This is part 2 of the series on cessationism, miracles, and tongues. There are two thoughts addressed in this article. Firstly, why miracles were de-emphasized during the Reformation. Secondly, an analysis on the protestant revision of miracles in the early church.
Cessationism or the critical examination of miracles cannot be fully understood without first understanding the medieval environment they were birthed from. The following gives a brief portrait of the mystical medieval world and why there was an urgent need for correcting the abuse of miracles.
The Early Protestant De-Emphatics: Martin Luther and Jean Calvin
The Church of England and Miracles
The Puritan Influence: William Whitaker, William Perkins, James Ussher, the Westminster Confession, and later Confessions
The Rationalists and Deists
Cessationism from the 1800s and onwards: the Baptists, Presbyterians, B. B. Warfield, christian higher education, John MacArthur, and more.
Cessationism is a religious term used in various protestant circles that believe miracles in the church died out long ago and have been replaced by the authority of Scripture. Cessationist policy is typically found in Presbyterian, conservative Baptist, Dutch Reformed churches, and other groups that strictly adhere to early protestant reformation teachings.
It is a doctrine that had its zenith in the late 1600s, waned a bit in the 1800s and recharged in the 1900s. Today, the doctrine of cessationism has considerably subsided. However, it cannot be ignored if one is doing a thorough study of the doctrine of tongues. It is an important part of history.
A catholic history of speaking in tongues from the first Pentecost until the rule of Pope Benedict the XIV, 1748 A.D.
This summary is the first portion of a three-part series on the christian doctrine of tongues from inception until the 1920s. For a general overview about the christian doctrine of tongues and the framework that governs the following research, see Summary of the Gift of Tongues: Introduction.
The following are the results of a detailed study of early church, medieval and later medieval catholic writers through seventeen-centuries of church life. The results are drawn from the Gift of Tongues Project which had a fourfold purpose to:
uncover new or forgotten ancient literature on the subject
provide the original source texts in digital format
translate the texts into English and add some commentary
to trace the perception of tongues in the church from inception until modern times.
Table of Contents
A pictorial essay on the catholic history of speaking in tongues.
A short observation on pentecostal tongues
The doctrine of tongues from the first to third-century
The golden age of the christian doctrine of tongues: the fourth-century
The connection between Babel and Pentecost
Hebrew as the first language of mankind and of Pentecost
Pentecost as a temporary phenomenon
Augustine on tongues transforming into a corporate identity
Gregory of Nyssa and the one voice many sounds theory
Gregory Nazianzus on the miracle of speech vs. the miracle of hearing
The expansion of the christian doctrine of tongues from the tenth to sixteenth-centuries
Later Medieval accounts of speaking in tongues
The legend of Francis Xavier speaking in tongues
A pictorial essay on the catholic history of speaking in tongues
The graphic below is to assist the reader in quickly understanding the passing tradition of speaking in tongues throughout the centuries in the Catholic Church. The rest of the document will describe these findings. Click on the links throughout this document for more details, or go directly to the Gift of Tongues Project for actual source texts.
A short observation on pentecostal tongues
The large corpus of material studied and compared demonstrate that the christian doctrine of tongues was related to human languages for almost 1800 years. The mechanics of how this happened differed. There were perceptions of it being a miracle of speech, hearing or both. There were no references to angelic speech, prayer language, glossolalia, or ecstatic utterances until the nineteenth-century. The glossolalia aspect is covered in Part 2 of this series.
The Pentecost event as described by the writer Luke in the first part of the Book of Acts has far more coverage than Paul’s address to speaking in tongues throughout ecclesiastical literature. The ancient christian authors were split on the theological symbolism of Pentecost. Pentecost was either understood as a symbol of the Gospel becoming a universal message beyond the bounds of the Jewish community or a theological symbol for the Jewish nation to repent.
The focus of this summary is the nature and mechanics behind speaking in tongues. The exploration of tongues as a theological symbol can be found throughout the source texts documented in the Gift of Tongues Project.
The doctrine of tongues from the first to third-century
The first Pentecost happened somewhere between 29 and 33 A.D., depending on which tradition one chooses to date the crucifixion. The event was listed close to the start of an account written by the physician turned writer, Luke. A work which is universally addressed today as the Book of Acts. The Pentecost narrative is very brief. As already mentioned in the Introduction, the English version of this text describing the Pentecost miracle contains approximately 206 words. Perhaps 800 if one includes Peter’s sermon. 206 words that have echoed throughout history and has inspired hundreds of millions to ponder and often replicate in their own lives.
The readership of this summary is assumed to have thorough knowledge of this passage and have come here for more information. The following is the histories of tongues after the first Pentecost.
The earlier church writers who lived between the first and third centuries, did mention the christian doctrine of tongues such as Irenaeous, who stated it was speaking in a foreign language. There was also Tertullian who recognized the continued rite in his church but fails to explain anything more than this. Neither of these writers contain sufficient coverage in their text to make a strong case for anything other than its existence.
The debate inevitably leads to Origen – one of the most controversial figures on speaking in tongues. Modern theologians, commentators, and writers all over the broad spectrum of christian studies believe Origen supports their perspective. This has created an Origen full of contradictions. Origen was a third-century theologian that can be viewed as either one of the greatest early christian writers ever because of combining an active and humble faith with a deep intellectual inquiry into matters of faith. On the other hand, he was mistakenly labeled a heretic after his death for his limited view of the Trinity. He lived at a time the Trinity doctrine was in its infancy and wasn’t fully developed. His views didn’t correlate with the later formulation and he was posthumously condemned for this. After careful investigation about his coverage on speaking in tongues, Origen hardly commented on it. If one is to draw a conclusion with the limited coverage by him is this: he didn’t think there was anyone pious enough during his time for this task, and if they were, it would be for cross-cultural preaching.
The golden age of the christian doctrine of tongues: the fourth-century
Due to the devastating effects of the persecutions by the Roman emperor Diocletian in the third-century, there is hardly any christian literature to choose from the first to third-centuries. This dramatically changes in the fourth-century when Christianity becomes a recognized religion, and later the foremost one within the Roman Empire. This is where things get really interesting.
The fourth-century began to unfold greater details on speaking in tongues. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote that Peter and Andrew spoke miraculously in Persian or Median at Pentecost and the other Apostles were imbued with the knowledge of all languages. The founder of the Egyptian Cenobite movement, Pachomius, a native Coptic speaker, was miraculously granted the ability to speak in Latin.
The doctrine of tongues divided into five streams in the fourth-century. The first interpretation was the speaking in Hebrew and the audience heard in their own language. The second was Pentecost as a temporary phenomenon. The third was the one voice many sounds theory formulated by Gregory of Nyssa. Fourth, the transition of a personal to a corporate practice represented by Augustine, and last of all the tongues paradox proposed by Gregory Nazianzus. Some may reckon that two more belong here – the cessation of miracles and the Montanists. Both Cessationism and Montanism are perceptions developed during the eighteenth-century. These theories will unfold further down in the summary chronology.
Before winding down the path of these five options, it is necessary to take a quick look at the confusion of tongues found in the Book of Genesis. This story has an important relationship with the discussions to follow.
The connection between Babel and Pentecost
One would assume that the reversal of Babel would be one of the early streams of thinking about Pentecost. This proposition is surprisingly not the case. The idea that the ancient christian writers would connect the confusion of languages symbolized by the city Babel in the book of Genesis with Pentecost because both are narratives revolving around languages seems logical. The book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has a brief narrative that described how mankind originally had one language. This oneness changed with their determination to build a tower to reach into the heavens which was stopped by the introduction of a plurality of languages. Although the text is minimal and lacking details, the text suggests some form of arrogance and self-determination apart from God. The tower also represented mankind’s ability to collectively do great evil. In response, God chose to divide the one language into many languages and scatter mankind throughout the earth in order to curb this amassing of power. The overall traditional record does not associate Pentecost as a reversal of Babel.
The connection between God giving the commandments to Moses on Mt. Sinai would appear to be the better correlation. The old covenant, that is the law of the ancient Israelites, was spoken by God and heard by Moses, then later given in a written form. The Talmud states that God spoke this to Moses in 72 languages – a number understood to symbolically mean in all the languages of the world. The new covenant, the law of grace, was given by the apostles in fiery tongues on the Mount of Olives at Pentecost – these apostles and 120 more miraculously spoke in a whole host of languages. The Jewish community today annually celebrates the giving of the law of Moses and call this day Shevuot which calculates the same days after Passover as Pentecost does. However, this holiday is not an ancient one and does not trace back to the first-century when the first Pentecost occurred. Luke does not mention a direct connection to Shevuot and neither do any of the ancient christian writers.
The Babel allusion prevailed discreetly in later dialogues, especially two concepts. The first one related to which language was the first language of mankind, and how that fit into the Pentecost narrative. The second relating to the one voice spoken many languages heard theory.
Hebrew as the first language of mankind and of Pentecost
There is a substantial corpus about Hebrew being the first language of mankind within ancient christian literature and a tiny allusion to Pentecost being the speaking of Hebrew sounds while the audience heard in their own language. This position about Pentecost does not clearly flow throughout the seas of christian thought, only in the shadows.
The idea of Hebrew as the first language of mankind starts with the early Christians such as first-century Clement, Bishop of Rome, fourth-century Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, for at least part of his life (He changed his position later). The concept of Hebrew being the original language of mankind was repudiated by fourth-century Gregory of Nyssa and then endorsed again by the eighth-century historian and theologian, the Venerable Bede. In the tenth-century Oecumenius, Bishop of Trikka believed that Hebrew was a divine language, because when the Lord spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus, it was in Hebrew.
The eleventh-century philosopher-theologian, Michael Psellos, referred to an ideology that placed Hebrew as the first common language. He alluded that Pentecost could have been the speakers vocalizing in Hebrew while the audience heard it in their own language. This was a reflection of a possibility in his mind, not a position he endorsed. Thomas Aquinas too mentioned this explanation, but quickly moved onto better, more rational theories.
The speaking of Hebrew sounds and the audience hearing in their own language was a small theory that never gained widespread attention. It was played about, but never became a standard doctrine with a vibrant local or international appeal.
A writing loosely attributed to the fifth-century Pope of Alexandria, Egypt, Cyril of Alexandria, described Pentecost as the “changing of tongues.” Pentecost was the use of foreign languages at Pentecost as a sign for the Jews. This event was a miraculous endowment and those that received this blessing in @31 AD continued to have this power throughout their lives, but it did not persist after their generation.
Cyril represented the city of Alexandria at the height of its influence and power throughout Christendom. His biography concludes that he was deposed because of quarrelsomeness and violence. There are unsubstantiated claims that he was responsible for the death of the revered mathematician, astronomer, philosopher, and scholar Hypatia. Although his history comes to a sad demise, his earlier stature and his near-universal influence requires careful attention on the subject of Pentecost. His ideas of Pentecost may have been an older tradition passed down and reinforced by him. The theory of a temporary miracle restricted to the first generation of christian leadership is hard to tell because there is little information about this theory before or after his time.
However, the theory arose again in the thirteenth-century with no references inbetween. The celebrated scholastic writer and mystic, Thomas Aquinas, weighed in on the temporary question. Whenever a theological subject has been addressed by Aquinas, it is worth the time to stop and consider. There is no person in christian history that had assembled such a broad array of the various christian traditions, writers, texts, and Scripture into a systematic form of thought. Not only was Aquinas systematic, but also a mystic. The combination of these qualities gives him a high score in covering the doctrine of tongues.
He held a similar position on Pentecost to that of Cyril of Alexandria, though he does not mention him by name. He believed the apostles were equipped with the gift of tongues to bring all people back into unity. It was only a temporary activity that later generations would not need. Later leaders would have access to interpreters which the first generation did not.
Aquinas’ argument is a good and logical one, but the christian history of tongues does not align with this conclusion. After Aquinas’ time, there are numerous perceived cases of the miraculous endowments that contradict such a sentiment. Neither can Cyril’s thought be traced down through the centuries to numerous writers and be claimed as a universal or near-universal teaching.
The temporary idea of Pentecost was restricted to this miracle alone. There is no implied idea that this temporality extended to miracles of healing, exorcisms, or other divine interventions.
Augustine on tongues transforming into a corporate identity
The christian rite of speaking in tongues transferring from a personal to a corporate expression was espoused by Augustine Bishop of Hippo. This was created over his lengthy and difficult battle with the dominant tongues-speaking Donatist movement.
The Donatists were a northern African christian group; broken off from the official Catholic Church over reasons relating to the persecutions against Christians by edict of emperor Diocletian in the third-century. After the persecutions abated, a controversy erupted in the region over how to handle church leaders who assisted with the secular authorities in the persecutions. This became a source of contention and it conflagrated into questions of church leadership, faith, piety, discipline, and politics. One of the outcomes was a separate church movement called the Donatists. At the height of their popularity, the Donatists statistically outnumbered the traditional Catholic representatives in the North Africa region. At the height, it had over 400 bishops.
The Catholic Church was in a contest against the Donatist claims of being the true church. One of the assertions the Donatist’s provided for their superior claim was their ability to speak in tongues. This forced Augustine to take the Donatists and their tongues doctrine seriously and build a vigorous offense against them.
Augustine’s polemic against the Donatists has generated more data on the christian doctrine of tongues than any other ancient writer and gives a good lock into perceptions of this rite in the fourth-century.
Augustine attacked the Donatist claim of being the true church in a number of ways.
One was through mocking, asking when they laid hands on infants whether they spoke in languages or not.
Or he simply stated that the gift had passed. The cessation statement was one of many volleys that he made.
This cessation needs further clarification. Augustine meant that the individual endowment of miraculously speaking in foreign languages had ceased from functioning. The corporate expression still remained. It cannot be applied to mean the cessation of miracles, healings, or other divine interventions. Augustine was exclusively referring to the individual speaking in tongues. Nothing more.
In other words, the individual expression of speaking in tongues changed into a corporate one – the church took over the function of speaking in every language to all the nations.
He described Pentecost as each man speaking in every language.
This transformation from individual to corporate identity was referenced by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth-century in his work, Summa Theologica, but built little strength around this theme. He left it as is in one sentence.
There is no question that the semantic range of this experience fell inside the use of foreign languages. He used the term linguis omnium gentium “in the languages of all the nations” on at least 23 occasions, and linguis omnium, speaking “in all languages”. Neither does Augustine quote or refer to the Montanist movement in his works.
The Bishop repeatedly answers the question “If I have received the holy Spirit, why am I not speaking in tongues?” Each time he has a slightly different read. What did he say? “this was a sign that has been satisfied” — the individual expression has been satisfied. He then offers a more theological slant in his Enarratio In Psalmum, “Why then does the holy Spirit not appear now in all languages? On the contrary, He does appear in all the languages. For at that time the Church was not yet spread out through the circle of lands, that the organs of Christ were speaking in all the nations. Then it was filled-up into one, with respect to which it was being proclaimed in every one of them. Now the entire body of Christ is speaking in all the languages.”1
One has to be very cautious with Augustine on this topic. He was pitting the Catholic Church as the true one because of its universality and inferring that the Donatists were not so ordained because of their regionalism. His answers were polemic than theological in nature.
Augustine’s polemical diatribes against the tongues-speaking Donatists never became a universal doctrine. The individual to the corporate idea has indirect allusions in John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria’s works, but nothing concrete. The concept faded out within a generation and references to him on the subject by later writers is not very frequent.
Gregory of Nyssa and the one voice many sounds theory
Gregory of Nyssa represents the beginning of the evolution of the christian doctrine of tongues that has echoes even today.
Gregory of Nyssa was a fourth-century Bishop of Nyssa – a small town in the historic region of Cappadocia. In today’s geographical terms, central Turkey. The closest major city of influence to Nyssa was Constantinople – which at the time was one of the most influential centers of the world.
This church father, along with Gregory Nazianzus and Basil the Great were named together as the Cappadocians. Their influence set the groundwork for christian thought in the Eastern Roman Empire. Gregory of Nyssa was an articulate and a deep thinker. He not only drew from christian sources but built his writings around a Greek philosophical framework.
Gregory sees parallels between Babel and Pentecost on the nature of language but produces different outcomes. In the Pentecost story, he explained it as one sound dividing into languages during transmission that the recipients understood.
Gregory of Nyssa’s homily on Pentecost is a happy one which began with his reference to Psalm 94:1, Come, let us exalt the Lord and continues throughout with this joyful spirit. In reference to speaking in tongues, he wrote of the divine indwelling in the singular and the output of a single sound multiplying into languages during transmission. This emphasis on the singularity may be traced to the influence of Plotinus — one of the most revered and influential philosophers of the third-century. Plotinus was not a Christian, but a Greek/Roman/Egyptian philosopher who greatly expanded upon the works of Aristotle and Plato. He emphasized that the one supreme being had no “no division, multiplicity or distinction.” Nyssa strictly adhered to a singularity of expression by God when relating to language. The multiplying of languages happened after the sound was emitted and therefore conforms to this philosophical model. However, Nyssa never mentions Plotinus by name or credits his movement in the writings examined so far, so it is hard to make a direct connection. There is an influence here.
What was the sound that the people imbued with the Holy Spirit were speaking before it multiplied during transmission? Nyssa is not clear. It is not a heavenly or divine language because he believed mankind would be too limited in any capacity to produce such a mode of divine communication. Neither would he understand it to be Hebrew. Maybe it was the first language mankind spoke before Babel, but this is doubtful. Perhaps the people were speaking their own language and the miracle occurred in transmission. I think speaking in their own language is the likeliest possibility. Regardless, Gregory of Nyssa was not clear in this part of his doctrine.
This theory did not solely rest with Gregory of Nyssa. He may be the first to clearly document this position, but the idea was older. There are remnants of this thought in Origen’s writing (Against Celsus 8:37) – though it is only one unclear but sort of relevant sentence and hard to build a case over
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, pokes at this too, but is unclear. He mentions on many occasions “one man was speaking in every language” or similar.2 What does this mean? How can one man speak simultaneously in all the languages at the same time? Even if a person sequentially went through 72 languages speaking one short sentence, it would take over ten minutes and wouldn’t be considered a miracle – only a simple mnemonic recitation. Augustine didn’t make any attempt to clarify this statement. He was playing with the one voice many sounds theory in a polemical sense and altered the nuance. The idea shifted to the connection between oneness and unity, which in Latin, are similar in spelling. He wanted to emphasize that those who spoke in tongues do it for the sake of unity. He was arguing anyone who promoted speaking in tongues as a device to divide the church is a fleshly and evil endeavor.
The concept takes us to the fifth-century where Basil of Seleucia, a bishop of Seleucia in a region historically named Isauria – today a south central Turkish coastal town known as Silifke. Basil of Seleucia followed the literary trail of John Chrysostom and copied many of his traits, but in the case of Pentecost, he adds the one voice many sounds description.
Gregory Nazianzus on the miracle of speech vs. the miracle of hearing
Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus were acquaintances in real life, perhaps more so because of Gregory of Nyssa’s older brother, Basil the Great. Gregory Nazianzus and Basil the Great had a personal and professional relationship that greatly impacted the church in their dealings with Arianism and the development of the Trinity doctrine. Unfortunately, a fallout happened between Gregory Nazianzus and Basil the Great that never was repaired.3 This has little bearing with the topic at hand, but builds a small portrait surrounding the key figures of the fourth-century who discuss the doctrine of tongues.
Gregory Nazianzus recognized the theory of a one sound emanating and multiplying during transmission into real languages. He seriously looked at this solution and compared against the miracle of speaking in foreign languages. He found the one sound theory lacking and believed the miracle of speech was the proper interpretation. Perhaps this is a personal objection to Nyssa or a professional one based on research. There are no writings between Nyssa or Nazianzus that allude to a contested difference between them on the subject. Nyssa’s contribution to the christian doctrine of tongues has long been forgotten in the annals of history, but Nazianzus has survived. On the other hand, the theory itself posited by Nyssa never did vanish. These two positions by Nyssa and Nazianzus set the stage for an ongoing debate for almost two millennia.
Who is Gregory Nazianzus? Most people have not heard of him before but his contributions to the christian faith are many. This fourth-century Bishop of Constantinople’s mastery of the Greek language and culture is exquisite and hard to translate into English. Much of the wonder and power of his writing is so deeply connected with these two elements it feels like an injustice to translate. His works come across as dry and esoteric in an English translation whereas in the Greek he is a well-spring of deep thought. Many church leaders during his period preached and then published the homily. Nazianzus likely wrote first and preached later. His works do not come across as great sermons, but great works of writing. All these factors have contributed to him being relatively obscure in the annals of christian history – even though in the fourth-century he was on the same level of prestige as Augustine or John Chrysostom.
The description of Pentecost as either a miracle of speaking or hearing became the focal point of Gregory Nazianzus in the fourth-century when he wrote in one of his Orations that these both were potential possibilities, though he clearly believed Pentecost as a miracle of speech. Unfortunately, a Latin translator, Tyrannius Rufinus, misunderstood some finer points of Greek grammar when translating and removed Gregory’s preference of it being a miracle of speech and left both as equal possibilities. The majority of Western church leaders were unfamiliar with Greek and relied on Tyrannius’ Latin text. Tyrannius’ mistake created a thousand-year debate of the miracle being one of either speaking or hearing.
The speech versus hearing argument was brought up again the seventh-century by the Venerable Bede, who wrote two commentaries on Acts. The Venerable Bede lived in the kingdom of the Northumbrians (Northern England. South-East Scotland). He was brilliant in so many areas. Astronomy, mathematics, poetry, music and a literature were some of his many passions. His writing is very engaging and fluid – a good read. His Ecclesiastical History of the English People makes him the earliest authority of English history.
His first commentary delved deeply in the debate, and studying only the Latin texts, concluded it was a miracle of hearing. In his second commentary, he was not so convincing. He changed his mind, alluding Pentecost was a miracle of speech and conjectures it could have been both a miracle of speaking and hearing. The outcome didn’t really matter to him. Perhaps he took this conclusion to avoid saying he was initially wrong.
Another noteworthy discussion about the Nazianzus paradox was presented by Michael Psellos in the eleventh-century. His own biography is not one of the religious cloth, but civic politics. His highest position was that of Secretary of State in the highly influential Byzantine City of Constantinople. He was a Christian who had a love-hate relationship with the church. One of the lower moments in that relationship was his choosing Plato over Aristotle. The Church tolerated the non-christian writings of Aristotle, but frowned on Plato. Psellos studied theology but loved philosophy, and this was a continued source of contention.
It is surprising that his complex weave of Greek philosophy and christian faith in a very conservative christian environment did not get him into more serious trouble than he encountered. He was way ahead of his time. His approach to faith, Scripture, and intellect took western society five hundred or so more years to catch-up.
Michael Psellos was caught between two very distinct periods. He lived in the eleventh-century and still was connected to the ancient traditions of the church, but also at the beginning shift of intellectual and scholarly thought that modern readers come to rely on. He bridged both worlds. This is why his work is so important.
He thought highly of his opinions and liked to show-off his intellectual genius. After reading his text, it is not clear whether he was trying to solve the riddle of Nazianzus’ miracle of hearing or speech, or it was an opportunity to show his intellectual mastery. Regardless of his motives, he leaves us with a rich wealth of historic literature on speaking in tongues.
What did Psellos write that was so important? Two things. He first clears up the Nazianzus paradox stating that it was a miracle of speaking. Secondly, he particularly clarifies the similarities and differences between the ancient Greek prophetesses going into a frenzy and spontaneously speaking in foreign languages they did not know beforehand, and with the disciples of Christ who also spontaneously spoke in foreign languages.
Psellos had a detailed knowledge of the pagan Greek prophets and explains that the ancient female prophets of Phoebe would go in a form of frenzy and speak in foreign languages. This is a very early and important contribution to the modern tongues debate because there is a serious scholarly connection given to the ancient Greek prophets going into ecstasy and producing ecstatic speech with that of Pentecost. The christian miracle is named a synergism of the ancient Greek practice of ecstatic speech in order to make the christian faith a universal one.
Psellos may be the oldest commentator on the subject and must be given significant weight. His knowledge of ancient Greek philosophy and religion is unparalleled even by modern standards. It is also seven hundred years older than most works that address the relationship between the christian event and the pagan Greek rite.
He described the Pentecostal speakers spoke with total comprehension and detailed how it exactly worked. The thought process remained untouched but when attempting to speak, their lips were divinely inspired. The speaker could change the language at any given moment, depending on what language group the surrounding audience belonged to. He thought this action a miracle of speech, and sided with Nazianzus.
The total control of one’s mind while under divine influence was what differentiated the christian event from the pagan one. The Greek prophetesses, as he went on to describe, did not have any control over what they were saying. There was a complete cognitive disassociation between their mind and their speech while the Apostles had complete mastery over theirs.
Last of all Psellos introduces a concept of tongues-speaking practised in the Hellenic world that has to do with the use of plants to arrive in a state of divine ecstasy. He also quickly described pharmacology too in this context, but it seems the text infers it was used in the art of healing. His writing is somewhat unclear at this point, but there was a relationship between the two. Perhaps tongues speaking practised by the ancient Greeks was part of the ancient rite of healing. It is hard to be definitive with this because his writing style here is so obscure. He warns to stay away from the use of exotic things that assist in going into a state of divine ecstasy.
Thomas Aquinas tried to conclude the tongues as speech or hearing debate. Aquinas proceeded to use his argument and objection method for examining the Nazianzus paradox. In the end, he clearly stated it was a miracle of speech. His coverage was well done. However, this attempt was not successful in quelling the controversy.
Another aspect that Aquinas introduced was the relationship between the office of tongues and prophecy. The topic has lurked as early as the fourth-century but never in the forefront. Aquinas put the topic as a priority. Given that he was a mystic and lived in the world that heavily emphasized the supernatural, this comes as no surprise. He believed that the gift of tongues was simply a systematic procedure of speaking and translating one language into another. The process required no critical thinking, spiritual illumination, or comprehension of the overall narrative. He believed the agency of prophecy possessed the means for translating and interpreting but added another important asset – critical thinking. One must be cognisant of the fact that his idea of critical thinking is slightly different from ours. He includes spiritual illumination along with intellectual acuity as a formula for critical thinking. The prophetic person had the ability to understand the meaning behind the speech and how it applied to one’s daily life. Therefore, he felt prophecy was a much better and superior office than simply speaking and translating.
The expansion of the christian doctrine of tongues from the tenth to eighteenth-centuries
The tenth to sixteenth-centuries could be held as the golden age of tongues speaking in the Catholic Church, and arguably the biggest era for the christian doctrine of tongues. The next two-hundred years that reached into the eighteenth-century was the civil war that raged between protestants and catholics that put miracles, including speaking in tongues, in the epicenter. These eight-centuries were the era of super -supernaturalism in almost every area of human life. Speaking in tongues was common and attached to a variety of celebrity saints – from Andrew the Fool in the tenth to Francis Xavier in the sixteenth. This period had established the doctrine of tongues as either a miracle of hearing, speaking or a combination of both.
Later Medieval accounts of speaking in tongues
For example, the later legend of thirteenth-century had Anthony of Padua, a popular speaker in his time, spoke in the language of the Spirit to a mixed ethnic and linguistic gathering of catholic authorities who heard him in their own language. What was the language of the Spirit? This was never clarified in the text or by any other author and remains a mystery.
Vincent Ferrer in the fourteenth-century was a well-known evangelist, perhaps in the top 50 in the history of the church. He visited many ethnic and linguistic communities while only knowing his native Valencian language. His orations were so great and powerful that it was alleged people miraculously heard him speak in their own language.
There were also revisions by later writers to earlier lives of saints such as Matthew the Apostle, Patiens of Metz in the third, and the sixth-century Welsh saints, David, Padarn and Teilo. They were claimed to have spoken miraculously in foreign languages.
Speaking in tongues was also wielded as a political tool. The French religious orders, l’abbaye Saint-Clément and l’abbaye Saint-Arnould, had a strong competition between each other during the tenth and fourteenth centuries. L’abbaye Saint-Clément proposed their order to be the foremost because their lineage traced back to a highly esteemed and ancient founder. L’abbaye Saint-Arnould countered with St. Patiens who had the miraculous ability to speak in tongues.
The account of Andrew the Fool has an interesting twist in the annals of speaking in tongues. Andrew the Fool, often cited as Andrew of Constantinople, or Andrew Salus, was a tenth-century christian follower known for his odd lifestyle that would be classified under some form of a mental illness by today’s standards. However, many biographers believe it was a ruse purposely done by Andrew. There is a rich tradition of holy fools in Eastern Orthodox literature who feigned insanity as a form of a prophetic and teaching device. The story of Andrew the Fool’s miraculous endowment of tongues was used to facilitate a private conversation between Andrew and a slave while attending a party. This allowed them to talk freely without the patron of the party becoming privy to the conversation and becoming angry about the matter being discussed.
The legend of Francis Xavier speaking in tongues
The sainthood of Francis Xavier in the sixteenth-century, and the incredulous notion that he miraculously spoke in foreign languages brought the gift of tongues to the forefront of theological controversy. Protestants used his example of how Catholics had become corrupt, to the point of making fictitious accounts that contradict the evidence. A closer look demonstrated that the sainthood investigation process was flawed on the accounts of him speaking in tongues. On the contrary, a proper examination showed Francis struggled with language acquisition. His sainthood with partial grounds based on speaking in tongues was a later embarrassment to the Society of Jesus to whom Francis belonged to. The Society of Jesus is an educational, missionary and charitable organization within the Catholic church that was ambitiously counter-reformation in its early beginnings. The Society of Jesus still exists today and is the largest single order in the Catholic Church.
The mistaken tongues miracle in Francis’ life also was a headache for the Catholic Church leadership itself. This led to Pope Benedict XIV to write a treatise on the gift of tongues around 1748 and describe what it is, isn’t and what criteria should be used to investigate such a claim. He concluded that the gift of tongues can be speaking in foreign languages or a miracle of hearing.
This treatise was a well-written and researched document. No other church leader or religious organization, even the Renewalist movement, have superseded his work in validating a claim for speaking in tongues. After his publication, the investigation of claims for tongues-speaking in the Catholic Church had significantly declined.
Yesterday, October 22nd, this article encouraged readers to wait for the book to come out. Unfortunately, the book idea is stalled again. But that is good news. Too many people have come to this article wanting a summary now. Your request has resulted in a two-part summary being developed. It is nearly complete and will be posted. Part I should be ready by October 30th.
Answers to the christian doctrine of tongues from the writings of Thomas Aquinas.
Table of Contents
Aquinas’ aspects of the miracle of tongues in Church history and practice
The tongues of Pentecost and Corinth
The miracle of speaking over that of hearing
The merging of prophecy with speaking in tongues
Tongues in the thirteenth-century church liturgy
What he meant by unknown tongues
Aquinas was an immensely influential theologian, teacher, writer, speaker, philosopher and more during the thirteenth-century. His ability to combine Greek philosophy, the intellect, the Bible, Christian principles, especially from a mystical viewpoint, and the use of a diverse library of ecclesiastical writers, creates a rich array of works written by him. His coverage of the gift of tongues combines many of these wide-ranging abilities.
Aquinas lived in an age of heightened christian mysticism and his intellectual inquiry is mixed with mystic elements. If he lived today, he would appeal to an intellectual pentecostal or charismatic audience. He sets the standard high for mystic christianity and in many areas, exceeds the current pentecostal and charismatic theologies. These are still in the development stage whereas Aquinas and his world had built a stable framework.
He wrote considerably on the tongues issue. One of his works on the subject, Summa Theologica, is popularly available in English, but not well understood. Other works, such as his Lectures on Corinthians, has not been available in English, nor critically examined until now. Both an English translation on the topic, along with the Latin original are available by going to this link: Thomas Aquinas and the Doctrine of Tongues Intro.
The tongues of Pentecost and Corinth
It was clear from Aquinas’ texts that the apostles speaking in tongues was a miraculous endowment of every human foreign language, both in speaking and understanding. He made this clear in Summa Theologica:
“It was more fitting that they should speak in all tongues, because they pertained to the perfection of their knowledge, whereby they were able not only to speak, but also to understand what was said by others. . . .Hence a gloss says on Acts 2:6 that “it was a “greater miracle that they should speak all kinds of tongues.”1
On the other hand, he viewed the Corinthian Church problem as a linguistic one of regular human proportions. He theoretically taught the tongues of Corinth was initially directed at unbelieving Jews to bring them to belief, “his was a sign specifically given for the conversion of the Jewish people”.2 He devoted much more text in practical terms which reference to the Church of his time. He explained unknown tongues was about speaking in a language that other people didn’t understand. There are a number of examples but this one is the most succinct:
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 in an unknown language, and not having these things explained, 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.3
The miracle of speaking over that of hearing
Aquinas was well aware of the different interpretations on the doctrine of tongues, including the one voice being emitted and being understood in the native tongue of the listener. This was an interpretation that had been lingering and debated since at least the fourth-century.4 He did not agree with this position and clearly supported the traditional interpretation of those divinely inspired to speak in foreign languages. He pointed this out in his Lectures on I Corinthians:
Paul says, “I give thanks, etc.,” and not that they were to understand that all were speaking in one language. He says, “I speak with all your tongues,”“The Apostles were speaking in a variety of languages,”5
And in Summa Theologica:
“Reply to Objection 2. “It was more fitting that they should speak in all tongues, because they pertained to the perfection of their knowledge, whereby they were able not only to speak, but also to understand what was said by others. …Hence a gloss says on Acts 2:6 that “it was a “greater miracle that they should speak all kinds of tongues.””6
He even goes so far as to quote a gloss on Gregory Nazianzus that the Apostles had the ability understand all tongues.
Aquinas was well aware of the different theories on the tongues of Pentecost and its aftermath. This is especially prominent in his writings found in Summa Theologica where he outlined a number of different positions.
The apostles were given the ability speak but did not have knowledge of all the languages.
The Apostles spoke in Hebrew and everyone heard in their own language.
Christ did not and the present faithful do not speak in more than one language. Therefore, the disciples didn’t speak in all languages either.
He countered these three with:
The apostles were equipped with the gift of tongues to bring all people back into unity. It was only a temporary activity that later generations would not need. The later leaders would have access to interpreters which the first generation did not.
The gift of tongues was restricted for teaching the faith. It did not extend to speaking about acquired sciences like math or geometry.
They spoke and understood all languages. If it was a miracle of hearing, it would be much harder to substantiate as a miracle.
The gift of tongues had shifted from the individual to the corporate church. He quotes Augustine on this.
The merging of prophecy with speaking in tongues
The emphasis of Aquinas clearly rests on combining prophecy with speaking in tongues. The Aquinas text stated over 21 times in his Lecture on I Corinthians 14 about the “the excellency of the gift of prophecy over the gift of tongues.” He ended the discussion on tongues in Summa Theologica in like manner. In almost every instance the wording is slightly different but has the same intention.
On would first conclude the overuse of prophecy indicates that he did not fully comprehend the Corinthians tongues passages as to exactly what was happening in this first-century Church. However, this is not the case after a closer look at his definition of prophecy.
It is important to understand Aquinas’ definition because the prophecy- tongues relationship becomes a very important part of nineteenth-century studies on the christian doctrine of tongues. Aquinas’ is the first modern writer to make this association, though there are earlier parallels that weren’t so distinct like the fourth-century writings attributed to Cyril of Alexandria.
This relationship can be found outlined in Summa Theologica, where he taught that:
Tongues is about words and physically retelling what one sees or hears. It doesn’t necessarily mean the person interpreting is required to understand the meaning.
Prophecy is not just words and retelling, though this is a part of it. Prophecy enlightens the mind so as to understand the meaning. This is why Aquinas uses to interpret as an act of prophecy. He has interpretation broken into two categories. The first one being the literal translation with no regards to the meaning. This is reserved for the office of tongues. The second one is translating and understanding the meaning. This is the office of prophecy.
Further information can be found in reading his Lectures on I Corinthians 14:5-12.
For the gift of tongues with an interpretation is better than prophecy because as it has been written, the interpretation of whatsoever difficulty relates to prophecy. Therefore, the one who speaks and interprets is a prophet and the one who has the gift of tongues and interprets [does so] in order for the Church to be built up.7
And a short while later:
The interpretation of speeches is reducible to the gift of prophecy, inasmuch as the mind is enlightened so as to understand and explain any obscurities of speech arising either from a difficulty in the things signified, or from the words uttered being unknown, or from the figures of speech employed.”8
He believed that Paul would have joined tongues with the gift of prophecy when he paraphrased I Corinthians 14:14:
“I said that the gift of tongues without the gift of prophecy has no value.”9
Aquinas understood intellectual and divine comprehension as separate faculties. The ability to understand through supernatural means was to be infused in two ways: revelation and prophecy. A sudden divine infusion was called a revelation. A progressive infusion that came bit by bit or pieces over an extended period is called prophecy. Learning through natural means was called knowledge and a concept, idea or thought being related by another person was called teaching.10
Tongues in the thirteenth-century church liturgy
The Lectures on I Corinthians 14 identified the role of tongues in the Church liturgy. He attested to both the history behind the liturgy and what the Church of his day practiced. With the first, all Churches, regardless of their linguistic background practised the Church liturgy in Latin:
But why do they [the priests] not give the blessing in the common [tongue], that they may be understood by the people and adhere themselves more to them? It has been said that this had been done in the early church, but afterwards, the faithful ones were taught and knew what they heard in the common office, the benedictions take place in Latin”11
The text also recognizes and points out that benedictions was an old one adopted from the early Church. Aquinas goes on to state that public reading too was important. The emphasis was on reading or chanting the Latin. He associates this with speaking in tongues. The reader was obligated do it with proper pronunciation as is documented below:
It is the same to speak in tongues and to speak clearly enunciating [the Latin words] to such a degree for the uneducated. Since then everyone is to speak clearly enunciating in the Church, that all is being said in Latin. It appears that it is madness in the same way. One ought to say to this: Madness existed in the early Church on that account because they were unacquainted in the custom of the Church, consequently they were ignorant of what they should do here unless it was to be explained to them. But certainly in the present all have been educated. Although from this point everything is being spoken in Latin, they still know what is taking place in the Church.12
R. Anthony Lodge described that Latin during this period was rigorously enforced on the grounds of pronunciation and usage:“Although written Latin had remained homogenous, the pronunciation of spoken Latin had come to vary considerably from one part of Europe to another. How was spoken Latin to be unified as part of the movement to promote the cohesion of the Carolingian state? It was decided that Latin pronunciation should be firmly anchored to spelling and that when Latin was read out it should be pronounced litteraliter, ‘sounding every letter’, without accommodating the speaker’s pronunciation of local phonology as had traditionally happened in Romance-speaking regions.”13
The connection is then made by Aquinas that the public readings originally came from the office of tongues in the early Church, which originally was lifted from the Mosaic Law and it has evolved since then to a formal Church rite.
“In the mouth of two or three, etc..” (Deuteronomy 17:6) but it must be noted that this habit for the most part is being served in the Church for we have the [public] readings and the epistles and also the gospels in the place of tongues, and for that reason it follows in Mass two are being delivered, because only two are being said whose antecedent is to the gift of tongues, specifically the epistle and the gospel. Accordingly, in Matins many are done, in fact you say three readings in one. For in the former times they used to read a nocturn the next three night watches separately. Now however they are being spoken at the same time but on the other hand the procedure is not only to be preserved in regard to the number of those who are speaking but as well in regards to the way [it is done].14
He identifies in his time that the office of tongues had changed into public readings of the Epistles and Gospels alternating by two in one instance to three in the other. It was read in Latin on a regular basis. Whether this is daily or weekly rite, Aquinas does not make clear. At present, the Catholic Church practices it this way, “On Sundays and solemnities, three Scripture readings are given. On other days there are only two.”15 There have been many arguments over the centuries on how the office of tongues died since the early Church but many writers had failed to see it had evolved. Whether they disagreed with this evolution is another question but they failed to realize this existence in their conclusions.
What he meant by unknown tongues
Another important theme that Aquinas addressed was the use of unknown tongues. This is the earliest Latin usage found so far in Ecclesiastical literature as it relates to tongues. It predates the tongues controversy that erupted during the Reformation 300 years later. This term unknown tongues was a cornerstone of the Protestant revolt against the Catholic Church and was a political instrument infused in Protestant English Bibles. 16 The important part here is to find out what he meant by it. As previously quoted:
. . .the Apostle means in an unknown language, and not having these things explained, 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.”17
“Preachers have become accustomed to preserve that way when they are to preach to men of an unknown tongue by means of an interpretation.”18
Unknown tongues, which is the English equivalent of lingua ignota, simply means to Aquinas a foreign language which the hearer is not experienced or familiar with. There was nothing mystical to it.
Thomas Aquinas believed that the gift of tongues had merged with the public reader and no longer had an office. This was reinforced when he stated that those who originally spoke in tongues needed a supernatural aid because they did not have access to interpreters or other tools to go out into the world and preach to the nations. Christianity after this initial thrust acquired those natural tools to sustain the message and therefore the miracle of tongues was no longer necessary. He also agreed with Augustine that the gift had transferred from the individual to the corporate church. If he was asked if tongues-speaking in the church had died, he would answer no. He would proceed to explain that this is the duty of the church now. Pentecost is still alive and active seeing that the church is speaking in all the languages of the world the message of salvation.
Aquinas holding of Augustine’s position of the gift switching from the individual to the corporate has a basis in the historic church – though it was never a universal one. Later medieval catholicism works do not adhere to such a policy. In fact, Pope Benedict XIV in the eighteenth-century did a major work on defining speaking in tongues. The Pope’s work was done to clarify the process for those individuals promoted for sainthood. An investigation for sainthood requires a proven miracle, and speaking in tongues was on the list. A few individuals and controversially, Francis Xavier, were considered for sainthood for producing this. Pope Benedict did refer to Aquinas, but ignores his argument on the transition of the gift of tongues from an individual to a corporate entity.
From reviewing all of Aquinas’ texts, he was not aware of any argument that represented a heavenly, ecstatic or prophetic language. This doctrine was a later development.
This is the end on the series of Thomas Aquinas on the miracle of Tongues. Aquinas was clearly not silent on the issue. He had much to write on the topic and is in the middle time line of the ever evolving tongues doctrine. He is a reference for the past, a source for the most major change in the tongues movement and an icon for the future development. All these features are represented in his writings.
A translation of Thomas Aquinas on I Corinthians 14:27-33 from the Latin into contemporary English.
Translated from the Latin text: Reportationes 088 R1C cp 14 Pg. 390 lc6
I Corinthians 14:27 – 33
The Apostle maps out here how they ought to conduct themselves in regards to the gift of tongues. In respect to this, he does it in two ways. With the first he shows in which they ought to utilize the gift of tongues. With the second when they ought to cease from [its] use. In that place it says, “But if there will be no [interpreter], etc..” he then says, with the first, that the manner in which the gift of tongues ought to be applied is to be such among you that “If any,” which is if someone should speak in a tongue, that is he is going to narrate visions or dreams, of such things, a speech probably cannot be done by many on account of the occupation of time in tongues and no place remains for the prophets and generates confusion but, “Let it be by two,”1 that is by two persons, and if necessary it ought to have been done according to “the most three,” that it should be enough at three.
“In the mouth of two or three, etc..” (Deuteronomy 17:6) but it must be noted that this habit for the most part is being served in the Church for we have the [public] readings and the epistles and also the gospels in the place of tongues, and for that reason it follows in Mass two are being delivered, because only two are being said whose antecedent is to the gift of tongues, specifically the epistle and the gospel. Accordingly in Matins many are done, in fact you say three readings in one. For in the former times they used to read a nocturn the next three night watches separately. Now however they are being spoken at the same time but on the other hand the procedure is not only to be preserved in regard to the number of those who are speaking but as well in regards to the way [it is done]. And this is what he says, “and through sharing,”2 that is in order that those who are speaking are to follow in turns with one another, a fact that one is to speak after another, or “through sharing,” that is interrupted, specifically that one is to speak on part of a vision or of instruction and is to explain it, and afterwards another and explains the very thing being shared and so follows one after another. Preachers have become accustomed to preserve that way when they are to preach to men of an unknown tongue by means of an interpretation.3 And for that reason it says, “Let one interpret.”4 as he result he says, “if there will not be available, etc.,” he shows when it is not to be practiced with tongues, saying that the one who is about to speak is through sharing and the one ought to interpret but, “if there will not be available,” anyone [who is an], “interpreter,” that is who understands, [then] those who have the gift of tongues, “are to keep silent in the Church,” that is he5 is not to speak because he himself understands and this silence is to be manifested in prayer or in meditation. “I will speak in the bitterness of my soul, I will speak to God, etc.,”6 (Job 10:1). “on the other hand the prophets two [or three let them speak], etc.,” The apostle is setting out here for them as to how they ought to conduct themselves with respect to the use of prophecy. In regards to this he does two things. With the first he shows in which way prophecy is to be utilized also in respect to the number and to the order [of things]. With the second he shows to whom the use of prophecy is being prohibited. In which place it says, “the women in the Church [let them keep silent], etc.,” In regards to the first he does three things. With the first he points out the order by which the gift of prophecy ought to be applied. With the second he applies a reason regarding this, where it says, “for you can all [prophecy], etc..” With the third he removes and objection where it says, “the spirits of the prophets [are subject to the prophets], etc..” With the first he defines the number of those using the appointed gift. With the second he points the manner or order by which it ought to be utilized where it says, “But if any thing [be revealed to another sitting], etc.,”7 In regards to the first it is noted that the use of prophecy [is] according to what the apostle seems to grasp here. It is to forward the word of encouragement to the people, by which [the word] clarifies the sacred Scriptures. Because also there was in the early Church many who possessed this gift from God and the faithful were not yet multiplied, but confusion and weariness did not exist, the apostle wishes that all who are qualified to explain the prophecies and the sacred Scripture are to prophecy, but also to those ones who have been designated. And this is what he says, “the prophets [two or three let them speak], etc.,” as if he was saying: “I do not wish that everyone who comes together [prophecy]” but “two” only or at most, “three” as the need requires for one to perform as a speaker, “let them speak,” that is they are to encourage and furthermore this is designed to agree to Scripture. “In the mouth of two or three [witnesses every word may stand],”8 (Matthew 18:16).
“However the others,”9 namely those who do not gain [from it] “let them judge,” them who are being put forward by these demonstrations, specifically whether good or bad may have been said: what good has been said can result in commendation, and what bad has been said can result in causing one to retract [the statement]. See I Corinthians 2:15 “the spiritual man is to judge everything.” On the other hand it is the order which is being observed in the designated gift which is waiting to be used, that if one of those who were sitting and remain silent, and they judge, had made some better revelation than those who were encouraging are currently standing in front, now those who are standing ought to sit and him to whom is a better revelation ought to rise and encourage. And this is what he said, “But if anything,” to the one sitting “has been revealed” in fact by the holy Spirit, “the prior” one standing, “let him keep silent” and grant him [the honor]. “come before one another in honor” (Romans 12:10). And it is for this reason because according to this way “you are able” as one who has submitted “to prophecy by one at a time,”10 that is everyone namely “that all,” that is the greater “may learn, and all” that is the lesser “may be encouraged.”“A wise man who hears [shall be wiser],” (Proverbs 1:5).
And if someone should say “O apostle, I cannot keep silent while another is to prophecy or yield to sitting from which I have become [stirred] because I cannot restrain the Spirit who speaks in me,” follow that with Job 4:2, “Who is able to hold words which have been conceived?” As a result the Apostle removes this when he says, “and the spirit of the prophets, etc.,” as if he is to say, on the contrary he can well be silent and sit down because, “the spirit of the prophets that is the spirit who gives the prophecies, and sets in plural with the number on account of the many revelations roused in him, “are subject to prophets” even in reference to knowledge. Because as Gregorius says that the spirit of prophecy is not always present to the prophets, from whom it is not a habit, as it certainly is with knowledge. In fact it [knowledge] was intended to follow in a different way, that furthermore in reference to knowledge, it would be subject to them, and they could have utilized it whenever they so desired, and not to have used [as well]. But [prophecy] it is a certain power or impression by God who illumines and touches the heart of the prophets, and then only when they are being touched in this way do they become aware. One arrives at the fact that he is not subject to them in the same way [as knowledge]. Neither is the word of the Apostle to be understood according to this, but the spirit of the prophets are subject to prophets in reference to the proclamation because in fact it is in their power when they want to pronounce or not to pronounce that which they are being shown to them. And so the excuse has no such value worth mentioning because the spirit does not compel that you are not able to keep silent.
And this is to be true, he demonstrates when he says, “for He [God] is not of dissension, etc.,” and he made so great a reason. God never compels to that from which a quarrel or conflict is to arise but peace. But if the spirit of prophecy was to compel men for the purpose of speaking, then it would be a cause of dissension, because they want so much to always speak or teach or to not keep another from speaking regarding things which others were likely being thrown into confusion. Therefore, the holy Spirit does not compel man to speak. “The God of peace and life will be with you, etc..”11 But nevertheless because to this point one is able to object that he was not doing this, that he only mandated with those which he refers specifically to and not to other Churches, from which place also it can appear as an annoyance, therefore the Apostle supplies this is not only to them but also to be taught in every Church. And this is what he says, “as also I teach in all the churches of the saints, ”12 specifically about the use of tongues and prophecy. (See I Corinthians 1:10) “that you all speak the same thing.”■
This is the last significant reference to the doctrine of tongues in I Corinthians 14. Therefore, the rest of the chapter has been left untranslated.
A translation of Thomas Aquinas on I Corinthians 14:23 — 26 from the Latin into contemporary English.
Translated from the Latin text: Reportationes 088 R1C cp 14 Pg. 389ff lc5
I Corinthians 14:23 – 26
A gloss suggests that perhaps in this place a different reason commences for making clear the purpose. But according to what has been written, it is not, except for one reason which has been settled and as it were, he is in the middle of his argument, namely that prophecy is more valuable than that to which the gift of tongues is ordained for. From which place he does two things in respect to this. With the first he demonstrates the divisiveness1 which follows to such an extent to the unbeliever by the gift of tongues. From which place it says, “However if all [speak in tongues]”. The falling-out2 which follows from the gift of tongues without prophecy applies as well to the unbeliever. It is because they are being reckoned of an unsound mind who thus speak only in tongues, though the gift of tongues is to be ordained for the conversion of unbelievers, as is already well known.
And this is what he says, “However if all [speak in tongues] etc.,”. as if he is saying, “it is well known from this place that tongues are not something that ought to be preferred to prophecy because,“if [the Church] comes together”, specifically all the believers, “in one”, not only in body but also with the mind, “and the multitude of believers was one heart, etc.,” (Acts 4:32) are to be speaking in tongues, to foreign letters,3 or they are speaking unfamiliar and not recognized things,4 and, as long as they speak in a disorderly way, “someone uneducated enters”5 that is he who does not understand except his own language or the “unbeliever” for the reason which tongues had been given, “will they not say this,” that they are saying as follows, “that you are mad?”6 In fact whoever is not being understood is being reckoned as mad. For if a language is being understood and nevertheless the things which they are saying are concealed, it is still bad if it they are not to be explained. Because those who remain confident of the heathens who were concealing things which they did in their ritual on account of their own shame, can believe of you if you speak in secret. And this too is something of madness.
A contrary argument. It is the same to speak in tongues and to speak clearly enunciating [the Latin words] 7 to such a degree for the uneducated. Since then everyone is to speak clearly enunciating in the Church, that all is being said in Latin. It appears that it is madness in the same way. One ought to say to this: Madness existed in the early Church on that account because they were unacquainted in the custom of the Church, consequently they were ignorant of what they should do here unless it was to be explained to them. But certainly in the present all have been educated. Although from this point everything is being spoken in Latin, they still know what is taking place in the Church.
Consequently when he says, “On the other hand, if all prophecy,” he shows what usefulness follows from the gift of prophecy, and in regards to this he does three things. First he shows what kind of thing follows through the usefulness of prophecy in reference to the unbeliever. With the second he shows how this is going to follow where it says, “For the secrets, etc.,” [v25]. Third, he adds what kind of effect is to come out of such an experience, where it says, “and so, falling down on his face, etc.,”8 Then he says it is well known that the unbelievers are not feeling convicted by the gift of tongues.
“if then…” but instead; if these who come together, “prophecy,” that is all are to speak for the purpose of being understood, whether they explain the Scriptures or likewise revelations to them that they are interpreting things which have been brought about. 9 I say all not at the same time, but one after another they ought to prophecy in such a way. “and there come in,”10 specifically [to] the Church, “anyone uneducated,”11 who does not have [the ability] except a mother tongue, this is good in respect to what follows after, because, “He is being convicted about some error,”12 which is being shown to him. “after you showed me, I am confused” (Jeremiah 31:19) 13 about everything which they prophecy. “He is judged by all,”14 as if he [Paul] is saying, the person is being shown the condemnation by his evil habits and sins.
“But the spiritual,”15 that is a teacher, 16“judges everything, etc.,” For these two things he values prophecy, namely for the purpose of establishing of faith and the instruction of character. Moreover, how is this good to follow from the gift of prophecy? 17 He supplies it when he says, “the secrets of [his] heart,” that is it can be understood in three ways. One way and this is to be literal, that some in the early Church possessed the gift, they theoretically knew the secrets of the hearts and the sins of man. Whereby it is read of Peter, (Acts 5:1ff) that he condemned Ananias about the falsified value of land. And according to this it is read, “the secrets,” that is his hidden sins, “they are made evident,” by those who show them.
In another way from this, wherein someone sometimes touches on many things in preaching that men carry in the heart, as it is well known in the books of the blessed Gregory, where it says anyone can discover almost every emotion of the heart, as if he is saying that they are being exposed because “the secrets of his heart,” that is those things that they carry in the heart. “As the faces of them that look therein, shine in the water, so the hearts of men are laid open to the wise.”18 (Proverbs 27:19) They are laid open, that is they are being touched by them. In another way, because other times that this is being said about the secret of the heart that it is an uncertain entity to anyone and cannot be authenticated by him.
And it is being read according to this, “the secrets of his heart,” that is secrets about something in his heart which things he was doubting and not believing, they are laid open, namely when one frequently goes to Church they are made open to him. Likewise, Augustine speaks about himself that he went to the Church only for the singing and yet in that place he was uncertain about many things and in regards to this, things which he did not come for, were laid open to him. In fact reverence was the outcome because having been proven guilty, he was revering God. And it is to this that [Paul] says, “And so the one falling down,” that it is from that then he was proven guilty of and clearly shown the secrets of his heart, “the one falling down on the face will adore God,”“and falling down they adored him,” (Matthew 2:11) in respect to which it is a sign of reverence. On the other hand about the obstinate ones, it is being read that they fall backwards. “The way of the wicked is darksome: they know not where they will fall,”19 (Proverbs 4:19). The true elect fall down on the face because it shows with whom he is being prostrated for, that it is a sign of reverence, “they praised the Lord, falling on their faces,” (Matthew 2:11 and Leviticus 9:24). “in His presence, the Ethiopians will prostrate,”20 and not only will he show reverence to God but also to the Church, because, “one who affirms,” ought to say that God is truly, “among you,” which you are prophesying in the Church. “We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.”21 (Zechariah 8:23).
Consequently, it appears that the gift of prophecy is useful in relation to the unbelievers.
“How is it then, brethren?”22 In this verse here he maps out for them in relation to the use of the gifts of speech. And in regards to this he does two things. With the first he shows in which way they ought to maintain themselves towards the use of these gifts. With the second he constructs the principal intent. Where it says, “Wherefore, brethren, be zealous to prophesy,” etc.,23 In regards to the first he does two things. With the first he shows how in an orderly manner they ought to maintain themselves in the use of the gifts of speech. With the second he expresses their presumption, where it says, “Or did the word [of God come out from you?] etc.”24 He does three things in regards to the first. With the first he shows how in general they personally are obligated to behave in all the gifts. With the second, how they personally must behave in respect to the gift of tongues. With the third, he shows how they personally must behave in respect to the gift of prophecy. Where it says, “Let two or three prophecy” etc.,25 He therefore says: to prophecy is better than to speak in tongues.
“How is it then, brethren,” should the speech be delivered? For this delivery in fact is to be applied: for instance, “When you come together,” it is obvious that one [person] does not have all the gifts and therefore it is not expected to be utilized in anyone of you all of the gifts, but to each one a gift which he specially receives from God and that it should be much better for the building up [of the Church].
“Every one of you have,” some special gift, “some have a psalm,”26 that is a song for the purpose of praising God’s name, or explains psalms. “He will lead me upon my high places [singing psalms],” (Habakkuk 3:19).
“Another has,” “a teaching,” that is he possesses public speaking for the purpose of building up character, or for an explanation and spiritual experience. “A man is known by his learning,”27 (Proverbs 12:18). Another has an apocalypse, that is a revelation, whether in dreams or in a vision by some means. “God is in heaven who reveals mysteries,” (Daniel 2:8).
“Some have a tongue,” that is the gift of tongues, or for the purpose of reading the prophets. 28“And they began to speak in various tongues, etc.,” (Acts 2:4).“Another interpretation,” (I Corinthians 12:10) “To others interpretation of speech,” etc., But these are being mapped out in such a way because either they are from solely from natural ability or they for the praise of God, and so he says, “has a psalm,” or for the instruction of a neighbour, and likewise says, “has a teaching.” If they are from God alone it follows in two ways: either they are inwardly hidden ones and says as follows, “has an apocalypse,” or externally hidden ones and he says as follows, “has a tongue.” And to the manifestation of these is a third, specifically, “interpretation,” and it must be done, “that all may be edified.”“Let every one of you please his neighbour unto good, to edification.” (Romans 15:2).■
A translation of Thomas Aquinas on I Corinthians 14:18 — 22 from the Latin into contemporary English.
Translated from the Latin text: Reportationes 088 R1C cp 14 Pg. 389 lc4
I Corinthians 14: 18 – 22
Ic4. This apostle shows the excellency of the gift of prophecy over the gift of tongues by the reasons which had been established on his own part. And concerning this he does two things: first he brings thanks concerning the gift of tongues which had been given to him by God. Secondly, he proposes himself as an example for them. Where it says, “But in the Church I wish, etc.,” He goes on to say, “I give thanks, etc.,” as if he was to say, “Therefore I do not despise the gift of tongues, because I say that the gift of prophecy is more excellent but [tongues] ought to be retaining a high value as well”. From which it says, “I give thanks, etc.,” Therefore it is about the one who is in the act of giving thanks. “In all things give thanks,”1 (I Thessalonians 5:18). Or “I give thanks,” as if he is trying to say, “Therefore I do not despise the gift of tongues, as if one who is lacking in it, but on the contrary I have it.” And therefore he says, “I give thanks, etc.,” and not that they were to understand that all were speaking in one language.2 He says, “I speak with all your tongues,”3“The Apostles were speaking in a variety of languages,”4 (Acts 2:4).
“But in the Church,” He sets himself here as an example, as if he is saying: “if I have the gift of tongues as you also [have], you ought to do that which I do.”“But I wish,” that is rather I wish, “to speak in the Church five,” that is only a few words, “words with my sense,” that is with understanding, namely that I should understand and be understood. And because of this, “that I may instruct others also: than ten thousand,”5 that it is in whatever great a number, “words in a tongue.,”6 , seeing that [this type of] speaking is not for understanding in whatever way it is going to be done, as explained above. They are saying something with respect to the reason he says, “five,” because the apostle seems to prefer that he would rather wish to say one prayer for the purpose of understanding than many without understanding. But prayer, according to the grammarians, in order for this having to make perfect sense, it must have five [things], namely the subject, predicate, copula verb, the determination of subject and predicate.7 To others it appears better for that reason because it ought to be spoken with understanding, in order that others may be taught. Therefore he asserts, “five,” because the teacher owes five, namely:
The nature of belief, “These things speak and exhort,”8 (Titus 2:15).
What one is compelled to do: “Go ye into the world, etc.,”.
What one is compelled to avoid, namely sins. “flee as if from the face of a snake, etc.,” (Ecclesiasticus 21:2), “show my people wickedness, etc.,” (Isaiah 58:1).
One must be about hope, namely the eternal reward. “of which salvation they have inquired, etc.,” (I Peter 1:10).
One must be about fear, namely the eternal punishments, “go, those who must speak evil, into the eternal fire, etc.,”9
“My brothers, do not be unwilling, etc.,” He shows here the excellency of the gift of prophecy over the gift of tongues, the reason having been established by the part of the unbelievers. He does two things in reference to this. First, he raises attention and answers those who have been attentive. Secondly he argues his proposition, where it says, “what is written in the Law?”10 According to the first the apostle seems to exclude the cloak11 of excuse belonging to anyone who for that reason teaches rude and superficial things as if they show themselves as one’s preferring to live in simplicity, and for that reason the ones who do not care about the details do not arrive at anything that relates to the matter of truth. These ones possess the word of the Lord for this, “unless you be converted, and become as little children, etc.,”12 (Matthew 18:3).
But the Apostle excludes this when he says, “do not become children in sense,”13 that is do not become that type who speaks and teaches childish, useless, and stupid things. See the previous (remark in I Corinthians 13:11), “when I was a child, etc.,”14 . But what must you do to become children? With affection, not with understanding. So he consequently says, “but in malice,”15 whereby it ought to be known that children lack in actively thinking about evil and thus for that reason we ought to become children. “but in malice be children,”16 and they are lacking in actively thinking about good, and so we ought not to be children, on the contrary, we ought to be perfect men. And so for that reason he says, “and in sense be perfect, etc.,”17 that is you were to be perfect to discern [between] good and evil. From which it says, “But strong meat is for the perfect, etc.,” (Hebrews 5:14). Therefore it is not to be praised in your simplicity which is being opposed to wisdom, but simplicity which is being opposed to cunning. And for that reason the Lord says, “be wise as serpents,” (Matthew 10:16). “But I would have you to be wise in good and simple in evil,” (Romans 16:19).
Consequently when he says, what is written in the Law?” he is arguing for a purpose. Whereby it ought to be noted this argument, as is well known by a gloss, it was being distinguished by many parts, but according to the intention of the apostle it did not seem that it was to be applied in this topic except for one reason. And his reason is for the purpose of showing that the gift of prophecy is more excellent than the gift of tongues. It is such as this – all that is more valuable to this over the other is ordained first and better than that other which has been ordained for this. But nevertheless, the gift of prophecy is ordained for the conversion of the unbeliever than the gift of tongues, yet the prophets are more valuable for this than the gift of tongues, therefore prophecy is better. 18
In respect to this reasoning he does two things: With the first he shows the gift of tongues and the gift of prophecy to what they are ordained for. Secondly he shows that the gift of prophecy is more valuable when it says, “if then the whole [Church], etc.,” in respect to the first he does two things. With the first he introduces authority.
With the second he argues by reason of authority at the proposition where it says, “wherefore tongues, etc.” In reference to the first it ought to be known that this is what he says, “what is written in the Law?”
It can be by the Law or by inquiry, as if he should say, “you ought not become children in senses but to be one who has become righteous,19 and this is to see and know the Law. From which place you are to be ones who have become righteous in senses, based on the fact that you know the Law, and in the Law, what is written about tongues? Some [tongues] are useless anytime for that to which they have been ordained, but clearly if I should speak in diverse tongues, specifically in the [tongue of the] people of the Jews, nevertheless man does not hear, etc.
It can be by the remissive Law,20“what is written in the Law?” as if he is saying: “Refuse to be moved like children for something which is to be eagerly desired who do not discern either the good or the not so good. It should be that you eagerly strive and consequently should prefer the better good but be as ones who have become perfect in the senses, that is you should be able to discern between the good and the greater good and eagerly strive in such a way.
And this happens, if you think what is written in the law, “seeing that in other [tongues and other lips], etc.,” [along with the verse] (Wisdom 6:16), “To think, therefore, upon her, is perfect understanding”.21 And he says, “in the Law?” one must not accept the Law strictly as the five Books of Moses only, as it states, “that all things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, etc.,”22 (Luke 24:44) but for the whole Old Testament, as it states, “But that the word may be fulfilled which is written in their law: they hated me without cause.”23 (John 15:25). This is written yet in Psalms 24:19.24
This authority is received from Isaiah 28:11 where our account has, “In the utterance of speech and in other languages he will speak to this particular people.” This then is written [in I Corinthians 14:21]: “In such other languages,” that is in the diverse kinds languages, and “in speech,” that is in the diverse idioms and ways [a language] is able to be pronounced, “I will speak to this people,” namely to the Jew, this was a sign specifically given for the conversion of the Jewish people. “and neither so will they hear,”25 because in fact they did not believe in the sign which had been seen. “Blind the heart of this people, etc.”26 (Isaiah 6:10).
But why did God give them a sign if they were not destined to be converted? There are two reasons. One reason is because although not all were converted, nevertheless some were. “For the Lord did not cast away His people, etc.”27 Another reason is for the purpose that their damnation to appear more just, until their wickedness appears more clearly. “If I had not come and spoken to them, [they would not have sin: but now they have no excuse for their sin.] etc.”28 (John 15:22).
Consequently when he says, “Therefore tongues, etc.” He proves with reason for the proposition by the authority which had been introduced as if he is to say, “by this it is clearly shown that the gift of tongues had been given.“Not for believers for the purpose of believing, because they already believe.”29“Not according to your speech, [that we believe] etc.,” (John 4:42)30 but for the unbelievers, that they be converted.
On the other hand two explanations are set by Ambrose in this place in a gloss, which are not literal ones.31 One of which is that which he may be saying, like in the Old Testament I spoke to the Jewish people through tongues, that is through figures of speech, and through the lips, that is temporal good things32 to [the Jews] whom the promise is going to be acted on, so, until now in the New Testament, I speak also “in other lips”, that is in spiritual things, nor yet will they heed me in such a way, namely in reference to their multitude.33
Therefore tongues have been given “not for believers but unbelievers” for the purpose of making specifically evident their unbelief.
The other [the second reason given by the gloss] is “in other tongues”, that is obscure and allegorical, “I speak” because they are unworthy. “They will not heed [me says the Lord]”, that is they will not understand. As a result he shows for what purpose prophecy is ordained to be, namely for the instruction of the faithful ones who already believe. “Prophecies which have been given are…”34“not for the unfaithful ones, who do not believe.”“Lord, who has believed our report?” (Isaiah 53:1) but for the faithful ones, that they believe and may be instructed. “Son of man, I have made you a special envoy, etc.,” (Ezekiel 3:17)35“When prophecy would have failed, etc., the people will be scattered.”36■