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.
and all the more since fear arises from love, as Augustine says (De
Civ.
Summa Theologica
For, as stated above [3688](A[4]), Moses saw the Divine
essence, and yet he is called a prophet. Therefore in like manner the
blessed can be called prophets.
Objection 2: Further, prophecy is a "divine revelation. " Now divine
revelations are made even to the blessed angels. Therefore even blessed
angels can be prophets.
Objection 3: Further, Christ was a comprehensor from the moment of His
conception; and yet He calls Himself a prophet (Mat. 13:57), when He
says: "A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country. "
Therefore even comprehensors and the blessed can be called prophets.
Objection 4: Further, it is written of Samuel (Ecclus. 46:23): "He
lifted up his voice from the earth in prophecy to blot out the
wickedness of the nation. " Therefore other saints can likewise be
called prophets after they have died.
On the contrary, The prophetic word is compared (2 Pet. 1:19) to a
"light that shineth in a dark place. " Now there is no darkness in the
blessed. Therefore they cannot be called prophets.
I answer that, Prophecy denotes vision of some supernatural truth as
being far remote from us. This happens in two ways. First, on the part
of the knowledge itself, because, to wit, the supernatural truth is not
known in itself, but in some of its effects; and this truth will be
more remote if it be known by means of images of corporeal things, than
if it be known in its intelligible effects; and such most of all is the
prophetic vision, which is conveyed by images and likenesses of
corporeal things. Secondly, vision is remote on the part of the seer,
because, to wit, he has not yet attained completely to his ultimate
perfection, according to 2 Cor. 5:6, "While we are in the body, we are
absent from the Lord. "
Now in neither of these ways are the blessed remote; wherefore they
cannot be called prophets.
Reply to Objection 1: This vision of Moses was interrupted after the
manner of a passion, and was not permanent like the beatific vision,
wherefore he was as yet a seer from afar. For this reason his vision
did not entirely lose the character of prophecy.
Reply to Objection 2: The divine revelation is made to the angels, not
as being far distant, but as already wholly united to God; wherefore
their revelation has not the character of prophecy.
Reply to Objection 3: Christ was at the same time comprehensor and
wayfarer [*Cf. TP, QQ[9], seqq. ]. Consequently the notion of prophecy
is not applicable to Him as a comprehensor, but only as a wayfarer.
Reply to Objection 4: Samuel had not yet attained to the state of
blessedness. Wherefore although by God's will the soul itself of Samuel
foretold to Saul the issue of the war as revealed to him by God, this
pertains to the nature of prophecy. It is not the same with the saints
who are now in heaven. Nor does it make any difference that this is
stated to have been brought about by the demons' art, because although
the demons are unable to evoke the soul of a saint, or to force it to
do any particular thing, this can be done by the power of God, so that
when the demon is consulted, God Himself declares the truth by His
messenger: even as He gave a true answer by Elias to the King's
messengers who were sent to consult the god of Accaron (4 Kings 1).
It might also be replied [*The Book of Ecclesiasticus was not as yet
declared by the Church to be Canonical Scripture; Cf. [3689]FP, Q[89],
A[8], ad 2] that it was not the soul of Samuel, but a demon
impersonating him; and that the wise man calls him Samuel, and
describes his prediction as prophetic, in accordance with the thoughts
of Saul and the bystanders who were of this opinion.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the degrees of prophecy change as time goes on?
Objection 1: It would seem that the degrees of prophecy change as time
goes on. For prophecy is directed to the knowledge of Divine things, as
stated above [3690](A[2]). Now according to Gregory (Hom. in Ezech. ),
"knowledge of God went on increasing as time went on. " Therefore
degrees of prophecy should be distinguished according to the process of
time.
Objection 2: Further, prophetic revelation is conveyed by God speaking
to man; while the prophets declared both in words and in writing the
things revealed to them. Now it is written (1 Kings 3:1) that before
the time of Samuel "the word of the Lord was precious," i. e. rare; and
yet afterwards it was delivered to many. In like manner the books of
the prophets do not appear to have been written before the time of
Isaias, to whom it was said (Is. 8:1): "Take thee a great book and
write in it with a man's pen," after which many prophets wrote their
prophecies. Therefore it would seem that in course of time the degree
of prophecy made progress.
Objection 3: Further, our Lord said (Mat. 11:13): "The prophets and the
law prophesied until John"; and afterwards the gift of prophecy was in
Christ's disciples in a much more excellent manner than in the prophets
of old, according to Eph. 3:5, "In other generations" the mystery of
Christ "was not known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to His
holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit. " Therefore it would seem that
in course of time the degree of prophecy advanced.
On the contrary, As stated above [3691](A[4]), Moses was the greatest
of the prophets, and yet he preceded the other prophets. Therefore
prophecy did not advance in degree as time went on.
I answer that, As stated above [3692](A[2]), prophecy is directed to
the knowledge of Divine truth, by the contemplation of which we are not
only instructed in faith, but also guided in our actions, according to
Ps. 42:3, "Send forth Thy light and Thy truth: they have conducted me. "
Now our faith consists chiefly in two things: first, in the true
knowledge of God, according to Heb. 11:6, "He that cometh to God must
believe that He is"; secondly, in the mystery of Christ's incarnation,
according to Jn. 14:1, "You believe in God, believe also in Me. "
Accordingly, if we speak of prophecy as directed to the Godhead as its
end, it progressed according to three divisions of time, namely before
the law, under the law, and under grace. For before the law, Abraham
and the other patriarchs were prophetically taught things pertinent to
faith in the Godhead. Hence they are called prophets, according to Ps.
104:15, "Do no evil to My prophets," which words are said especially on
behalf of Abraham and Isaac. Under the Law prophetic revelation of
things pertinent to faith in the Godhead was made in a yet more
excellent way than hitherto, because then not only certain special
persons or families but the whole people had to be instructed in these
matters. Hence the Lord said to Moses (Ex. 6:2,3): "I am the Lord that
appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, by the name of God
almighty, and My name Adonai I did not show to them"; because
previously the patriarchs had been taught to believe in a general way
in God, one and Almighty, while Moses was more fully instructed in the
simplicity of the Divine essence, when it was said to him (Ex. 3:14):
"I am Who am"; and this name is signified by Jews in the word "Adonai"
on account of their veneration for that unspeakable name. Afterwards in
the time of grace the mystery of the Trinity was revealed by the Son of
God Himself, according to Mat. 28:19: "Going . . . teach ye all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost. "
In each state, however, the most excellent revelation was that which
was given first. Now the first revelation, before the Law, was given to
Abraham, for it was at that time that men began to stray from faith in
one God by turning aside to idolatry, whereas hitherto no such
revelation was necessary while all persevered in the worship of one
God. A less excellent revelation was made to Isaac, being founded on
that which was made to Abraham. Wherefore it was said to him (Gn.
26:24): "I am the God of Abraham thy father," and in like manner to
Jacob (Gn. 28:13): "I am the God of Abraham thy father, and the God of
Isaac. " Again in the state of the Law the first revelation which was
given to Moses was more excellent, and on this revelation all the other
revelations to the prophets were founded. And so, too, in the time of
grace the entire faith of the Church is founded on the revelation
vouchsafed to the apostles, concerning the faith in one God and three
Persons, according to Mat. 16:18, "On this rock," i. e. of thy
confession, "I will build My Church. "
As to the faith in Christ's incarnation, it is evident that the nearer
men were to Christ, whether before or after Him, the more fully, for
the most part, were they instructed on this point, and after Him more
fully than before, as the Apostle declares (Eph. 3:5).
As regards the guidance of human acts, the prophetic revelation varied
not according to the course of time, but according as circumstances
required, because as it is written (Prov. 29:18), "When prophecy shall
fail, the people shall be scattered abroad. " Wherefore at all times men
were divinely instructed about what they were to do, according as it
was expedient for the spiritual welfare of the elect.
Reply to Objection 1: The saying of Gregory is to be referred to the
time before Christ's incarnation, as regards the knowledge of this
mystery.
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xviii, 27), "just
as in the early days of the Assyrian kingdom promises were made most
explicitly to Abraham, so at the outset of the western Babylon," which
is Rome, "and under its sway Christ was to come, in Whom were to be
fulfilled the promises made through the prophetic oracles testifying in
word and writing to that great event to come," the promises, namely,
which were made to Abraham. "For while prophets were scarcely ever
lacking to the people of Israel from the time that they began to have
kings, it was exclusively for their benefit, not for that of the
nations. But when those prophetic writings were being set up with
greater publicity, which at some future time were to benefit the
nations, it was fitting to begin when this city," Rome to wit, "was
being built, which was to govern the nations. "
The reason why it behooved that nation to have a number of prophets
especially at the time of the kings, was that then it was not
over-ridden by other nations, but had its own king; wherefore it
behooved the people, as enjoying liberty, to have prophets to teach
them what to do.
Reply to Objection 3: The prophets who foretold the coming of Christ
could not continue further than John, who with his finger pointed to
Christ actually present. Nevertheless as Jerome says on this passage,
"This does not mean that there were no more prophets after John. For we
read in the Acts of the apostles that Agabus and the four maidens,
daughters of Philip, prophesied. " John, too, wrote a prophetic book
about the end of the Church; and at all times there have not been
lacking persons having the spirit of prophecy, not indeed for the
declaration of any new doctrine of faith, but for the direction of
human acts. Thus Augustine says (De Civ. Dei v, 26) that "the emperor
Theodosius sent to John who dwelt in the Egyptian desert, and whom he
knew by his ever-increasing fame to be endowed with the prophetic
spirit: and from him he received a message assuring him of victory. "
__________________________________________________________________
OF RAPTURE (SIX ARTICLES)
We must now consider rapture. Under this head there are six points of
inquiry:
(1) Whether the soul of man is carried away to things divine?
(2) Whether rapture pertains to the cognitive or to the appetitive
power?
(3) Whether Paul when in rapture saw the essence of God?
(4) Whether he was withdrawn from his senses?
(5) Whether, when in that state, his soul was wholly separated from his
body?
(6) What did he know, and what did he not know about this matter?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the soul of man is carried away to things divine?
Objection 1: It would seem that the soul of man is not carried away to
things divine. For some define rapture as "an uplifting by the power of
a higher nature, from that which is according to nature to that which
is above nature" [*Reference unknown; Cf. De Veritate xiii, 1]. Now it
is in accordance with man's nature that he be uplifted to things
divine; for Augustine says at the beginning of his Confessions: "Thou
madest us, Lord, for Thyself, and our heart is restless, till it rest
in Thee. " Therefore man's soul is not carried away to things divine.
Objection 2: Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. viii) that "God's
justice is seen in this that He treats all things according to their
mode and dignity. " But it is not in accordance with man's mode and
worth that he be raised above what he is according to nature. Therefore
it would seem that man's soul is not carried away to things divine.
Objection 3: Further, rapture denotes violence of some kind. But God
rules us not by violence or force, as Damascene says [*De Fide Orth.
ii, 30]. Therefore man's soul is not carried away to things divine.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (2 Cor. 12:2): "I know a man in
Christ . . . rapt even to the third heaven. " On which words a gloss
says: "Rapt, that is to say, uplifted contrary to nature. "
I answer that, Rapture denotes violence of a kind as stated above
(OBJ[3]); and "the violent is that which has its principle without, and
in which he that suffers violence concurs not at all" (Ethic. iii, 1).
Now everything concurs in that to which it tends in accordance with its
proper inclination, whether voluntary or natural. Wherefore he who is
carried away by some external agent, must be carried to something
different from that to which his inclination tends. This difference
arises in two ways: in one way from the end of the inclination---for
instance a stone, which is naturally inclined to be borne downwards,
may be thrown upwards; in another way from the manner of tending---for
instance a stone may be thrown downwards with greater velocity than
consistent with its natural movement.
Accordingly man's soul also is said to be carried away, in a twofold
manner, to that which is contrary to its nature: in one way, as regards
the term of transport---as when it is carried away to punishment,
according to Ps. 49:22, "Lest He snatch you away, and there be none to
deliver you"; in another way, as regards the manner connatural to man,
which is that he should understand the truth through sensible things.
Hence when he is withdrawn from the apprehension of sensibles, he is
said to be carried away, even though he be uplifted to things whereunto
he is directed naturally: provided this be not done intentionally, as
when a man betakes himself to sleep which is in accordance with nature,
wherefore sleep cannot be called rapture, properly speaking.
This withdrawal, whatever its term may be, may arise from a threefold
cause. First, from a bodily cause, as happens to those who suffer
abstraction from the senses through weakness: secondly, by the power of
the demons, as in those who are possessed: thirdly, by the power of
God. In this last sense we are now speaking of rapture, whereby a man
is uplifted by the spirit of God to things supernatural, and withdrawn
from his senses, according to Ezech. 8:3, "The spirit lifted me up
between the earth and the heaven, and brought me in the vision of God
into Jerusalem. "
It must be observed, however, that sometimes a person is said to be
carried away, not only through being withdrawn from his senses, but
also through being withdrawn from the things to which he was attending,
as when a person's mind wanders contrary to his purpose. But this is to
use the expression in a less proper signification.
Reply to Objection 1: It is natural to man to tend to divine things
through the apprehension of things sensible, according to Rom. 1:20,
"The invisible things of God . . . are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made. " But the mode, whereby a man is uplifted
to divine things and withdrawn from his senses, is not natural to man.
Reply to Objection 2: It belongs to man's mode and dignity that he be
uplifted to divine things, from the very fact that he is made to God's
image. And since a divine good infinitely surpasses the faculty of man
in order to attain that good, he needs the divine assistance which is
bestowed on him in every gift of grace. Hence it is not contrary to
nature, but above the faculty of nature that man's mind be thus
uplifted in rapture by God.
Reply to Objection 3: The saying of Damascene refers to those things
which a man does by himself. But as to those things which are beyond
the scope of the free-will, man needs to be uplifted by a stronger
operation, which in a certain respect may be called force if we
consider the mode of operation, but not if we consider its term to
which man is directed both by nature and by his intention.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether rapture pertains to the cognitive rather than to the appetitive
power?
Objection 1: It would seem that rapture pertains to the appetitive
rather than to the cognitive power. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv):
"The Divine love causes ecstasy. " Now love pertains to the appetitive
power. Therefore so does ecstasy or rapture.
Objection 2: Further, Gregory says (Dial. ii, 3) that "he who fed the
swine debased himself by a dissipated mind and an unclean life; whereas
Peter, when the angel delivered him and carried him into ecstasy, was
not beside himself, but above himself. " Now the prodigal son sank into
the depths by his appetite. Therefore in those also who are carried up
into the heights it is the appetite that is affected.
Objection 3: Further, a gloss on Ps. 30:1, "In Thee, O Lord, have I
hoped, let me never be confounded," says in explaining the title [*Unto
the end, a psalm for David, in an ecstasy]: "{Ekstasis} in Greek
signifies in Latin 'excessus mentis,' an aberration of the mind. This
happens in two ways, either through dread of earthly things or through
the mind being rapt in heavenly things and forgetful of this lower
world. " Now dread of earthly things pertains to the appetite. Therefore
rapture of the mind in heavenly things, being placed in opposition to
this dread, also pertains to the appetite.
On the contrary, A gloss on Ps. 115:2, "I said in my excess: Every man
is a liar," says: "We speak of ecstasy, not when the mind wanders
through fear, but when it is carried aloft on the wings of revelation. "
Now revelation pertains to the intellective power. Therefore ecstasy or
rapture does also.
I answer that, We can speak of rapture in two ways. First, with regard
to the term of rapture, and thus, properly speaking, rapture cannot
pertain to the appetitive, but only to the cognitive power. For it was
stated [3693](A[1]) that rapture is outside the inclination of the
person who is rapt; whereas the movement of the appetitive power is an
inclination to an appetible good. Wherefore, properly speaking, in
desiring something, a man is not rapt, but is moved by himself.
Secondly, rapture may be considered with regard to its cause, and thus
it may have a cause on the part of the appetitive power. 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.
essence, and yet he is called a prophet. Therefore in like manner the
blessed can be called prophets.
Objection 2: Further, prophecy is a "divine revelation. " Now divine
revelations are made even to the blessed angels. Therefore even blessed
angels can be prophets.
Objection 3: Further, Christ was a comprehensor from the moment of His
conception; and yet He calls Himself a prophet (Mat. 13:57), when He
says: "A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country. "
Therefore even comprehensors and the blessed can be called prophets.
Objection 4: Further, it is written of Samuel (Ecclus. 46:23): "He
lifted up his voice from the earth in prophecy to blot out the
wickedness of the nation. " Therefore other saints can likewise be
called prophets after they have died.
On the contrary, The prophetic word is compared (2 Pet. 1:19) to a
"light that shineth in a dark place. " Now there is no darkness in the
blessed. Therefore they cannot be called prophets.
I answer that, Prophecy denotes vision of some supernatural truth as
being far remote from us. This happens in two ways. First, on the part
of the knowledge itself, because, to wit, the supernatural truth is not
known in itself, but in some of its effects; and this truth will be
more remote if it be known by means of images of corporeal things, than
if it be known in its intelligible effects; and such most of all is the
prophetic vision, which is conveyed by images and likenesses of
corporeal things. Secondly, vision is remote on the part of the seer,
because, to wit, he has not yet attained completely to his ultimate
perfection, according to 2 Cor. 5:6, "While we are in the body, we are
absent from the Lord. "
Now in neither of these ways are the blessed remote; wherefore they
cannot be called prophets.
Reply to Objection 1: This vision of Moses was interrupted after the
manner of a passion, and was not permanent like the beatific vision,
wherefore he was as yet a seer from afar. For this reason his vision
did not entirely lose the character of prophecy.
Reply to Objection 2: The divine revelation is made to the angels, not
as being far distant, but as already wholly united to God; wherefore
their revelation has not the character of prophecy.
Reply to Objection 3: Christ was at the same time comprehensor and
wayfarer [*Cf. TP, QQ[9], seqq. ]. Consequently the notion of prophecy
is not applicable to Him as a comprehensor, but only as a wayfarer.
Reply to Objection 4: Samuel had not yet attained to the state of
blessedness. Wherefore although by God's will the soul itself of Samuel
foretold to Saul the issue of the war as revealed to him by God, this
pertains to the nature of prophecy. It is not the same with the saints
who are now in heaven. Nor does it make any difference that this is
stated to have been brought about by the demons' art, because although
the demons are unable to evoke the soul of a saint, or to force it to
do any particular thing, this can be done by the power of God, so that
when the demon is consulted, God Himself declares the truth by His
messenger: even as He gave a true answer by Elias to the King's
messengers who were sent to consult the god of Accaron (4 Kings 1).
It might also be replied [*The Book of Ecclesiasticus was not as yet
declared by the Church to be Canonical Scripture; Cf. [3689]FP, Q[89],
A[8], ad 2] that it was not the soul of Samuel, but a demon
impersonating him; and that the wise man calls him Samuel, and
describes his prediction as prophetic, in accordance with the thoughts
of Saul and the bystanders who were of this opinion.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the degrees of prophecy change as time goes on?
Objection 1: It would seem that the degrees of prophecy change as time
goes on. For prophecy is directed to the knowledge of Divine things, as
stated above [3690](A[2]). Now according to Gregory (Hom. in Ezech. ),
"knowledge of God went on increasing as time went on. " Therefore
degrees of prophecy should be distinguished according to the process of
time.
Objection 2: Further, prophetic revelation is conveyed by God speaking
to man; while the prophets declared both in words and in writing the
things revealed to them. Now it is written (1 Kings 3:1) that before
the time of Samuel "the word of the Lord was precious," i. e. rare; and
yet afterwards it was delivered to many. In like manner the books of
the prophets do not appear to have been written before the time of
Isaias, to whom it was said (Is. 8:1): "Take thee a great book and
write in it with a man's pen," after which many prophets wrote their
prophecies. Therefore it would seem that in course of time the degree
of prophecy made progress.
Objection 3: Further, our Lord said (Mat. 11:13): "The prophets and the
law prophesied until John"; and afterwards the gift of prophecy was in
Christ's disciples in a much more excellent manner than in the prophets
of old, according to Eph. 3:5, "In other generations" the mystery of
Christ "was not known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to His
holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit. " Therefore it would seem that
in course of time the degree of prophecy advanced.
On the contrary, As stated above [3691](A[4]), Moses was the greatest
of the prophets, and yet he preceded the other prophets. Therefore
prophecy did not advance in degree as time went on.
I answer that, As stated above [3692](A[2]), prophecy is directed to
the knowledge of Divine truth, by the contemplation of which we are not
only instructed in faith, but also guided in our actions, according to
Ps. 42:3, "Send forth Thy light and Thy truth: they have conducted me. "
Now our faith consists chiefly in two things: first, in the true
knowledge of God, according to Heb. 11:6, "He that cometh to God must
believe that He is"; secondly, in the mystery of Christ's incarnation,
according to Jn. 14:1, "You believe in God, believe also in Me. "
Accordingly, if we speak of prophecy as directed to the Godhead as its
end, it progressed according to three divisions of time, namely before
the law, under the law, and under grace. For before the law, Abraham
and the other patriarchs were prophetically taught things pertinent to
faith in the Godhead. Hence they are called prophets, according to Ps.
104:15, "Do no evil to My prophets," which words are said especially on
behalf of Abraham and Isaac. Under the Law prophetic revelation of
things pertinent to faith in the Godhead was made in a yet more
excellent way than hitherto, because then not only certain special
persons or families but the whole people had to be instructed in these
matters. Hence the Lord said to Moses (Ex. 6:2,3): "I am the Lord that
appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, by the name of God
almighty, and My name Adonai I did not show to them"; because
previously the patriarchs had been taught to believe in a general way
in God, one and Almighty, while Moses was more fully instructed in the
simplicity of the Divine essence, when it was said to him (Ex. 3:14):
"I am Who am"; and this name is signified by Jews in the word "Adonai"
on account of their veneration for that unspeakable name. Afterwards in
the time of grace the mystery of the Trinity was revealed by the Son of
God Himself, according to Mat. 28:19: "Going . . . teach ye all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost. "
In each state, however, the most excellent revelation was that which
was given first. Now the first revelation, before the Law, was given to
Abraham, for it was at that time that men began to stray from faith in
one God by turning aside to idolatry, whereas hitherto no such
revelation was necessary while all persevered in the worship of one
God. A less excellent revelation was made to Isaac, being founded on
that which was made to Abraham. Wherefore it was said to him (Gn.
26:24): "I am the God of Abraham thy father," and in like manner to
Jacob (Gn. 28:13): "I am the God of Abraham thy father, and the God of
Isaac. " Again in the state of the Law the first revelation which was
given to Moses was more excellent, and on this revelation all the other
revelations to the prophets were founded. And so, too, in the time of
grace the entire faith of the Church is founded on the revelation
vouchsafed to the apostles, concerning the faith in one God and three
Persons, according to Mat. 16:18, "On this rock," i. e. of thy
confession, "I will build My Church. "
As to the faith in Christ's incarnation, it is evident that the nearer
men were to Christ, whether before or after Him, the more fully, for
the most part, were they instructed on this point, and after Him more
fully than before, as the Apostle declares (Eph. 3:5).
As regards the guidance of human acts, the prophetic revelation varied
not according to the course of time, but according as circumstances
required, because as it is written (Prov. 29:18), "When prophecy shall
fail, the people shall be scattered abroad. " Wherefore at all times men
were divinely instructed about what they were to do, according as it
was expedient for the spiritual welfare of the elect.
Reply to Objection 1: The saying of Gregory is to be referred to the
time before Christ's incarnation, as regards the knowledge of this
mystery.
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xviii, 27), "just
as in the early days of the Assyrian kingdom promises were made most
explicitly to Abraham, so at the outset of the western Babylon," which
is Rome, "and under its sway Christ was to come, in Whom were to be
fulfilled the promises made through the prophetic oracles testifying in
word and writing to that great event to come," the promises, namely,
which were made to Abraham. "For while prophets were scarcely ever
lacking to the people of Israel from the time that they began to have
kings, it was exclusively for their benefit, not for that of the
nations. But when those prophetic writings were being set up with
greater publicity, which at some future time were to benefit the
nations, it was fitting to begin when this city," Rome to wit, "was
being built, which was to govern the nations. "
The reason why it behooved that nation to have a number of prophets
especially at the time of the kings, was that then it was not
over-ridden by other nations, but had its own king; wherefore it
behooved the people, as enjoying liberty, to have prophets to teach
them what to do.
Reply to Objection 3: The prophets who foretold the coming of Christ
could not continue further than John, who with his finger pointed to
Christ actually present. Nevertheless as Jerome says on this passage,
"This does not mean that there were no more prophets after John. For we
read in the Acts of the apostles that Agabus and the four maidens,
daughters of Philip, prophesied. " John, too, wrote a prophetic book
about the end of the Church; and at all times there have not been
lacking persons having the spirit of prophecy, not indeed for the
declaration of any new doctrine of faith, but for the direction of
human acts. Thus Augustine says (De Civ. Dei v, 26) that "the emperor
Theodosius sent to John who dwelt in the Egyptian desert, and whom he
knew by his ever-increasing fame to be endowed with the prophetic
spirit: and from him he received a message assuring him of victory. "
__________________________________________________________________
OF RAPTURE (SIX ARTICLES)
We must now consider rapture. Under this head there are six points of
inquiry:
(1) Whether the soul of man is carried away to things divine?
(2) Whether rapture pertains to the cognitive or to the appetitive
power?
(3) Whether Paul when in rapture saw the essence of God?
(4) Whether he was withdrawn from his senses?
(5) Whether, when in that state, his soul was wholly separated from his
body?
(6) What did he know, and what did he not know about this matter?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the soul of man is carried away to things divine?
Objection 1: It would seem that the soul of man is not carried away to
things divine. For some define rapture as "an uplifting by the power of
a higher nature, from that which is according to nature to that which
is above nature" [*Reference unknown; Cf. De Veritate xiii, 1]. Now it
is in accordance with man's nature that he be uplifted to things
divine; for Augustine says at the beginning of his Confessions: "Thou
madest us, Lord, for Thyself, and our heart is restless, till it rest
in Thee. " Therefore man's soul is not carried away to things divine.
Objection 2: Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. viii) that "God's
justice is seen in this that He treats all things according to their
mode and dignity. " But it is not in accordance with man's mode and
worth that he be raised above what he is according to nature. Therefore
it would seem that man's soul is not carried away to things divine.
Objection 3: Further, rapture denotes violence of some kind. But God
rules us not by violence or force, as Damascene says [*De Fide Orth.
ii, 30]. Therefore man's soul is not carried away to things divine.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (2 Cor. 12:2): "I know a man in
Christ . . . rapt even to the third heaven. " On which words a gloss
says: "Rapt, that is to say, uplifted contrary to nature. "
I answer that, Rapture denotes violence of a kind as stated above
(OBJ[3]); and "the violent is that which has its principle without, and
in which he that suffers violence concurs not at all" (Ethic. iii, 1).
Now everything concurs in that to which it tends in accordance with its
proper inclination, whether voluntary or natural. Wherefore he who is
carried away by some external agent, must be carried to something
different from that to which his inclination tends. This difference
arises in two ways: in one way from the end of the inclination---for
instance a stone, which is naturally inclined to be borne downwards,
may be thrown upwards; in another way from the manner of tending---for
instance a stone may be thrown downwards with greater velocity than
consistent with its natural movement.
Accordingly man's soul also is said to be carried away, in a twofold
manner, to that which is contrary to its nature: in one way, as regards
the term of transport---as when it is carried away to punishment,
according to Ps. 49:22, "Lest He snatch you away, and there be none to
deliver you"; in another way, as regards the manner connatural to man,
which is that he should understand the truth through sensible things.
Hence when he is withdrawn from the apprehension of sensibles, he is
said to be carried away, even though he be uplifted to things whereunto
he is directed naturally: provided this be not done intentionally, as
when a man betakes himself to sleep which is in accordance with nature,
wherefore sleep cannot be called rapture, properly speaking.
This withdrawal, whatever its term may be, may arise from a threefold
cause. First, from a bodily cause, as happens to those who suffer
abstraction from the senses through weakness: secondly, by the power of
the demons, as in those who are possessed: thirdly, by the power of
God. In this last sense we are now speaking of rapture, whereby a man
is uplifted by the spirit of God to things supernatural, and withdrawn
from his senses, according to Ezech. 8:3, "The spirit lifted me up
between the earth and the heaven, and brought me in the vision of God
into Jerusalem. "
It must be observed, however, that sometimes a person is said to be
carried away, not only through being withdrawn from his senses, but
also through being withdrawn from the things to which he was attending,
as when a person's mind wanders contrary to his purpose. But this is to
use the expression in a less proper signification.
Reply to Objection 1: It is natural to man to tend to divine things
through the apprehension of things sensible, according to Rom. 1:20,
"The invisible things of God . . . are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made. " But the mode, whereby a man is uplifted
to divine things and withdrawn from his senses, is not natural to man.
Reply to Objection 2: It belongs to man's mode and dignity that he be
uplifted to divine things, from the very fact that he is made to God's
image. And since a divine good infinitely surpasses the faculty of man
in order to attain that good, he needs the divine assistance which is
bestowed on him in every gift of grace. Hence it is not contrary to
nature, but above the faculty of nature that man's mind be thus
uplifted in rapture by God.
Reply to Objection 3: The saying of Damascene refers to those things
which a man does by himself. But as to those things which are beyond
the scope of the free-will, man needs to be uplifted by a stronger
operation, which in a certain respect may be called force if we
consider the mode of operation, but not if we consider its term to
which man is directed both by nature and by his intention.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether rapture pertains to the cognitive rather than to the appetitive
power?
Objection 1: It would seem that rapture pertains to the appetitive
rather than to the cognitive power. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv):
"The Divine love causes ecstasy. " Now love pertains to the appetitive
power. Therefore so does ecstasy or rapture.
Objection 2: Further, Gregory says (Dial. ii, 3) that "he who fed the
swine debased himself by a dissipated mind and an unclean life; whereas
Peter, when the angel delivered him and carried him into ecstasy, was
not beside himself, but above himself. " Now the prodigal son sank into
the depths by his appetite. Therefore in those also who are carried up
into the heights it is the appetite that is affected.
Objection 3: Further, a gloss on Ps. 30:1, "In Thee, O Lord, have I
hoped, let me never be confounded," says in explaining the title [*Unto
the end, a psalm for David, in an ecstasy]: "{Ekstasis} in Greek
signifies in Latin 'excessus mentis,' an aberration of the mind. This
happens in two ways, either through dread of earthly things or through
the mind being rapt in heavenly things and forgetful of this lower
world. " Now dread of earthly things pertains to the appetite. Therefore
rapture of the mind in heavenly things, being placed in opposition to
this dread, also pertains to the appetite.
On the contrary, A gloss on Ps. 115:2, "I said in my excess: Every man
is a liar," says: "We speak of ecstasy, not when the mind wanders
through fear, but when it is carried aloft on the wings of revelation. "
Now revelation pertains to the intellective power. Therefore ecstasy or
rapture does also.
I answer that, We can speak of rapture in two ways. First, with regard
to the term of rapture, and thus, properly speaking, rapture cannot
pertain to the appetitive, but only to the cognitive power. For it was
stated [3693](A[1]) that rapture is outside the inclination of the
person who is rapt; whereas the movement of the appetitive power is an
inclination to an appetible good. Wherefore, properly speaking, in
desiring something, a man is not rapt, but is moved by himself.
Secondly, rapture may be considered with regard to its cause, and thus
it may have a cause on the part of the appetitive power. 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.
