, owing to the violence of his affection, that a man is
carried away from everything else. Moreover, it has an effect on the
appetitive power, when for instance a man delights in the things to
which he is rapt. Hence the Apostle said that he was rapt, not only "to
the third heaven"---which pertains to the contemplation of the
intellect---but also into "paradise," which pertains to the appetite.
Reply to Objection 1: Rapture adds something to ecstasy. For ecstasy
means simply a going out of oneself by being placed outside one's
proper order [*Cf. [3694]FS, Q[28], A[3]]; while rapture denotes a
certain violence in addition. Accordingly ecstasy may pertain to the
appetitive power, as when a man's appetite tends to something outside
him, and in this sense Dionysius says that "the Divine love causes
ecstasy," inasmuch as it makes man's appetite tend to the object loved.
Hence he says afterwards that "even God Himself, the cause of all
things, through the overflow of His loving goodness, goes outside
Himself in His providence for all beings. " But even if this were said
expressly of rapture, it would merely signify that love is the cause of
rapture.
Reply to Objection 2: There is a twofold appetite in man; to wit, the
intellective appetite which is called the will, and the sensitive
appetite known as the sensuality. Now it is proper to man that his
lower appetite be subject to the higher appetite, and that the higher
move the lower. Hence man may become outside himself as regards the
appetite, in two ways. In one way, when a man's intellective appetite
tends wholly to divine things, and takes no account of those things
whereto the sensitive appetite inclines him; thus Dionysius says (Div.
Nom. iv) that "Paul being in ecstasy through the vehemence of Divine
love" exclaimed: "I live, now not I, but Christ liveth in me. "
In another way, when a man tends wholly to things pertaining to the
lower appetite, and takes no account of his higher appetite. It is thus
that "he who fed the swine debased himself"; and this latter kind of
going out of oneself, or being beside oneself, is more akin than the
former to the nature of rapture because the higher appetite is more
proper to man. Hence when through the violence of his lower appetite a
man is withdrawn from the movement of his higher appetite, it is more a
case of being withdrawn from that which is proper to him. Yet, because
there is no violence therein, since the will is able to resist the
passion, it falls short of the true nature of rapture, unless perchance
the passion be so strong that it takes away entirely the use of reason,
as happens to those who are mad with anger or love.
It must be observed. however, that both these excesses affecting the
appetite may cause an excess in the cognitive power, either because the
mind is carried away to certain intelligible objects, through being
drawn away from objects of sense, or because it is caught up into some
imaginary vision or fanciful apparition.
Reply to Objection 3: Just as love is a movement of the appetite with
regard to good, so fear is a movement of the appetite with regard to
evil. Wherefore either of them may equally cause an aberration of mind;
and all the more since fear arises from love, as Augustine says (De
Civ. Dei xiv, 7,9).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Paul, when in rapture, saw the essence of God?
Objection 1: It would seem that Paul, when in rapture, did not see the
essence of God. For just as we read of Paul that he was rapt to the
third heaven, so we read of Peter (Acts 10:10) that "there came upon
him an ecstasy of mind. " Now Peter, in his ecstasy, saw not God's
essence but an imaginary vision. Therefore it would seem that neither
did Paul see the essence of God.
Objection 2: Further, the vision of God is beatific. But Paul, in his
rapture, was not beatified; else he would never have returned to the
unhappiness of this life, but his body would have been glorified by the
overflow from his soul, as will happen to the saints after the
resurrection, and this clearly was not the case. Therefore Paul when in
rapture saw not the essence of God.
Objection 3: Further, according to 1 Cor. 13:10-12, faith and hope are
incompatible with the vision of the Divine essence. But Paul when in
this state had faith and hope. Therefore he saw not the essence of God.
Objection 4: Further, as Augustine states (Gen. ad lit. xii, 6,7),
"pictures of bodies are seen in the imaginary vision. " Now Paul is
stated (2 Cor. 12:2, 4) to have seen certain pictures in his rapture,
for instance of the "third heaven" and of "paradise. " Therefore he
would seem to have been rapt to an imaginary vision rather than to the
vision of the Divine essence.
On the contrary, Augustine (Ep. CXLVII, 13; ad Paulin. , de videndo
Deum) concludes that "possibly God's very substance was seen by some
while yet in this life: for instance by Moses, and by Paul who in
rapture heard unspeakable words, which it is not granted unto man to
utter. "
I answer that, Some have said that Paul, when in rapture, saw "not the
very essence of God, but a certain reflection of His clarity. " But
Augustine clearly comes to an opposite decision, not only in his book
(De videndo Deum), but also in Gen. ad lit. xii, 28 (quoted in a gloss
on 2 Cor. 12:2). Indeed the words themselves of the Apostle indicate
this. For he says that "he heard secret words, which it is not granted
unto man to utter": and such would seem to be words pertaining to the
vision of the blessed, which transcends the state of the wayfarer,
according to Is. 64:4, "Eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what
things Thou hast prepared for them that love [Vulg. : 'wait for'] Thee"
[*1 Cor. 2:9]. Therefore it is more becoming to hold that he saw God in
His essence.
Reply to Objection 1: Man's mind is rapt by God to the contemplation of
divine truth in three ways. First, so that he contemplates it through
certain imaginary pictures, and such was the ecstasy that came upon
Peter. Secondly, so that he contemplates the divine truth through its
intelligible effects; such was the ecstasy of David, who said (Ps.
115:11): "I said in my excess: Every man is a liar. " Thirdly, so that
he contemplates it in its essence. Such was the rapture of Paul, as
also of Moses [*Cf. Q[174], A[4]]; and not without reason, since as
Moses was the first Teacher of the Jews, so was Paul the first "Teacher
of the gentiles" [*Cf. [3695]FP, Q[68], A[4]].
Reply to Objection 2: The Divine essence cannot be seen by a created
intellect save through the light of glory, of which it is written (Ps.
35:10): "In Thy light we shall see light. " But this light can be shared
in two ways. First by way of an abiding form, and thus it beatifies the
saints in heaven. Secondly, by way of a transitory passion, as stated
above ([3696]Q[171] , A[2]) of the light of prophecy; and in this way
that light was in Paul when he was in rapture. Hence this vision did
not beatify him simply, so as to overflow into his body, but only in a
restricted sense. Consequently this rapture pertains somewhat to
prophecy.
Reply to Objection 3: Since, in his rapture, Paul was beatified not as
to the habit, but only as to the act of the blessed, it follows that he
had not the act of faith at the same time, although he had the habit.
Reply to Objection 4: In one way by the third heaven we may understand
something corporeal, and thus the third heaven denotes the empyrean [*1
Tim. 2:7; Cf. [3697]FP, Q[12], A[11], ad 2], which is described as the
"third," in relation to the aerial and starry heavens, or better still,
in relation to the aqueous and crystalline heavens. Moreover Paul is
stated to be rapt to the "third heaven," not as though his rapture
consisted in the vision of something corporeal, but because this place
is appointed for the contemplation of the blessed. Hence the gloss on 2
Cor. 12 says that the "third heaven is a spiritual heaven, where the
angels and the holy souls enjoy the contemplation of God: and when Paul
says that he was rapt to this heaven he means that God showed him the
life wherein He is to be seen forevermore. "
In another way the third heaven may signify a supra-mundane vision.
Such a vision may be called the third heaven in three ways. First,
according to the order of the cognitive powers. In this way the first
heaven would indicate a supramundane bodily vision, conveyed through
the senses; thus was seen the hand of one writing on the wall (Dan.
5:5); the second heaven would be an imaginary vision such as Isaias
saw, and John in the Apocalypse; and the third heaven would denote an
intellectual vision according to Augustine's explanation (Gen. ad lit.
xii, 26,28,34). Secondly, the third heaven may be taken according to
the order of things knowable, the first heaven being "the knowledge of
heavenly bodies, the second the knowledge of heavenly spirits, the
third the knowledge of God Himself. " Thirdly, the third heaven may
denote the contemplation of God according to the degrees of knowledge
whereby God is seen. The first of these degrees belongs to the angels
of the lowest hierarchy [*Cf. [3698]FP, Q[108], A[1]], the second to
the angels of the middle hierarchy, the third to the angels of the
highest hierarchy, according to the gloss on 2 Cor. 12.
And since the vision of God cannot be without delight, he says that he
was not only "rapt to the third heaven" by reason of his contemplation,
but also into "Paradise" by reason of the consequent delight.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Paul, when in rapture, was withdrawn from his senses?
Objection 1: It would seem that Paul, when in rapture, was not
withdrawn from his senses. For Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 28):
"Why should we not believe that when so great an apostle, the teacher
of the gentiles, was rapt to this most sublime vision, God was willing
to vouchsafe him a glimpse of that eternal life which is to take the
place of the present life? " Now in that future life after the
resurrection the saints will see the Divine essence without being
withdrawn from the senses of the body. Therefore neither did such a
withdrawal take place in Paul.
Objection 2: Further, Christ was truly a wayfarer, and also enjoyed an
uninterrupted vision of the Divine essence, without, however, being
withdrawn from His senses. Therefore there was no need for Paul to be
withdrawn from his senses in order for him to see the essence of God.
Objection 3: Further, after seeing God in His essence, Paul remembered
what he had seen in that vision; hence he said (2 Cor. 12:4): "He heard
secret words, which it is not granted to man to utter. " Now the memory
belongs to the sensitive faculty according to the Philosopher (De Mem.
et Remin. i). Therefore it seems that Paul, while seeing the essence of
God, was not withdrawn from his senses.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 27): "Unless a man
in some way depart this life, whether by going altogether out of his
body or by turning away and withdrawing from his carnal senses, so that
he truly knows not as the Apostle said, whether he be in the body or
out of the body, he is not rapt and caught up into that vision. *" [*The
text of St. Augustine reads: "when he is rapt," etc. ]
I answer that, The Divine essence cannot be seen by man through any
cognitive power other than the intellect. Now the human intellect does
not turn to intelligible objects except by means of the phantasms [*Cf.
[3699]FP, Q[84], A[7]] which it takes from the senses through the
intelligible species; and it is in considering these phantasms that the
intellect judges of and coordinates sensible objects. Hence in any
operation that requires abstraction of the intellect from phantasms,
there must be also withdrawal of the intellect from the senses. Now in
the state of the wayfarer it is necessary for man's intellect, if it
see God's essence, to be withdrawn from phantasms. For God's essence
cannot be seen by means of a phantasm, nor indeed by any created
intelligible species [*Cf. [3700]FP, Q[12], A[2]], since God's essence
infinitely transcends not only all bodies, which are represented by
phantasms, but also all intelligible creatures. Now when man's
intellect is uplifted to the sublime vision of God's essence, it is
necessary that his mind's whole attention should be summoned to that
purpose in such a way that he understand naught else by phantasms, and
be absorbed entirely in God. Therefore it is impossible for man while a
wayfarer to see God in His essence without being withdrawn from his
senses.
Reply to Objection 1: As stated above (A[3], OBJ[2]), after the
resurrection, in the blessed who see God in His essence, there will be
an overflow from the intellect to the lower powers and even to the
body. Hence it is in keeping with the rule itself of the divine vision
that the soul will turn towards phantasms and sensible objects. But
there is no such overflow in those who are raptured, as stated (A[3],
OBJ[2], ad 2), and consequently the comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 2: The intellect of Christ's soul was glorified by
the habit of the light of glory, whereby He saw the Divine essence much
more fully than an angel or a man. He was, however, a wayfarer on
account of the passibility of His body, in respect of which He was
"made a little lower than the angels" (Heb. 2:9), by dispensation, and
not on account of any defect on the part of His intellect. Hence there
is no comparison between Him and other wayfarers.
Reply to Objection 3: Paul, after seeing God in His essence, remembered
what he had known in that vision, by means of certain intelligible
species that remained in his intellect by way of habit; even as in the
absence of the sensible object, certain impressions remain in the soul
which it recollects when it turns to the phantasms. And so this was the
knowledge that he was unable wholly to think over or express in words.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether, while in this state, Paul's soul was wholly separated from his
body?
Objection 1: It would seem that, while in this state, Paul's soul was
wholly separated from his body. For the Apostle says (2 Cor. 5:6,7):
"While we are in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by
faith, and not by sight" [*'Per speciem,' i. e. by an intelligible
species]. Now, while in that state, Paul was not absent from the Lord,
for he saw Him by a species, as stated above [3701](A[3]). Therefore he
was not in the body.
Objection 2: Further, a power of the soul cannot be uplifted above the
soul's essence wherein it is rooted. Now in this rapture the intellect,
which is a power of the soul, was withdrawn from its bodily
surroundings through being uplifted to divine contemplation. Much more
therefore was the essence of the soul separated from the body.
Objection 3: Further, the forces of the vegetative soul are more
material than those of the sensitive soul. Now in order for him to be
rapt to the vision of God, it was necessary for him to be withdrawn
from the forces of the sensitive soul, as stated above [3702](A[4]).
Much more, therefore, was it necessary for him to be withdrawn from the
forces of the vegetative soul. Now when these forces cease to operate,
the soul is no longer in any way united to the body. Therefore it would
seem that in Paul's rapture it was necessary for the soul to be wholly
separated from the body.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Ep. CXLVII, 13, ad Paulin. ; de videndo
Deum): "It is not incredible that this sublime revelation" (namely,
that they should see God in His essence) "was vouchsafed certain
saints, without their departing this life so completely as to leave
nothing but a corpse for burial. " Therefore it was not necessary for
Paul's soul, when in rapture, to be wholly separated from his body.
I answer that, As stated above (A[1], OBJ[1]), in the rapture of which
we are speaking now, man is uplifted by God's power, "from that which
is according to nature to that which is above nature. " Wherefore two
things have to be considered: first, what pertains to man according to
nature; secondly, what has to be done by God in man above his nature.
Now, since the soul is united to the body as its natural form, it
belongs to the soul to have a natural disposition to understand by
turning to phantasms; and this is not withdrawn by the divine power
from the soul in rapture, since its state undergoes no change, as
stated above (A[3], ad 2,3). Yet, this state remaining, actual
conversion to phantasms and sensible objects is withdrawn from the
soul, lest it be hindered from being uplifted to that which transcends
all phantasms, as stated above [3703](A[4]). Therefore it was not
necessary that his soul in rapture should be so separated from the body
as to cease to be united thereto as its form; and yet it was necessary
for his intellect to be withdrawn from phantasms and the perception of
sensible objects.
Reply to Objection 1: In this rapture Paul was absent from the Lord as
regards his state, since he was still in the state of a wayfarer, but
not as regards the act by which he saw God by a species, as stated
above (A[3], ad 2,3).
Reply to Objection 2: A faculty of the soul is not uplifted by the
natural power above the mode becoming the essence of the soul; but it
can be uplifted by the divine power to something higher, even as a body
by the violence of a stronger power is lifted up above the place
befitting it according to its specific nature.
Reply to Objection 3: The forces of the vegetative soul do not operate
through the soul being intent thereon, as do the sensitive forces, but
by way of nature. Hence in the case of rapture there is no need for
withdrawal from them, as from the sensitive powers, whose operations
would lessen the intentness of the soul on intellective knowledge.
__________________________________________________________________
Did Paul know whether his soul were separated from his body?
Objection 1: It would seem that Paul was not ignorant whether his soul
were separated from his body. For he says (2 Cor. 12:2): "I know a man
in Christ rapt even to the third heaven. " Now man denotes something
composed of soul and body; and rapture differs from death. Seemingly
therefore he knew that his soul was not separated from his body by
death, which is the more probable seeing that this is the common
opinion of the Doctors.
Objection 2: Further, it appears from the same words of the Apostle
that he knew whither he was rapt, since it was "to the third heaven. "
Now this shows that he knew whether he was in the body or not, for if
he knew the third heaven to be something corporeal, he must have known
that his soul was not separated from his body, since a corporeal thing
cannot be an object of sight save through the body. Therefore it would
seem that he was not ignorant whether his soul were separated from his
body.
Objection 3: Further, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 28) that "when
in rapture, he saw God with the same vision as the saints see Him in
heaven. " Now from the very fact that the saints see God, they know
whether their soul is separated from their body. Therefore Paul too
knew this.
On the contrary, It is written (2 Cor. 12:3): "Whether in the body, or
out of the body, I know not, God knoweth. "
I answer that, The true answer to this question must be gathered from
the Apostle's very words, whereby he says he knew something, namely
that he was "rapt even to the third heaven," and that something he knew
not, namely "whether" he were "in the body or out of the body. " This
may be understood in two ways. First, the words "whether in the body or
out of the body" may refer not to the very being of the man who was
rapt (as though he knew not whether his soul were in his body or not),
but to the mode of rapture, so that he ignored whether his body besides
his soul, or, on the other hand, his soul alone, were rapt to the third
heaven. Thus Ezechiel is stated (Ezech. 8:3) to have been "brought in
the vision of God into Jerusalem. " This was the explanation of a
certain Jew according to Jerome (Prolog. super Daniel. ), where he says
that "lastly our Apostle" (thus said the Jew) "durst not assert that he
was rapt in his body, but said: 'Whether in the body or out of the
body, I know not. '"
Augustine, however, disapproves of this explanation (Gen. ad lit. xii,
3 seqq. ) for this reason that the Apostle states that he knew he was
rapt even to the third heaven. Wherefore he knew it to be really the
third heaven to which he was rapt, and not an imaginary likeness of the
third heaven: otherwise if he gave the name of third heaven to an
imaginary third heaven, in the same way he might state that he was rapt
in the body, meaning, by body, an image of his body, such as appears in
one's dreams. Now if he knew it to be really the third heaven, it
follows that either he knew it to be something spiritual and
incorporeal, and then his body could not be rapt thither; or he knew it
to be something corporeal, and then his soul could not be rapt thither
without his body, unless it were separated from his body. Consequently
we must explain the matter otherwise, by saying that the Apostle knew
himself to be rapt both in soul and body, but that he ignored how his
soul stood in relation to his body, to wit, whether it were accompanied
by his body or not.
Here we find a diversity of opinions. For some say that the Apostle
knew his soul to be united to his body as its form, but ignored whether
it were abstracted from its senses, or again whether it were abstracted
from the operations of the vegetative soul. But he could not but know
that it was abstracted from the senses, seeing that he knew himself to
be rapt; and as to his being abstracted from the operation of the
vegetative soul, this was not of such importance as to require him to
be so careful in mentioning it. It follows, then, that the Apostle
ignored whether his soul were united to his body as its form, or
separated from it by death. Some, however, granting this say that the
Apostle did not consider the matter while he was in rapture, because he
was wholly intent upon God, but that afterwards he questioned the
point, when taking cognizance of what he had seen. But this also is
contrary to the Apostle's words, for he there distinguishes between the
past and what happened subsequently, since he states that at the
present time he knows that he was rapt "fourteen years ago," and that
at the present time he knows not "whether he was in the body or out of
the body. "
Consequently we must assert that both before and after he ignored
whether his soul were separated from his body. Wherefore Augustine
(Gen. ad lit. xii, 5), after discussing the question at length,
concludes: "Perhaps then we must infer that he ignored whether, when he
was rapt to the third heaven, his soul was in his body (in the same way
as the soul is in the body, when we speak of a living body either of a
waking or of a sleeping man, or of one that is withdrawn from his
bodily senses during ecstasy), or whether his soul went out of his body
altogether, so that his body lay dead.
"
Reply to Objection 1: Sometimes by the figure of synecdoche a part of
man, especially the soul which is the principal part, denotes a man. or
again we might take this to mean that he whom he states to have been
rapt was a man not at the time of his rapture, but fourteen years
afterwards: for he says "I know a man," not "I know a rapt man. " Again
nothing hinders death brought about by God being called rapture; and
thus Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 3): "If the Apostle doubted the
matter, who of us will dare to be certain about it? " Wherefore those
who have something to say on this subject speak with more conjecture
than certainty.
Reply to Objection 2: The Apostle knew that either the heaven in
question was something incorporeal, or that he saw something
incorporeal in that heaven; yet this could be done by his intellect,
even without his soul being separated from his body.
Reply to Objection 3: Paul's vision, while he was in rapture, was like
the vision of the blessed in one respect, namely as to the thing seen;
and, unlike, in another respect, namely as to the mode of seeing,
because he saw not so perfectly as do the saints in heaven. Hence
Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 36): "Although, when the Apostle was
rapt from his carnal senses to the third heaven, he lacked that full
and perfect knowledge of things which is in the angels, in that he knew
not whether he was in the body, or out of the body, this will surely
not be lacking after reunion with the body in the resurrection of the
dead, when this corruptible will put on incorruption. "
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE GRACE OF TONGUES (TWO ARTICLES)
We must now consider those gratuitous graces that pertain to speech,
and (1) the grace of tongues; (2) the grace of the word of wisdom and
knowledge. Under the first head there are two points of inquiry:
(1) Whether by the grace of tongues a man acquires the knowledge of all
languages?
(2) Of the comparison between this gift and the grace of prophecy.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether those who received the gift of tongues spoke in every language?
Objection 1: It seems that those who received the gift of tongues did
not speak in every language. For that which is granted to certain
persons by the divine power is the best of its kind: thus our Lord
turned the water into good wine, as stated in Jn. 2:10. Now those who
had the gift of tongues spoke better in their own language; since a
gloss on Heb. 1, says that "it is not surprising that the epistle to
the Hebrews is more graceful in style than the other epistles, since it
is natural for a man to have more command over his own than over a
strange language. For the Apostle wrote the other epistles in a
foreign, namely the Greek, idiom; whereas he wrote this in the Hebrew
tongue. " Therefore the apostles did not receive the knowledge of all
languages by a gratuitous grace.
Objection 2: Further, nature does not employ many means where one is
sufficient; and much less does God Whose work is more orderly than
nature's. Now God could make His disciples to be understood by all,
while speaking one tongue: hence a gloss on Acts 2:6, "Every man heard
them speak in his own tongue," says that "they spoke in every tongue,
or speaking in their own, namely the Hebrew language, were understood
by all, as though they spoke the language proper to each. " Therefore it
would seem that they had not the knowledge to speak in all languages.
Objection 3: Further, all graces flow from Christ to His body, which is
the Church, according to Jn. 1:16, "Of His fullness we all have
received. " Now we do not read that Christ spoke more than one language,
nor does each one of the faithful now speak save in one tongue.
Therefore it would seem that Christ's disciples did not receive the
grace to the extent of speaking in all languages.
On the contrary, It is written (Acts 2:4) that "they were all filled
with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues,
according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak"; on which passage a
gloss of Gregory [*Hom. xxx in Ev. ] says that "the Holy Ghost appeared
over the disciples under the form of fiery tongues, and gave them the
knowledge of all tongues. "
I answer that, Christ's first disciples were chosen by Him in order
that they might disperse throughout the whole world, and preach His
faith everywhere, according to Mat. 28:19, "Going . . . teach ye all
nations. " Now it was not fitting that they who were being sent to teach
others should need to be taught by others, either as to how they should
speak to other people, or as to how they were to understand those who
spoke to them; and all the more seeing that those who were being sent
were of one nation, that of Judea, according to Is. 27:6, "When they
shall rush out from Jacob [*Vulg. : 'When they shall rush in unto
Jacob,' etc. ] . . . they shall fill the face of the world with seed. "
Moreover those who were being sent were poor and powerless; nor at the
outset could they have easily found someone to interpret their words
faithfully to others, or to explain what others said to them,
especially as they were sent to unbelievers. Consequently it was
necessary, in this respect, that God should provide them with the gift
of tongues; in order that, as the diversity of tongues was brought upon
the nations when they fell away to idolatry, according to Gn. 11, so
when the nations were to be recalled to the worship of one God a remedy
to this diversity might be applied by the gift of tongues.
Reply to Objection 1: As it is written (1 Cor. 12:7), "the
manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit"; and
consequently both Paul and the other apostles were divinely instructed
in the languages of all nations sufficiently for the requirements of
the teaching of the faith. But as regards the grace and elegance of
style which human art adds to a language, the Apostle was instructed in
his own, but not in a foreign tongue. Even so they were sufficiently
instructed in wisdom and scientific knowledge, as required for teaching
the faith, but not as to all things known by acquired science, for
instance the conclusions of arithmetic and geometry.
Reply to Objection 2: Although either was possible, namely that, while
speaking in one tongue they should be understood by all, or that they
should speak in all tongues, it was more fitting that they should speak
in all tongues, because this pertained to the perfection of their
knowledge, whereby they were able not only to speak, but also to
understand what was said by others. Whereas if their one language were
intelligible to all, this would either have been due to the knowledge
of those who understood their speech, or it would have amounted to an
illusion, since a man's words would have had a different sound in
another's ears, from that with which they were uttered. Hence a gloss
says on Acts 2:6 that "it was a greater miracle that they should speak
all kinds of tongues"; and Paul says (1 Cor. 14:18): "I thank my God I
speak with all your tongues. "
Reply to Objection 3: Christ in His own person purposed preaching to
only one nation, namely the Jews. Consequently, although without any
doubt He possessed most perfectly the knowledge of all languages, there
was no need for Him to speak in every tongue. And therefore, as
Augustine says (Tract. xxxii in Joan. ), "whereas even now the Holy
Ghost is received, yet no one speaks in the tongues of all nations,
because the Church herself already speaks the languages of all nations:
since whoever is not in the Church, receives not the Holy Ghost. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the gift of tongues is more excellent than the grace of prophecy?
Objection 1: It would seem that the gift of tongues is more excellent
than the grace of prophecy. For, seemingly, better things are proper to
better persons, according to the Philosopher (Topic. iii, 1). Now the
gift of tongues is proper to the New Testament, hence we sing in the
sequence of Pentecost [*The sequence: 'Sancti Spiritus adsit nobis
gratia' ascribed to King Robert of France, the reputed author of the
'Veni Sancte Spiritus. ' Cf. Migne, Patr. Lat. tom. CXLI]: "On this day
Thou gavest Christ's apostles an unwonted gift, a marvel to all time":
whereas prophecy is more pertinent to the Old Testament, according to
Heb. 1:1, "God Who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in times
past to the fathers by the prophets. " Therefore it would seem that the
gift of tongues is more excellent than the gift of prophecy.
Objection 2: Further, that whereby we are directed to God is seemingly
more excellent than that whereby we are directed to men. Now, by the
gift of tongues, man is directed to God, whereas by prophecy he is
directed to man; for it is written (1 Cor. 14:2,3): "He that speaketh
in a tongue, speaketh not unto men, but unto God . . . but he that
prophesieth, speaketh unto men unto edification. " Therefore it would
seem that the gift of tongues is more excellent than the gift of
prophecy.
Objection 3: Further, the gift of tongues abides like a habit in the
person who has it, and "he can use it when he will"; wherefore it is
written (1 Cor. 14:18): "I thank my God I speak with all your tongues. "
But it is not so with the gift of prophecy, as stated above
([3704]Q[171], A[2]). Therefore the gift of tongues would seem to be
more excellent than the gift of prophecy.
Objection 4: Further, the "interpretation of speeches" would seem to be
contained under prophecy, because the Scriptures are expounded by the
same Spirit from Whom they originated. Now the interpretation of
speeches is placed after "divers kinds of tongues" (1 Cor. 12:10).
Therefore it seems that the gift of tongues is more excellent than the
gift of prophecy, particularly as regards a part of the latter.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 14:5): "Greater is he that
prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues. "
I answer that, The gift of prophecy surpasses the gift of tongues, in
three ways. First, because the gift of tongues regards the utterance of
certain words, which signify an intelligible truth, and this again is
signified by the phantasms which appear in an imaginary vision;
wherefore Augustine compares (Gen. ad lit. xii, 8) the gift of tongues
to an imaginary vision. On the other hand, it has been stated above
([3705]Q[173], A[2]) that the gift of prophecy consists in the mind
itself being enlightened so as to know an intelligible truth.
Wherefore, as the prophetic enlightenment is more excellent than the
imaginary vision, as stated above ([3706]Q[174], A[2]), so also is
prophecy more excellent than the gift of tongues considered in itself.
Secondly, because the gift of prophecy regards the knowledge of things,
which is more excellent than the knowledge of words, to which the gift
of tongues pertains.
Thirdly, because the gift of prophecy is more profitable. The Apostle
proves this in three ways (1 Cor. 14); first, because prophecy is more
profitable to the edification of the Church, for which purpose he that
speaketh in tongues profiteth nothing, unless interpretation follow (1
Cor. 14:4,5). Secondly, as regards the speaker himself, for if he be
enabled to speak in divers tongues without understanding them, which
pertains to the gift of prophecy, his own mind would not be edified (1
Cor. 14:7-14). Thirdly, as to unbelievers for whose especial benefit
the gift of tongues seems to have been given; since perchance they
might think those who speak in tongues to be mad (1 Cor. 14:23), for
instance the Jews deemed the apostles drunk when the latter spoke in
various tongues (Acts 2:13): whereas by prophecies the unbeliever is
convinced, because the secrets of his heart are made manifest (Acts
2:25).
Reply to Objection 1: As stated above ([3707]Q[174], A[3], ad 1), it
belongs to the excellence of prophecy that a man is not only
enlightened by an intelligible light, but also that he should perceive
an imaginary vision: and so again it belongs to the perfection of the
Holy Ghost's operation, not only to fill the mind with the prophetic
light, and the imagination with the imaginary vision, as happened in
the Old Testament, but also to endow the tongue with external
erudition, in the utterance of various signs of speech. All this is
done in the New Testament, according to 1 Cor. 14:26, "Every one of you
hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation," i. e.
a prophetic revelation.
Reply to Objection 2: By the gift of prophecy man is directed to God in
his mind, which is more excellent than being directed to Him in his
tongue. "He that speaketh in a tongue "is said to speak "not unto men,"
i. e. to men's understanding or profit, but unto God's understanding and
praise. On the other hand, by prophecy a man is directed both to God
and to man; wherefore it is the more perfect gift.
Reply to Objection 3: Prophetic revelation extends to the knowledge of
all things supernatural; wherefore from its very perfection it results
that in this imperfect state of life it cannot be had perfectly by way
of habit, but only imperfectly by way of passion. on the other hand,
the gift of tongues is confined to a certain particular knowledge,
namely of human words; wherefore it is not inconsistent with the
imperfection of this life, that it should be had perfectly and by way
of habit.
Reply to Objection 4: The interpretation of speeches is reducible to
the gift of prophecy, inasmuch as the mind is enlightened so as to
understand and explain any obscurities of speech arising either from a
difficulty in the things signified, or from the words uttered being
unknown, or from the figures of speech employed, according to Dan.
5:16, "I have heard of thee, that thou canst interpret obscure things,
and resolve difficult things. " Hence the interpretation of speeches is
more excellent than the gift of tongues, as appears from the saying of
the Apostle (1 Cor. 14:5), "Greater is he that prophesieth than he that
speaketh with tongues; unless perhaps he interpret. " Yet the
interpretation of speeches is placed after the gift of tongues, because
the interpretation of speeches extends even to the interpretation of
divers kinds of tongues.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE GRATUITOUS GRACE CONSISTING IN WORDS (TWO ARTICLES)
We must now consider the gratuitous grace that attaches to words; of
which the Apostle says (1 Cor. 12:8): "To one . . . by the Spirit is
given the word of wisdom, and to another the word of knowledge. " Under
this head there are two points of inquiry:
(1) Whether any gratuitous grace attaches to words?
(2) To whom is the grace becoming?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether any gratuitous grace attaches to words?
Objection 1: It would seem that a gratuitous grace does not attach to
words. For grace is given for that which surpasses the faculty of
nature. But natural reason has devised the art of rhetoric whereby a
man is able to speak so as to teach, please, and persuade, as Augustine
says (De Doctr. Christ. iv, 12). Now this belongs to the grace of
words. Therefore it would seem that the grace of words is not a
gratuitous grace.
Objection 2: Further, all grace pertains to the kingdom of God. But the
Apostle says (1 Cor. 4:20): "The kingdom of God is not in speech, but
in power. " Therefore there is no gratuitous grace connected with words.
Objection 3: Further, no grace is given through merit, since "if by
grace, it is not now of works" (Rom. 11:6). But the word is sometimes
given to a man on his merits. For Gregory says (Moral. xi, 15) in
explanation of Ps. 118:43, "Take not Thou the word of truth utterly out
of my mouth" that "the word of truth is that which Almighty God gives
to them that do it, and takes away from them that do it not. " Therefore
it would seem that the gift of the word is not a gratuitous grace.
Objection 4: Further, it behooves man to declare in words things
pertaining to the virtue of faith, no less than those pertaining to the
gift of wisdom or of knowledge. Therefore if the word of wisdom and the
word of knowledge are reckoned gratuitous graces, the word of faith
should likewise be placed among the gratuitous graces.
On the contrary, It is written (Ecclus. 6:5): "A gracious tongue in a
good man shall abound [Vulg. : 'aboundeth']. " Now man's goodness is by
grace. Therefore graciousness in words is also by grace.
I answer that, The gratuitous graces are given for the profit of
others, as stated above ([3708]FS, Q[111], AA[1],4). Now the knowledge
a man receives from God cannot be turned to another's profit, except by
means of speech. And since the Holy Ghost does not fail in anything
that pertains to the profit of the Church, He provides also the members
of the Church with speech; to the effect that a man not only speaks so
as to be understood by different people, which pertains to the gift of
tongues, but also speaks with effect, and this pertains to the grace
"of the word. "
This happens in three ways. First, in order to instruct the intellect,
and this is the case when a man speaks so as "to teach. " Secondly, in
order to move the affections, so that a man willingly hearkens to the
word of God. This is the case when a man speaks so as "to please" his
hearers, not indeed with a view to his own favor, but in order to draw
them to listen to God's word. Thirdly, in order that men may love that
which is signified by the word, and desire to fulfill it, and this is
the case when a man so speaks as "to sway" his hearers. In order to
effect this the Holy Ghost makes use of the human tongue as of an
instrument; but He it is Who perfects the work within. Hence Gregory
says in a homily for Pentecost (Hom. xxx in Ev. ): "Unless the Holy
Ghost fill the hearts of the hearers, in vain does the voice of the
teacher resound in the ears of the body. "
Reply to Objection 1: Even as by a miracle God sometimes works in a
more excellent way those things which nature also can work, so too the
Holy Ghost effects more excellently by the grace of words that which
art can effect in a less efficient manner.
Reply to Objection 2: The Apostle is speaking there of the word that
relies on human eloquence without the power of the Holy Ghost.
Wherefore he says just before (1 Cor. 4:19): "I . . . will know, not
the speech of them that are puffed up, but the power": and of himself
he had already said (1 Cor. 2:4): "My speech and my preaching was not
in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in the showing of the
spirit and power. "
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above, the grace of the word is given
to a man for the profit of others. Hence it is withdrawn sometimes
through the fault of the hearer, and sometimes through the fault of the
speaker. The good works of either of them do not merit this grace
directly, but only remove the obstacles thereto. For sanctifying grace
also is withdrawn on account of a person's fault, and yet he does not
merit it by his good works, which, however, remove the obstacles to
grace.
Reply to Objection 4: As stated above, the grace of the word is
directed to the profit of others. Now if a man communicates his faith
to others this is by the word of knowledge or of wisdom. Hence
Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 1) that "to know how faith may profit the
godly and be defended against the ungodly, is apparently what the
Apostle means by knowledge. " Hence it was not necessary for him to
mention the word of faith, but it was sufficient for him to mention the
word of knowledge and of wisdom.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the grace of the word of wisdom and knowledge is becoming to women?
Objection 1: It would seem that the grace of the word of wisdom and
knowledge is becoming even to women. For teaching is pertinent to this
grace, as stated in the foregoing Article. Now it is becoming to a
woman to teach; for it is written (Prov. 4:3,4): "I was an only son in
the sight of my mother, and she taught me [*Vulg. : 'I was my father's
son, tender, and as an only son in the sight of my mother. And he
taught me. ']. " Therefore this grace is becoming to women.
Objection 2: Further, the grace of prophecy is greater than the grace
of the word, even as the contemplation of truth is greater than its
utterance. But prophecy is granted to women, as we read of Deborah
(Judges 4:4), and of Holda the prophetess, the wife of Sellum (4 Kings
22:14), and of the four daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9). Moreover the
Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:5): "Every woman praying or prophesying," etc.
Much more therefore would it seem that the grace of the word is
becoming to a woman.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (1 Pet. 4:10): "As every man hath
received grace ministering the same one to another. " Now some women
receive the grace of wisdom and knowledge, which they cannot minister
to others except by the grace of the word. Therefore the grace of the
word is becoming to women.
