St. Thomas Aquinas
excerpts
from
SUMMA THEOLOGICA
from the Christian
Classics Etherial Library website.
THE SECOND PART OF THE SECOND PART
QUESTION 176
OF THE GRACE OF TONGUES (TWO ARTICLES)
We must now consider
those gratuitous graces that pertain to speech, and (1) the grace of
tongues; (2) the grace of the word of wisdom and knowledge. Under the first
head there are two points of inquiry:
(1)
Whether by the grace of tongues a man acquires the knowledge of all
languages?
(2) Of
the comparison between this gift and the grace of prophecy.
__________________________________________________________________
Article 1. Whether those who received the gift of tongues spoke in every
language?
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 Mat. 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 [*Vulg.: 'When
they shall rush in unto Jacob,' etc.] . . . 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."
__________________________________________________________________
Article 2. Whether the gift of tongues is more excellent than the grace of
prophecy?
Objection 1: It
would seem that the gift of tongues is more excellent than the grace of
prophecy. For, seemingly, better things are proper to better persons,
according to the Philosopher (Topic. iii, 1). Now the gift of tongues is
proper to the New Testament, hence we sing in the sequence of Pentecost
[*The sequence: 'Sancti Spiritus adsit nobis gratia' ascribed to King Robert
of France, the reputed author of the 'Veni Sancte Spiritus.' Cf. Migne, Patr.
Lat. tom. CXLI]: "On this day Thou gavest Christ's apostles an unwonted
gift, a marvel to all time": whereas prophecy is more pertinent to the Old
Testament, according to Heb. 1:1, "God Who at sundry times and in divers
manners spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets." Therefore it
would seem that the gift of tongues is more excellent than the gift of
prophecy.
Objection 2: Further,
that whereby we are directed to God is seemingly more excellent than that
whereby we are directed to men. Now, by the gift of tongues, man is directed
to God, whereas by prophecy he is directed to man; for it is written (1 Cor.
14:2,3): "He that speaketh in a tongue, speaketh not unto men, but unto God
. . . but he that prophesieth, speaketh unto men unto edification."
Therefore it would seem that the gift of tongues is more excellent than the
gift of prophecy.
Objection 3: Further,
the gift of tongues abides like a habit in the person who has it, and "he
can use it when he will"; wherefore it is written (1 Cor. 14:18): "I thank
my God I speak with all your tongues." But it is not so with the gift of
prophecy, as stated above ([3733]Q[171], A[2]). Therefore the gift of
tongues would seem to be more excellent than the gift of prophecy.
Objection 4: Further,
the "interpretation of speeches" would seem to be contained under prophecy,
because the Scriptures are expounded by the same Spirit from Whom they
originated. Now the interpretation of speeches is placed after "divers kinds
of tongues" (1 Cor. 12:10). Therefore it seems that the gift of tongues is
more excellent than the gift of prophecy, particularly as regards a part of
the latter.
On the contrary,
The Apostle says (1 Cor. 14:5): "Greater is he that prophesieth than he
that speaketh with tongues."
I answer that, The
gift of prophecy surpasses the gift of tongues, in three ways. First,
because the gift of tongues regards the utterance of certain words, which
signify an intelligible truth, and this again is signified by the phantasms
which appear in an imaginary vision; wherefore Augustine compares (Gen. ad
lit. xii, 8) the gift of tongues to an imaginary vision. On the other hand,
it has been stated above ([3734]Q[173], A[2]) that the gift of prophecy
consists in the mind itself being enlightened so as to know an intelligible
truth. Wherefore, as the prophetic enlightenment is more excellent than the
imaginary vision, as stated above ([3735]Q[174], A[2]), so also is prophecy
more excellent than the gift of tongues considered in itself. Secondly,
because the gift of prophecy regards the knowledge of things, which is more
excellent than the knowledge of words, to which the gift of tongues
pertains.
Thirdly, because the
gift of prophecy is more profitable. The Apostle proves this in three ways
(1 Cor. 14); first, because prophecy is more profitable to the edification
of the Church, for which purpose he that speaketh in tongues profiteth
nothing, unless interpretation follow (1 Cor. 14:4,5). Secondly, as regards
the speaker himself, for if he be enabled to speak in divers tongues without
understanding them, which pertains to the gift of prophecy, his own mind
would not be edified (1 Cor. 14:7-14). Thirdly, as to unbelievers for whose
especial benefit the gift of tongues seems to have been given; since
perchance they might think those who speak in tongues to be mad (1 Cor.
14:23), for instance the Jews deemed the apostles drunk when the latter
spoke in various tongues (Acts 2:13): whereas by prophecies the unbeliever
is convinced, because the secrets of his heart are made manifest (Acts
2:25).
Reply to Objection 1:
As stated above ([3736]Q[174], A[3], ad 1), it belongs to the excellence of
prophecy that a man is not only enlightened by an intelligible light, but
also that he should perceive an imaginary vision: and so again it belongs to
the perfection of the Holy Ghost's operation, not only to fill the mind with
the prophetic light, and the imagination with the imaginary vision, as
happened in the Old Testament, but also to endow the tongue with external
erudition, in the utterance of various signs of speech. All this is done in
the New Testament, according to 1 Cor. 14:26, "Every one of you hath a
psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation," i.e. a prophetic
revelation.
Reply to Objection 2:
By the gift of prophecy man is directed to God in his mind, which is more
excellent than being directed to Him in his tongue. "He that speaketh in a
tongue "is said to speak "not unto men," i.e. to men's understanding or
profit, but unto God's understanding and praise. On the other hand, by
prophecy a man is directed both to God and to man; wherefore it is the more
perfect gift.
Reply to Objection 3:
Prophetic revelation extends to the knowledge of all things supernatural;
wherefore from its very perfection it results that in this imperfect state
of life it cannot be had perfectly by way of habit, but only imperfectly by
way of passion. on the other hand, the gift of tongues is confined to a
certain particular knowledge, namely of human words; wherefore it is not
inconsistent with the imperfection of this life, that it should be had
perfectly and by way of habit.
Reply to Objection 4:
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, according to Dan. 5:16, "I have heard of thee, that thou
canst interpret obscure things, and resolve difficult things." Hence the
interpretation of speeches is more excellent than the gift of tongues, as
appears from the saying of the Apostle (1 Cor. 14:5), "Greater is he that
prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues; unless perhaps he
interpret." Yet the interpretation of speeches is placed after the gift of
tongues, because the interpretation of speeches extends even to the
interpretation of divers kinds of tongues.
__________________________________________________________________
