|
Objection 1: It would seem that Paul, when in rapture, was not
withdrawn from his senses. For Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii,
28): "Why should we not believe that when so great an apostle,
the teacher of the gentiles, was rapt to this most sublime vision,
God was willing to vouchsafe him a glimpse of that eternal life which
is to take the place of the present life?" Now in that future life
after the resurrection the saints will see the Divine essence without
being withdrawn from the senses of the body. Therefore neither did
such a withdrawal take place in Paul.
Objection 2: Further, Christ was truly a wayfarer, and also
enjoyed an uninterrupted vision of the Divine essence, without,
however, being withdrawn from His senses. Therefore there was no
need for Paul to be withdrawn from his senses in order for him to see
the essence of God.
Objection 3: Further, after seeing God in His essence, Paul
remembered what he had seen in that vision; hence he said (2 Cor.
12:4): "He heard secret words, which it is not granted to man
to utter." Now the memory belongs to the sensitive faculty according
to the Philosopher (De Mem. et Remin. i). Therefore it seems
that Paul, while seeing the essence of God, was not withdrawn from
his senses.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 27):
"Unless a man in some way depart this life, whether by going
altogether out of his body or by turning away and withdrawing from his
carnal senses, so that he truly knows not as the Apostle said,
whether he be in the body or out of the body, he is not rapt and caught
up into that vision."
I answer that, The Divine essence cannot be seen by man through any
cognitive power other than the intellect. Now the human intellect does
not turn to intelligible objects except by means of the phantasms
[FP, Question 84, Article 7] which it takes from the senses
through the intelligible species; and it is in considering these
phantasms that the intellect judges of and coordinates sensible
objects. Hence in any operation that requires abstraction of the
intellect from phantasms, there must be also withdrawal of the
intellect from the senses. Now in the state of the wayfarer it is
necessary for man's intellect, if it see God's essence, to be
withdrawn from phantasms. For God's essence cannot be seen by means
of a phantasm, nor indeed by any created intelligible species [FP,
Question 12, Article 2], since God's essence infinitely
transcends not only all bodies, which are represented by phantasms,
but also all intelligible creatures. Now when man's intellect is
uplifted to the sublime vision of God's essence, it is necessary that
his mind's whole attention should be summoned to that purpose in such a
way that he understand naught else by phantasms, and be absorbed
entirely in God. Therefore it is impossible for man while a wayfarer
to see God in His essence without being withdrawn from his senses.
Reply to Objection 1: As stated above (Article 3, Objection
2), after the resurrection, in the blessed who see God in His
essence, there will be an overflow from the intellect to the lower
powers and even to the body. Hence it is in keeping with the rule
itself of the divine vision that the soul will turn towards phantasms
and sensible objects. But there is no such overflow in those who are
raptured, as stated (Article 3, Objection 2, ad 2), and
consequently the comparison fails.
Reply to Objection 2: The intellect of Christ's soul was
glorified by the habit of the light of glory, whereby He saw the
Divine essence much more fully than an angel or a man. He was,
however, a wayfarer on account of the passibility of His body, in
respect of which He was "made a little lower than the angels"
(Heb. 2:9), by dispensation, and not on account of any defect
on the part of His intellect. Hence there is no comparison between
Him and other wayfarers.
Reply to Objection 3: Paul, after seeing God in His essence,
remembered what he had known in that vision, by means of certain
intelligible species that remained in his intellect by way of habit;
even as in the absence of the sensible object, certain impressions
remain in the soul which it recollects when it turns to the phantasms.
And so this was the knowledge that he was unable wholly to think over
or express in words.
|
|