Monthly Archives: May 2011

Aquinas on Tongues: I Cor. 14:1-4

Aquinas’ Lecture on I Corinthians 14:1 – 4 translated into English.

Translated from the Latin text: Reportationes 088 R1C cp 14 Pg. 387 lc1

I Corinthians 14: 1 – 4


IC1. The excellency of charity of which has been posited against another gift. This apostle consequently compares a different gift to another one, showing the excellency of prophecy to the gift of tongues. In regards to this he does two things. First he relates the excellence of prophecy to the gift of tongues. Secondly, as to how one should go about to use the gift of tongues and of prophecy.

As it says, “What is it then, brothers” etc. With respect to the first he does two things, first he shows that the gift of prophecy is more distinguished than the gift of tongues, with the reasoning supposed in the direction of the unbeliever, the second in direction of the believer. Thereupon “My brothers etc.” The first portion is being divided into two, he first demonstrates that the gift of prophecy is more distinguished from the gift of tongues, in reference to their use in the exhortation and proclamation, with the second in reference to the use of tongues which ought to be utilized in prayer, for there is two uses of the tongue.

As it says, “Therefore he prays etc.” With respect to the first, he does two things, namely he sets out the first, through which he connects it to the following, and this is what he says, it was written that charity excels over all the gifts, if it is so, “follow after” as one may call it with strength, “charity”, that the bond is pleasant and sweet.(1) taken from Augustine Sermo 350; PL 39, 1534 “Before all things charity etc.,” (I Peter 4:8) (“Above all these things have charity,” Colossians 3:14).(2) Aquinas “super omnia autem charitatem” and Vulgate “super omnia autem haec caritatem” no habete in the Vulgage. A printing error in the Vulgate?

Secondly he outlines the above idea through which he himself continues to follow and this is what he says “Be passionate, etc.”,(3) I Corinthians 14:1 although charity is to be the greatest among all the gifts still the others are not supposed to be held in contempt but “Be passionate” that is you should fervently love the spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit.“Who is it that would hurt you etc.,” (I Peter 3:13), clearly then passionateness could be taken up sometimes to fervent goodwill, sometimes to hatred, nevertheless it is not equivocation. Indeed it proceeds one from the other. For he describes the fervent love of some thing that is to be zealous and passionate. As well it happens that this love thing is so to be fervently singled out by someone that he does not share [it] but he wants it alone and singularly for himself. And this zeal which according to some is intense love is not an allowing fellowship in love. Yet this happens in the spiritual(4) Larcher has it in the negative, “yet this occurs not in spiritual things.” He is probably right here but the negative “non” does not exist in my Latin copy. He may be working from a better one, but I can’t follow his lead here because I can find no substantiation. , [zeal and passion] most perfectly can be shared by many people, however only in those which cannot be shared by the many, hence this kind of zeal that does not allow participation in love is not with charity, but only in the physical things. It generates in some people that if someone else possesses that which he himself has zeal for, he would be sad. Hurtful desire is aroused from this, which is envy, just as if I love worth or riches, I am sad that another possesses these things, whence again I envy him. And so it is well-known that envy grows from zeal. Therefore, when it is being said, “be passionate for the spiritual [gifts]” is not to be understood as envy, because the spiritual [gifts] are able to be had by the many, but it says,“be passionate,” that it should lead in towards God who ought to be fervently loved.

And because among the spiritual [gifts] is a kind of rank, for this reason prophecy exceeds the gift of tongues. For that reason he says, “but rather you should prophecy.” As if he was to say, “among the spiritual [gifts] be passionate for the gift of prophecy.” “Do not quench the spirit, refuse to scorn prophecy,” (I Thess. 5:19). Three things must be noted of the entire chapter for the purpose of explanation, namely what is the nature of prophecy, in how many ways is prophecy being mentioned in the holy Scripture and what is it to speak in tongues. In regard to the first it ought to be understood what prophecy is said to be, as if seeing from a distance and according to some it is said to be a for faris(5) I can’t find a proper translation for this. Aquinas is definitely referring to an ancient understanding, or artifact of speech about prophecy that was from a much earlier period whose definition no longer existed in his time. Larcher simply translated it as, “according to some it is named after speaking afar” but I don’t think this is correct. , but it is better to be defined from pharos(6) I thought this was from the Greek, but have found no such root so far. The Latin dictionaries do not correlate with Aquinas’ definition either. which is to see. Hence it is being read in I Samuel 9:9 that “what is now being called a prophet was formerly called a seer”. Hence the sight of those things which are far off whether they would be future events or beyond our reason, it is called prophecy.

Prophecy is therefore a vision or manifestation of future events or of exceeding the human intellect. Moreover for this kind of vision, four [things] are to be required. For while our knowledge is through the physical body and perceptions of things outside the physical from what is learned from the senses, first it is to be examined that it is to be forming the physical representations of things that are being shown by a mental picture. For Dionysius(7) Pseudo-Dionysius says that it is impossible in any other way for the divine ray to shine in us, unless having been enveloped by the variety of sacred coverings.(8) It appears a colloquialism here that I don’t understand.

The second thing to be examined is an intellectual light, they are being shown and are about to become aware of with those things that [are] above our natural knowledge. Him to whom these such kinds of likenesses are being shown is not being called a prophet but rather a dreamer, such as Pharaoh, who although he saw ears of grain(9) Larcher translated, “ears of corn” but corn did not exist in Egypt at the time nor does it follow the actual Latin. and cows which were indicative about certain things of the future which nevertheless he did not understand, in fact [it was] Joseph who interpreted. It is also similar with Nebuchadnezzar who saw an image, and he did not understand, subsequently he is not called a prophet, but Daniel, for this reason it is said, “for there is need in understanding a vision,” (Daniel 10:1).

The third thing that is being examined is the courage for the purpose of making known that which is being revealed. For God reveals to him in order that it be announced to others. “Behold I have put my words in the mouth,” (Jer 1:9).

The fourth is the work of miracles which is for the verification of the prophet. For unless they do something that exceeds the work of nature, then he would not be credible in those very things which transcends natural knowledge. Following these ways of prophecy, some are being named in the different nuances of a prophet. Sometimes in fact some are being called a prophet who has all four referred to, namely when he sees a pictorial [vision] and has understanding concerning these things and boldly proclaims to others and miracles are being displayed, and concerning this it is being said, “if there be among you a prophet, etc.,” (Numbers 12:6). For sometimes a prophet is being defined [as] he who only has pictorial visions, is still sometimes called a prophet, but nevertheless improper and very remote, he who has the discerning light for the purpose of explaining even pictorial visions whether to himself or what has happened to another or for explaining the sayings of prophets or the writings of the apostles.

And thus a prophet is called anyone who discerns the writings of the doctors, because they had been interpreted in the same spirit which they had been edited. And so they can say David and Salomon to be called prophets, inasmuch they possess the understanding light for clarity and exactly have the ability to figure it all out. For David’s vision was only understanding. Someone is even called a prophet only from that which he proclaims the words of the prophets, whether explaining, or singing in the Church, and this [was] the way (I Sam 19:24) that Saul was among the prophets, that is, among the ones singing the words of the prophets. Some likewise are to be called a prophet because of the working of miracles. The following text (Ecclesiasticus 48:14) that “after having died, Elijah’s body prophesied,” that is, did a miracle. What this Apostle then says throughout the whole chapter, it must be understood from the second way. Namely that one is being said to prophecy, who through the light of divine understanding explains his own visions and others who made them. According to this it will be made plain, what is being said here about prophecy. In regard to the second it has been known that because there were few in the primitive Church to whom was intent to preach the faith of Christ throughout the world, for that reason the Lord, in order that they were to be able to most suitably and better than ever announce the word of God, He gave them the gift of tongues, by whom they were to proclaim to everyone, not these persons speaking in one language while they were being understood by everyone, as some are saying, but according to the Epistle that, on the contrary they were speaking all in the diverse languages of the nations. From which place the Apostle says, “I give thanks to God that I speak more than you all,” and it is being said, “they were speaking in various languages, etc.” (Acts 2:4) and many more had obtained this gift from God in the early Church, but in Corinth because they were curious, they were more cheerfully wanting this gift than the gift of prophecy. Because it is now being said here to speak in a tongue, the Apostle means(10) vult apostolus intelligi lingua ignota. I agree with Larcher here that vult…intelligi should not be taken literally but should be translated as “mean”. Similar to the French “Je veux dire.” in an unknown language, and not having these things explained(11) Larcher has this word “explained” translated as “interpreted”. I can see his point here in doing so, though I don’t know if this is fair to do in this context. Aquinas previously broke prophecy into two parts, seeing a vision, and understanding or explaining a vision. Here he sets for the miracle of tongues in two parts, the speaking and the explaining of the language. By using “interpreter” it takes away this nuance. , as if he was to speak in the German tongue to some Gallic [person] and the result that it is not explained, this is speaking in a tongue. From whence all speech having not been understood nor explained, no matter what it is, is specifically speaking in a tongue.

Concerning this which has been viewed, let us draw near then to the exposition of the Epistle, which is clear. He then does two things about this. First he demonstrates that the gift of prophecy is more excellent than the gift of tongues. Secondly he excludes a certain objection, where it says, “and I wish you [all to speak in tongues] etc.” moreover he proves with two reckonings that the gift of prophecy exceeds the gift of tongues, the first of which let us begin by the relationship of God to the Church, and secondly by the relationship by man to the Church. The first reason is of such: that through which man does things, which they are not only to honour God but also for the betterment to the neighbours’ welfare than that which is only done to honour God. But prophecy is not only to honour God but but yet also for the betterment of the neighbours. However, that which is done by the gift of tongues is only to the honour of God. But he sets the middle of this reckoning, in reference to the first he says that whoever speaks in a tongue, subsequently only honours God. This is what he says about this, “whoever speaks in a tongue,” meaning unknown, “is not speaking to man,” that is to human understanding, “but to God,” that is only to the honour of God or “to God,” because God Himself alone understands. “the ear of a jealous God hears all things, etc.”(12) “auris zeli dei audit omnia” as apposed to the Vulgate, “auris zeli audit omnia” (Wisdom 1:10) and that He does not speak to man, he adds, “for no one hears,” that is, he understands. As it is often being heard, that to not hear [is] the same as not understanding. “he that has ears with the ability to hear, let him hear” (Matthew 13:9). Why would he be speaking then to God only? He adds that God Himself is speaking. From which place he says, “for the spirit of God speaks mysteries,”(13) “spiritus autem dei loquitur mysteria” the Vulgate reads “Spiritu autem loquitur mysteria.” that is things which have been hidden. “For it is not you who speaks, etc., (Matthew 10:20) “No one knows that they are of the Spirit of God, etc.,”(14) I Corinthians 2:11 according to Larcher.

Secondly, he proves what he says that prophecy is for the honour of God and the benefit of neighbours. Whereby he says, “he who prophecies, etc.” that is he explains visions or Scriptures. “he is speaking to men,” that is, for the understanding of men, also this [reason] “for the building up of beginners,” and “the encouragement of those who are more mature”. “comfort the timid.”(15) “pusillanimes” according to Aquinas. The Vulgate has “pusillianimes” (I Thessalonians 5:14) “to speak and to exhort,” (Titus 2:15) and also for the consolation of the forsaken. Actually the building up relates to a spiritual inclination, because one originally begins the spiritual building there. “in whom you are also being built, etc.,” (Ephesians 2:22), Moreover the act of encouragement [is] to lead to good acts because if the inclination is good, then the act is good. “speak and exhort these things,” (Titus 2:15).

Certainly consolation leads to tolerance of evil. (Romans 15:4) Whatsoever things have been written, have been written for our learning. For the ones who are preaching introduce the Scripture to these three things. Secondly the reason is such: that what is useful only to the doer is less than that which is indeed beneficial to another. To take this further, the one who is speaking in tongues is useful only to him who is speaking. However, the one who prophesies benefits another, [igitur, etc..](16) The Aquinas copy seems to be missing some text here and it is hard to verifiably determine what verse Aquinas is alluding to here. Therefore, it is omitted from the English translation. He sets the commonality of this reason and firstly in reference to the first part of the middle, and this is what he says, “he who speaks in a tongue, himself [edifies], etc.”“My heart grew hot within me, etc.” (Psalms 38:4). Secondly in reference to the second part, and this is what he says, “for he who prophesies, the Church…” that is the faithful, “…are edified.” that is to be built up. “having been built upon the foundation of the Apostles and the prophets,” (Ephesians 2:20).■


For more information:

References   [ + ]

Thomas Aquinas on the Doctrine of Tongues: Intro

St_Thomas_d'Aquin_(1225-1274)

Introduction to the translation and analysis of Thomas Aquinas’ writings relating to the Christian doctrine of tongues.

Aquinas wrote considerably on this subject. His synopsis answers some very important questions on the ecclesiastical history of tongues from the fourth century onwards and how the definition finally began to shift during his own period.

1. Background

Thomas Aquinas lived from AD 1225 to 1274. He “was an Italian Dominican priest of the Catholic Church, and an immensely influential philosopher and theologian,”(1)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas His methodology, and analytic approach from a Greek philosophical framework has highly influenced later scholars in almost every field.

When reading Aquinas’ works, one comes up with a multiple of conclusions about Aquinas himself. He can be perceived as a brilliant free-thinker well versed in the Bible, deeply entrenched in personal piety, willing to use literature outside of the Bible, especially classical Greek writings, and very systematic. However, he sometimes comes across so systematic that it appears very dry and terse.

This doctor of the Church was a very good agent in communicating and documenting the Catholic oral traditions of his time in a concise and very structured fashion. He appears to be building a Christian equivalent of the Jewish Halaka which is the way historical and evolving traditions of Jewish law have been codified. The Halaka is encapsulated in such thinkers such as Rashi and Maimonides. Aquinas seems to be following a similar pattern. The Wikipedia article on Maimonides claims Maimonides had a fundamental influence on Aquinas and that Aquinas explicity referred to him in a number of his works.(2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides I have not substantiated this claim but I would lean more towards this claim than against it.

The Aquinas Centre for Theological Renewal at the Ava Maria University, classifies him differently and concludes:

“Saint Thomas Aquinas is a paradox. He was a mystic and a rigorously scientific theologian. His attachment to Judaeo-Christianity was strong enough for him to appreciate and appropriate pagan truths. An Aristotelian, he never ceased utilizing Platonic insights. In him a deep reverence for the Church Fathers was coupled with an astonishing zest for novelty.

All of these cross-currents were to show up in his biblical exegesis. He was neither an Alexandrian nor an Antiochene, perhaps because he was both. No one has successfully categorized his approach to the Bible.

Advocates of allegory claim him as their own and defenders of strictly literal interpretation praise him for asserting the sufficiency of the letter. A noted Oxford historian admires the revolutionary quality of his exegetical principles and a prominent Jesuit theologian finds them simply traditional. Is St. Thomas’ genius really so elusive? Or was he being eclectic at the expense of consistency?(3)Aquinas Centre for Theological Renewal un-named pdf.

Even with these many conflicting sides of Aquinas present, he was innovative in his time for the comprehensive and systematic nature of his approach. However, innovative in the sense of proposing new doctrine would not be a proper description. He was a traditionalist and not a maverick.

His Lectures are an intense work of faith on the one hand, but on the other, it often appears as a limited hermenuetic of the Bible with little or no reference to critical analysis.

2. Translation and Methodology

The methodology contains a comprehensive overview that focuses on the multifaceted nature of this issue. It goes far beyond tongues as a heavenly, ecstatic or human language. One of the problems of the tongues controversy are generalizations with few documented examples. This is why so much time and effort was made on translating the majority of his works relating to the gift of tongues.

This study intends to find seven aspects to the nature and evolution of the definition.

  • First of all it is to determine how Aquinas defined the mystery of tongues.

  • Secondly, did he separate the tongues of Corinthians from that of Pentecost? Were they the same or entirely different entities?

  • Third, to see if he attempted to rectify the Nazianzus paradox of it either being miraculous speech, or a miracle in hearing.

  • Fourth, what arguments, disputes or disagreements on the subject existed during his time.

  • Fifth, to analyze if his writings demonstrated the doctrine of tongues shifting into the prophecy definition. This becomes more important in the later definition of tongues between the Reformation and early 1800s.

  • Sixth, to find his definition on the office of tongues in the Church liturgy. This is important for tracing the office of the public reader (which initially was connected with the gift of tongues) and how it evolved over the centuries.

  • Seventh, to understand the concept of unknown tongues as was used in his texts. What did he mean by it, and how did it possibly influence later thinkers and translators.

This series, along with all the other ecclesiastical writers on the subject, is intended to provide the texts in the original language, along with an English translation and analysis. This is to counter the over-generalizations and lack of scholarship that has so badly scarred and misdirected issues surrounding the Church doctrine of tongues.

The translations are based on the printed version found in S. Thomae Opera. Roberto Busa, S.I. ed. Fromman-Holzboog. 1980. There is an almost identical web version available at corpusthomisticum.org.

The I Corinthians document is in a form of captured lectures supposedly by Aquinas, known in Latin as Reportationes. The Lectures on I Corinthians is composed of three different texts. Chapters 1 to 7:10 are considered very close to Aquinas style but no details are further given. Chapters 11 to 13:11 are recorded “by St. Thomas’ intimate companion and friend, Reginald of Piperno.”(4)Aquinas Centre for Theological Renewal un-named pdf. See also Index Thomisticus The actual mention in Busa’s publication is called RIL; short for Leonine text. Next is the Vulgata Copiis which overlaps going from chapters 11 to 16. The Gift of Tongues Project is concerned more about the dating of a text than the actual authorship because the intention is to trace the evolution of a thought from inception to its final course. Aquinas is viewed not so much as the individual man, but a point of thought in the stream of time, and how later followers interpreted and passed the Aquinas perceived version of the doctrine over to the next generation.

Judging by the copious use of Scripture being cited in the Stephanus format, ie: Eph. 2:2, which didn’t become part of the Bible until the 16th century, the manuscript is not a very old one and must be dated the 16th century or later. This does affect the conclusion as the Lectures do conflict with that contained in Summa Theologica. This discrepancy is addressed in the conclusion of this series.

The tongues subject matter was first found via Busa’s thorough index. From the index, I was able to find the most valuable resources on tongues.

3. English Translation Editions Available

There are numerous English translations available on Aquinas’ works on Summa Theologica but only one is popularly found on I Corinthians — Fabian Larcher’s unpublished translation on I Corinthians. It has been posted at Ave Maria’s website in a non-critical edition, with hopes that the centre will improve it to a final form.

Larcher’s introduction to the English world with the works of Aquinas is massive. However, for the purpose of this tongues project, it is always necessary to check the source works, because many translations are old and lack contemporary English, some are abridged or condensed, and others did not pay much attention to the tongues passages for language equivalents, Larcher’s work could not be considered de-facto. Also, being forced to translate an original work always gives the researcher additional clues often overlooked. Larcher’s work is good, probably better than the following one provided by myself. However, this work does consult Larcher frequently, improving on his translation in some areas, while going on a separate route on others. For example, Larcher provides the translation for imaginarias visiones as imaginary visions which is a literal translation but directs the modern English readers mind into a wrong definition. The proper translation and the reasons behind it can be found by reading the following article: Thomas Aquinas on the the Prophet and Imaginary Visions.

4. Structure of his works

Aquinas liked to structure all his thoughts by breaking them into two, and at the most four reasons, to explain any passage in detail. He utilized this structure quite frequently.

His lectures, or in Latin, Reportationes, is also like one long stream of endless words. The sections are very long and do not include any sub-titles or verses. This may be only a problem related to the way the printed edition was typeset and formatted, but it initially appears large and overwhelming.

Aquinas rushes the reader with every sentence and every word. He changes thought very quickly with no segue to the next concept. One paragraph can easily contain 10 or 20 deep, intellectual or complex one-liner ideas that challenge ones Biblical and philosophical familiarity. Consequently, none of his works can be read in one sitting.

Evangelical readers will find Aquinas style and structure very similar to their traditional protestant Bible commentaries.

5. Important key-words in Aquinas’ writings

Aquinas had a strong preoccupation with defining the Christian faith through a classical Greek framework. Therefore, there are certain key-words that must be understood especially in his lectures on I Corinthians. Three of them especially stand-out, intelligo, scio and cognitio. The word intelligo is meant to mean simple understanding of facts, scio is to know something through practice, experience or ability, cognitio is a far more intimate knowledge of a person or thing. It is the Greek equivalent of gnosis which in the Christian tradition is a type of knowledge that changes ones perceptions and decision making processes, resulting in transformation, personal growth and changed behaviour. It is the prime impulse that motivates ones Christian life and witness. This whole subject was dealt with in a previous work, Origen on the Gift of Tongues. Aquinas’ use of Cognitio is interesting because it is used more frequently as noun rather than its verbal form, cognosco. It is a state rather than an action that must be pursued.

It is very difficult to translate these nuances to the modern English reader. I don’t think neither myself nor Larcher are entirely successful in rendering this properly to the English reader. It needs more work.

Interpreto, this noun is typically translated as interpreted; which is communicating one language to another. However, Aquinas adds this literal definition with a spiritual sense. He thinks interpretation of divine things, including that of any ecclesiastical tongues, to be the function of the prophet. Interpreto in this mode does not simply mean to interpret language, but requires mental comprehension of a divine infusion. Therefore in the spiritual sense, understanding is sometimes necessary to use as English equivalent rather than interpret.

Then there are the words: imaginarius,imaginarius visiones, imaginatio, and imaginativus. These are covered in two separate articles; Thomas Aquinas on the Prophet and Imaginary Visions and Aquinas on Imagination Part 2.

Another important word that appears typically in this portion of Aquinas’ text is lingua. It is translated in the following copy interchangeably as language or tongue.The English translation of this word is controversial and has been covered in a previous article, The Difference Between Language and Tongues. Past research has clearly defined these words as synonyms meaning foreign language and has been applied this way.

Another word that is frequently used in Aquinas’ works is the adverb scilicet: “namely, certainly, in fact, of course, clearly etc.” It is very repetitive in Aquinas’ works and so I have tried to use different English equivalents in repeated sequences to avoid reader fatigue.

6. His use of Scripture

Thomas Aquinas assumed a high level of Biblical literacy on behalf of the reader. It requires a thorough, if not, a complete mnemonic knowledge of all Scripture. In the original Latin, he briefly cites a passage, sometimes only two or three words, assuming that the Christian reader can fill in the blanks where necessary. There are three ways to identify he is citing a verse: first of all, at least in the Busa edition and Corpus Thomisticum, they have included the Bible reference before a verse, ie: Num. 10:5. This is the most obvious identifier. Secondly, if this is not the case, the verse can be found in the printed edition by a special typographical mark that looks like a footnote resembling the letter o. Last of all, it is frequently preceded by the adverb ibi.

This scant reference to Bible verses and such a high assumption of Bible knowledge can easily lose the modern English reader trying to understand his works. Fabian Larcher overcomes these predicaments by including full verses instead of two or three words. He also cites the complete Bible passage at the beginning of each section. This is not part of Aquinas work in the Latin, but makes it much easier to follow for the English reader. He also put the Bible verses after the Biblical citation which is correct for the typical English reader, but the verse citations are actually placed before in the Latin. My translation sometimes puts the verse before and other times after the Bible quotation, depending on what makes best sense to the English reader in that specific construct.

To be accurate to the original printed Reportationes publication, I have not expanded the Bible passages nor put the complete Bible passage at the beginning of the section. The verse numbering system that Larcher has invented for his English translation is a good idea but due to time constraints, it is not included it in my own translation.

7. The Latin Original

There is a complete typeset Latin copy of Reportationes (His lectures) included with this project’s translation which is also available at a link shown below. The Latin data entry and proof-texting was done by me personally and there may be a slight chance of errors. This is here for convenience. If one is on a critical point, it is best to go to the web version available at corpusthomisticum.org.

A comparison of the modern Vulgate compared to the Aquinas manuscripts demonstrates very few critical differences. This is unlike most historical Latin Ecclesiastical texts which typically have a serious amount of variances from the Vulgate. This stimulates an important question that must be asked. Are these Bible citations in Aqulnas’ text a corrected or amended version from the 16th century as well? I do not have an answer for this.

Summa Theologia is not included in the Latin copy because it is already popularly available. An external link is given below.

8. A list of Aquinas texts relating to tongues.

Here is a complete list of translations and commentary being pursued on this project.

References   [ + ]

Aquinas on Tongues: the Latin Copy

Thomas Aquinas on the Miracle of Tongues: Latin original copy. For the English translations please go to Thomas Aquinas on the Miracle of Tongues Introductory article and click on any of the applicable links at the bottom of the page.

Please note that the Latin data entry and proof-texting was done by me personally and there may be a slight chance of errors. This is here for convenience. If one is on a critical point, it is best to go to the web version available at corpusthomisticum.org

All text is from S. Thomae Opera. Robert Busa, S.I. ed. Fromman-Holzboog. 1980.

Aquinas on Psalm 54:9

Reportationes. Vol. 6. 084 RPS ps54 n.9 pg. 129

°Praecipita, domine. in praecedenti parte psalmista posuit affectionem quam passus est a malis: hic agit de eorum malitia. et primo describens malitiam peccatorum petit eam impediri, secundo petit eam poena puniri. *ibi, °veniat mors. circa primum duo facit, primo petit impediri eorum malitiam secundo describit eam, *ibi, °quoniam vidi initquitatem, dupliciter mali habent facultatem et virtutem nocendi, scilicet propter altitudinem status, et propter consensum multorum in unum. et hoc periculosum est; et ideo debet duplex remedium contra hoc adhiberi. uno modo ut deiiciantur de statu. alio modo ut ponatur divisio inter eos. *quantum ad primum petit, °praecipita, domine, scilicet removendo eos de statu, quasi dicat; deiice eos humiliando. *quantum ad secundum dicit, °et divide linguas eorum, quia eorum malitia primo est in lingua qua magnifice loquuntur. *i regum ii: °nolite mulitplicare loqui sublimia et quia lingua loquendo ad malum consentiunt, et huiusmodi divisionis figura fuit in veteri testamento, ubi divisae sunt linguae gentium; *gen. xi.

Aquinas on I Corinthians 12:10

Reportationes. Vol. 6. 088 R1C cp12 pg. 383

ego dominus scrutans cords et probans renes. * et quantum ad hoc subdit ° alii discretio spirituum, ut scilicet homo discernere possit, quo spiritu aliquis moveatur ad loquendum vel operandum, puta utrum spiritu charitatis vel spiritu invidiae. * i io. iv, 1: ° nolite credere omni spiritui, sed probate spiritus si ex deo sunt. facultas autem persuasionem pronuntiandi consistit in hoc quod homo possit loqui intelligibiliter aliis. quod quidem impeditur dupliciter. uno modo per diversitatem idiomatum. * contra quod remedium adhibetur per hoc quod dicit ° alii, scilicet datur, ° genera linguarum. ut scilicet possit loqui diversis linguis, ut intelligatur ab omnibus. * sicut de apostolis legitur act. ii, 4, quod loquebantur variis linguis. alio modo per obscuritatem scripturae inducendae. * contra quod remedium datur per id quod subditur ° alii interpretatio sermonum. id est difficilium scripturarum. * dan. v, v. 16 ° audivi de te quod possis obscura interpretari. * gen. xl, 8: ° numquid non dei est interpretatio? * deinde cum dicit ° haec autem omnia, etc., determinat auctorem praedictarum gratiarum. * circa quod tres errores excludit. primo quidem gentilium attribuentium diversa dona diversis diis. * contra quod dicit ° haec autem omnia operatur unus atque idem spiritus. * eph. iv, 4: ° unum corpus et unus spiritus. * secundo errorem eorum qui “deo attribuebant solum universalem providentiam rerum, ponentes quod distinctiones particularium fiunt solum per causas secundas. * contra quod subditur ° dividens singulis prout vult. * eccli. c. xxxiii, 11: ° in multitudine disciplinae domini separavit eos. * tertio excludit errorem eorum qui “diversitatem gratiarum attribuebant vel fato, vel humano merito, et non solum voluntati divinae, * sicut macedonii, qui dicebant spiritum sanctum esse ministerium patris et filii. * et hoc excludit per hoc quod subdit ° prout vult. * io. iii, 8: ° spiritus ubi vult spirat.

Selected Portions from I Corinthians 13. Leonine Edition: I Corinthians 13:11

Reportationes. 087 RIL. n.4 cpp. Pg. 374 Ineditae Leoninae.

vs11. °Cum essem parvulus etc.. *hic apostolus confirmat suam probationem. posuerat autem (duo) in praedicta probatione: primum est quod adventiente perfecto evacuatur imperfectum, secundum est quod hic congoscimus ex parte. * et haec duo confirmat hic: primo confirmat primum, secundo secundum ibi: ° videmus nunc per speculum etc.. * probat autem primum per similitudinem in rebus humanis comparando statum futurae gloriae ad statum praesentem, sicut statum aetatis perfectae ad statum pueritiae, et hoc quantum ad tria dona de quibus ipse mentionem fecit, quorum duo pertinent ad cognitionem, scilicet donum linguarum et donum scientiae, et in istis deficiunt pueri. * unde quantum ad primum dicit: °cum essem parvalus loquebar ut parvulus, id est more parvuli, scilicet balbutiendo, ut parvulus loquitur qui vana loquitur, * ps. (xi. 3): ° vana locuti sunt unusquisque ad proximum etc.. *quantum ad secundum dicit: °sapiebam ut parvulus. cognitio autem consistit in duobus, scilicet in iudicando et in deliberando, id est in eligendo et in inveniendo. multi enim bene adinveniunt sed non bene iudicant, et e converso: sed quandoque aliquis utrumque, scilicet bene iudicat et adinvenit. sed in istis duobus hic assimulamur imperfectioni puerorum, et primo quantum ad electionem seu iudicium, * et hoc est quod dicit: ° sapiebam ut parvulus: illi dicuntur sapere ut parvuli qui male iudicant, * phil iii. 19: °gloria in confusione eorum etc.; secundo quantum adinventionem * cum dicit: ° cogitabam ut parvulus , ide est ratiocinabar, ut parvuli cogitant qui male cogitant, * ps. (xciii 11) ° dominus scit cogitationes hominum etc.. * et hoc quod dicit ° sapiebam refertur ad donum sapientiae, quod pertinet ad affectum; ° cogitabam, ad donum scientiae. ° quando autem factus vir etc., * quasi dicat: sicut factus vir, evacuantur ea quae sunt parvuli, ita quando veniemus ad futuram vitam quae est perfecta evacuabuntur ea quae sunt hic imperfecta, * prov. i 22: ° usquequo diligitis infantiam, * is. penult. (lxv 20): ° maledictus puer centum annorum etc..

Selected Portions from I Corinthians 13. Ic1

Reportationes. Vol. 6. 088 R1C cp13. pg 384ff