Summa Theologica Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 251

Obj. 3: Further, our Lord said (Matt. 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 (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 (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 G.o.d, according to Heb. 11:6, "He that cometh to G.o.d must believe that He is"; secondly, in the mystery of Christ's incarnation, according to John 14:1, "You believe in G.o.d, believe also in Me." Accordingly, if we speak of prophecy as directed to the G.o.dhead 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 G.o.dhead. 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 G.o.dhead 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d Himself, according to Matt. 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 G.o.d by turning aside to idolatry, whereas. .h.i.therto no such revelation was necessary while all persevered in the worship of one G.o.d. A less excellent revelation was made to Isaac, being founded on that which was made to Abraham. Wherefore it was said to him (Gen.

26:24): "I am the G.o.d of Abraham thy father," and in like manner to Jacob (Gen. 28:13): "I am the G.o.d of Abraham thy father, and the G.o.d 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 G.o.d and three Persons, according to Matt. 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 circ.u.mstances 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 Obj. 1: The saying of Gregory is to be referred to the time before Christ's incarnation, as regards the knowledge of this mystery.

Reply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xviii, 27), "just as in the early days of the a.s.syrian 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 Obj. 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 pa.s.sage, "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 a.s.suring him of victory."

_______________________

QUESTION 175

OF RAPTURE (In 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 appet.i.tive power?

(3) Whether Paul when in rapture saw the essence of G.o.d?

(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?

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 175, Art. 1]

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.

Obj. 2: Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. viii) that "G.o.d'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.

Obj. 3: Further, rapture denotes violence of some kind. But G.o.d 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 s.n.a.t.c.h 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 G.o.d. In this last sense we are now speaking of rapture, whereby a man is uplifted by the spirit of G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 Obj. 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 G.o.d ... 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 Obj. 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 G.o.d's image. And since a divine good infinitely surpa.s.ses the faculty of man in order to attain that good, he needs the divine a.s.sistance 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 G.o.d.

Reply Obj. 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.

_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 175, Art. 2]

Whether Rapture Pertains to the Cognitive Rather Than to the Appet.i.tive Power?

Objection 1: It would seem that rapture pertains to the appet.i.tive rather than to the cognitive power. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom.

iv): "The Divine love causes ecstasy." Now love pertains to the appet.i.tive power. Therefore so does ecstasy or rapture.

Obj. 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 appet.i.te. Therefore in those also who are carried up into the heights it is the appet.i.te that is affected.

Obj. 3: Further, a gloss on Ps. 30:1, "In Thee, O Lord, have I hoped, let me never be confounded," says in explaining the t.i.tle [*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 appet.i.te.

Therefore rapture of the mind in heavenly things, being placed in opposition to this dread, also pertains to the appet.i.te.

_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 appet.i.tive, but only to the cognitive power.

For it was stated (A. 1) that rapture is outside the inclination of the person who is rapt; whereas the movement of the appet.i.tive 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 appet.i.tive power. For from the very fact that the appet.i.te 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 appet.i.tive 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 appet.i.te.

Reply Obj. 1: Rapture adds something to ecstasy. For ecstasy means simply a going out of oneself by being placed outside one's proper order [*Cf. I-II, Q. 28, A. 3]; while rapture denotes a certain violence in addition. Accordingly ecstasy may pertain to the appet.i.tive power, as when a man's appet.i.te tends to something outside him, and in this sense Dionysius says that "the Divine love causes ecstasy," inasmuch as it makes man's appet.i.te tend to the object loved. Hence he says afterwards that "even G.o.d 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 Obj. 2: There is a twofold appet.i.te in man; to wit, the intellective appet.i.te which is called the will, and the sensitive appet.i.te known as the sensuality. Now it is proper to man that his lower appet.i.te be subject to the higher appet.i.te, and that the higher move the lower. Hence man may become outside himself as regards the appet.i.te, in two ways. In one way, when a man's intellective appet.i.te tends wholly to divine things, and takes no account of those things whereto the sensitive appet.i.te 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 appet.i.te, and takes no account of his higher appet.i.te. 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 appet.i.te is more proper to man. Hence when through the violence of his lower appet.i.te a man is withdrawn from the movement of his higher appet.i.te, 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 pa.s.sion, it falls short of the true nature of rapture, unless perchance the pa.s.sion 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 appet.i.te 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.