|
Objection 1: It seems that those who received the gift of tongues
did not speak in every language. For that which is granted to certain
persons by the divine power is the best of its kind: thus our Lord
turned the water into good wine, as stated in Jn. 2:10. Now
those who had the gift of tongues spoke better in their own language;
since a gloss on Heb. 1, says that "it is not surprising that the
epistle to the Hebrews is more graceful in style than the other
epistles, since it is natural for a man to have more command over his
own than over a strange language. For the Apostle wrote the other
epistles in a foreign, namely the Greek, idiom; whereas he wrote
this in the Hebrew tongue." Therefore the apostles did not receive
the knowledge of all languages by a gratuitous grace.
Objection 2: Further, nature does not employ many means where one
is sufficient; and much less does God Whose work is more orderly than
nature's. Now God could make His disciples to be understood by
all, while speaking one tongue: hence a gloss on Acts 2:6,
"Every man heard them speak in his own tongue," says that "they
spoke in every tongue, or speaking in their own, namely the Hebrew
language, were understood by all, as though they spoke the language
proper to each." Therefore it would seem that they had not the
knowledge to speak in all languages.
Objection 3: Further, all graces flow from Christ to His body,
which is the Church, according to Jn. 1:16, "Of His fullness
we all have received." Now we do not read that Christ spoke more
than one language, nor does each one of the faithful now speak save in
one tongue. Therefore it would seem that Christ's disciples did not
receive the grace to the extent of speaking in all languages.
On the contrary, It is written (Acts 2:4) that "they were all
filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers
tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak"; on which
passage a gloss of Gregory [Hom. xxx in Ev.] says that "the
Holy Ghost appeared over the disciples under the form of fiery
tongues, and gave them the knowledge of all tongues."
I answer that, Christ's first disciples were chosen by Him in order
that they might disperse throughout the whole world, and preach His
faith everywhere, according to Mt. 28:19, "Going . . .
teach ye all nations." Now it was not fitting that they who were
being sent to teach others should need to be taught by others, either
as to how they should speak to other people, or as to how they were to
understand those who spoke to them; and all the more seeing that those
who were being sent were of one nation, that of Judea, according to
Is. 27:6, "When they shall rush out from Jacob . . . they
shall fill the face of the world with seed." Moreover those who were
being sent were poor and powerless; nor at the outset could they have
easily found someone to interpret their words faithfully to others, or
to explain what others said to them, especially as they were sent to
unbelievers. Consequently it was necessary, in this respect, that
God should provide them with the gift of tongues; in order that, as
the diversity of tongues was brought upon the nations when they fell
away to idolatry, according to Gn. 11, so when the nations were to
be recalled to the worship of one God a remedy to this diversity might
be applied by the gift of tongues.
Reply to Objection 1: As it is written (1 Cor. 12:7),
"the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit";
and consequently both Paul and the other apostles were divinely
instructed in the languages of all nations sufficiently for the
requirements of the teaching of the faith. But as regards the grace
and elegance of style which human art adds to a language, the Apostle
was instructed in his own, but not in a foreign tongue. Even so they
were sufficiently instructed in wisdom and scientific knowledge, as
required for teaching the faith, but not as to all things known by
acquired science, for instance the conclusions of arithmetic and
geometry.
Reply to Objection 2: Although either was possible, namely that,
while speaking in one tongue they should be understood by all, or that
they should speak in all tongues, it was more fitting that they should
speak in all tongues, because this pertained to the perfection of their
knowledge, whereby they were able not only to speak, but also to
understand what was said by others. Whereas if their one language were
intelligible to all, this would either have been due to the knowledge
of those who understood their speech, or it would have amounted to an
illusion, since a man's words would have had a different sound in
another's ears, from that with which they were uttered. Hence a
gloss says on Acts 2:6 that "it was a greater miracle that they
should speak all kinds of tongues"; and Paul says (1 Cor.
14:18): "I thank my God I speak with all your tongues."
Reply to Objection 3: Christ in His own person purposed preaching
to only one nation, namely the Jews. Consequently, although without
any doubt He possessed most perfectly the knowledge of all languages,
there was no need for Him to speak in every tongue. And therefore,
as Augustine says (Tract. xxxii in Joan.), "whereas even now
the Holy Ghost is received, yet no one speaks in the tongues of all
nations, because the Church herself already speaks the languages of
all nations: since whoever is not in the Church, receives not the
Holy Ghost."
|
|