Reply Obj. 3: Just as love is a movement of the appet.i.te with regard to good, so fear is a movement of the appet.i.te 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).
_______________________
THIRD ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 175, Art. 3]
Whether Paul, When in Rapture, Saw the Essence of G.o.d?
Objection 1: It would seem that Paul, when in rapture, did not see the essence of G.o.d. 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 G.o.d"s essence but an imaginary vision. Therefore it would seem that neither did Paul see the essence of G.o.d.
Obj. 2: Further, the vision of G.o.d 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 G.o.d.
Obj. 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 G.o.d.
Obj. 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 G.o.d"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 G.o.d, 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 Isa. 64:4, "Eye hath not seen, O G.o.d, 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 G.o.d in His essence.
Reply Obj. 1: Man"s mind is rapt by G.o.d 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. I, Q. 68, A. 4].
Reply Obj. 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 pa.s.sion, as stated above (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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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. I, 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 G.o.d: and when Paul says that he was rapt to this heaven he means that G.o.d 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 G.o.d Himself." Thirdly, the third heaven may denote the contemplation of G.o.d according to the degrees of knowledge whereby G.o.d is seen. The first of these degrees belongs to the angels of the lowest hierarchy [*Cf. I, 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 G.o.d 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.
_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 175, Art. 4]
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, G.o.d 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.
Obj. 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 G.o.d.
Obj. 3: Further, after seeing G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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. I, 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 G.o.d"s essence, to be withdrawn from phantasms. For G.o.d"s essence cannot be seen by means of a phantasm, nor indeed by any created intelligible species [*Cf.
I, Q. 12, A. 2], since G.o.d"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 G.o.d"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 G.o.d. Therefore it is impossible for man while a wayfarer to see G.o.d in His essence without being withdrawn from his senses.
Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (A. 3, Obj. 2), after the resurrection, in the blessed who see G.o.d 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 Obj. 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 pa.s.sibility 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 Obj. 3: Paul, after seeing G.o.d 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.
_______________________
FIFTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 175, Art. 5]
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 (A. 3). Therefore he was not in the body.
Obj. 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.
Obj. 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 G.o.d, it was necessary for him to be withdrawn from the forces of the sensitive soul, as stated above (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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d"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 G.o.d 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 (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 Obj. 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 G.o.d by a species, as stated above (A. 3, ad 2, 3).
Reply Obj. 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 Obj. 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.
_______________________
SIXTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 175, Art. 6]
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.
Obj. 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.
Obj. 3: Further, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 28) that "when in rapture, he saw G.o.d with the same vision as the saints see Him in heaven." Now from the very fact that the saints see G.o.d, 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, G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 a.s.sert that he was rapt in his body, but said: "Whether in the body or out of the body, I know not.""