Evacuate quae erant parvuli
Put away childish things
13:8 Caritas numquam excidit: sive prophetiae evacuabuntur, sive linguae cessabunt, sive scientia destruetur. [n. 786]
13:8 Charity never falls away: whether prophecies shall be made void or tongues shall cease or knowledge shall be destroyed. [n. 786]
13:9 Ex parte enim cognoscimus, et ex parte prophetamus. [n. 792]
13:9 For we know in part: and we prophesy in part. [n. 792]
13:10 Cum autem venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est. [n. 794]
13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. [n. 794]
13:11 Cum essem parvulus, loquebar ut parvulus, sapiebam ut parvulus, cogitabam ut parvulus. Quando autem factus sum vir, evacuavi quae erant parvuli. [n. 796]
13:11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child. [n. 796]
786. Postquam Apostolus ostendit quod caritas excellit alia dona Spiritus Sancti necessitate et fructuositate, hic ostendit excellentiam caritatis ad alia dona quantum ad permanentiam.
786. After showing that charity excels the other gifts of the Holy Spirit by reason of need and fruitfulness, the Apostle now shows the excellence of charity over the other gifts in regard to permanence.
Et circa hoc tria facit.
In regard to this he does three things:
Primo proponit differentiam caritatis ad alia dona Spiritus Sancti, quantum ad permanentiam;
first, he mentions the difference between charity and other gifts of the Holy Spirit as to permanence;
secundo probat quod dixerat, ibi ex parte enim cognoscimus, etc.;
second, he proves what he had said, at for we know in part;
tertio infert conclusionem intentam, ibi nunc autem manent, et cetera.
third, he draws the intended conclusion, at and now there remain faith (1 Cor 13:13).
Circa primum duo facit.
In regard to the first he does two things:
Primo proponit permanentiam caritatis;
first, he declares the permanence of charity;
secundo cessationem aliorum donorum, ibi sive prophetiae, et cetera.
second, the cessation of other gifts, at whether prophecies.
787. Dicit ergo primo caritas numquam excidit. Quod quidem male intelligentes, in errorem ceciderunt, dicentes, quod caritas semel habita, numquam potest amitti, cui videtur consonare quod dicitur I Io. III, v. 9: omnis qui natus est ex Deo, peccatum non facit, quoniam semen ipsius in eo manet.
787. First, therefore, he says: charity never falls away. Some, indeed, have misunderstood this and fallen into error, saying that charity once possessed can never be lost. This opinion seems to be consistent with what is said: no one born of God commits sin, because his seed remains in him (1 John 3:9).
Sed huius dicti primo quidem sententia falsa est. Potest enim aliquis caritatem habens, a caritate excidere per peccatum, secundum illud Apoc. II, 4 s.: caritatem tuam primam reliquisti. Memor esto itaque unde excideris, et age poenitentiam. Et hoc ideo est, quia caritas recipitur in anima hominis secundum modum ipsius, ut scilicet possit ea uti, vel non uti. Dum vero ea utitur homo, peccare non potest: quia usus caritatis est dilectio Dei super omnia, et ideo nihil restat propter quod homo Deum offendat. Et per hunc modum intelligitur verbum Ioannis inductum.
But this opinion is false, because someone possessing charity can fall away from it by sin: you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember, then, from what you have fallen, and do penance (Rev 2:4). This is so, because charity is received in a man’s soul according to his mode, namely, that he can use it or not. But as long as he uses it, a man cannot sin; because the use of charity is loving God above all things, and nothing remains for the sake of which a man should offend God. And this is the way John’s quoted statement is understood.
Secundo, praedicta sententia non est secundum intentionem Apostoli, quia non loquitur hic de cessatione donorum spiritualium, per peccatum mortale, sed potius de cessatione donorum spiritualium, quae pertinent ad hanc vitam per gloriam supervenientem. Unde sensus Apostoli est caritas numquam excidit, quia scilicet sicut est in statu viae, ita permanebit in statu patriae et cum augmento, secundum illud Is. XXXI, 9: dixit Dominus cuius ignis est in Sion, scilicet in Ecclesia militante et caminus eius in Ierusalem, id est in pace caelestis patriae.
Second, the quotation cited is not in accord with the Apostle’s intention, because he is not speaking here about the cessation of spiritual gifts through mortal sin, but rather about the cessation of spiritual gifts which pertain to this life through supervening glory. Hence, the sense of the Apostle is that charity never falls away, namely, because just as it exists in the state toward heaven, so it will remain in the state of glory and with increase: says the Lord, whose fire is in Zion (Isa 31:9), i.e., in the Church Militant, and whose furnace is in Jerusalem, i.e., in the peace of the heavenly fatherland.
788. Deinde cum dicit sive prophetiae, etc., proponit cessationem aliorum donorum spiritualium, et specialiter eorum quae praecipua videntur.
788. Then when he says, whether prophecies, he sets forth the cessation of other spiritual gifts, and especially of those which seem principal.
Primo quantum ad prophetiam, dicit sive prophetiae evacuabuntur, id est cessabunt, quia scilicet in futura gloria prophetia locum non habebit, propter duo. Primo quidem quia prophetia respicit futurum, status autem ille non expectabit aliquid in futurum, sed erit finale complementum omnium eorum quae ante fuerant prophetata. Unde in Ps. XLVII, v. 9 dicitur: sicut audivimus, scilicet per prophetas, ita et vidimus, praesentialiter, in civitate Domini virtutum.
First as to prophecy he says, whether prophecies shall be made void, i.e., will cease, namely, because in future glory prophecy will have no place for two reasons: first, because prophecy regards the future; but that state does not await anything in the future, but will be the final completion of everything previously foretold. Hence it is said: as we have heard, namely, through the prophets, so have we seen in the city of our God (Ps 48:9).
Secundo quia prophetia est cum cognitione figurali et aenigmatica, quae cessabit in patria. Unde dicitur Num. XII, 6: si quis fuerit inter vos propheta Domini, per somnium aut in visione apparebo ei, vel per somnium loquar ad illum. Et Osee XII, 10: in manibus prophetarum assimilatus sum.
Second, because prophecy occurs with figurative and enigmatic knowledge, which will cease in heaven: if there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, will make myself known to him in a vision, I will speak with him in a dream (Num 12:6); it was I who multiplied visions and through the prophets gave parables (Hos 12:10).
789. Secundo quantum ad donum linguarum, dicit sive linguae cessabunt. Quod quidem non est intelligendum quantum ad ipsa membra corporea, quae linguae dicuntur, ut dicitur infra XV, 52: mortui resurgent incorrupti, id est, absque diminutione membrorum. Neque autem intelligendum est quantum ad usum linguae corporeae. Est enim futura in patria laus vocalis, secundum illud Ps. CXLIX, 6: exultationes Dei in gutture eorum, ut Glossa ibidem exponit.
789. Second, as to the gift of tongues he says: or tongues shall cease. This is not to be understood of the bodily members called tongues, as it says below: the dead shall rise again incorruptible (1 Cor 15:52), i.e., without loss of members. Nor is it to be understood of the use of the bodily tongue. For in heaven there will be vocal praise: let the high praises of God be in their throats (Ps 149:6), as a Gloss explains.
Est ergo intelligendum quantum ad donum linguarum, quo scilicet aliqui in primitiva Ecclesia linguis variis loquebantur, ut dicitur Act. II, 4. In futura enim gloria, quilibet quamlibet linguam intelliget. Unde non erit necessarium variis linguis loqui. Nam etiam a primordio generis humani, ut dicitur Gen. c. XI, 1: unus erat sermo, et unum labium omnibus, quod multo magis erit in ultimo statu, in quo erit unitas consummata.
Therefore, it must be understood of the gift of tongues, by which some in the early Church spoke in various tongues (Acts 2:4). For in future glory each one will understand each tongue. Hence, it will not be necessary to speak in various tongues. For even from the beginning of the human race, as it is said: the whole earth had one language and few words (Gen 11:1), which will be more true in the final state, in which there will be complete unity.
790. Tertio quantum ad scientiam, subdit: sive scientia destruetur. Ex quo quidam accipere voluerunt quod scientia acquisita totaliter perditur cum corpore.
790. Third, as to knowledge he adds: or knowledge shall be destroyed. From this some have wanted to suppose that acquired knowledge is totally destroyed with the body.
Ad cuius veritatis inquisitionem considerare oportet, quod duplex est vis cognitiva, scilicet vis sensitiva et vis intellectiva. Inter quas est differentia, quia vis sensitiva est actus organi corporalis, et ideo necesse est quod desinat corpore corrupto; vis autem intellectiva non est actus alicuius organi corporei, ut probatur in III de Anima, et ideo necesse est quod maneat corpore corrupto. Si ergo aliquid scientiae acquisitae conservetur in parte animae intellectivae, necesse est quod id permaneat post mortem.
To investigate the truth it is necessary to consider that the cognitive power is twofold, namely, the sensitive power and the intellective. Between these there is a difference, because the sensitive power is the act of an organic power and therefore ceases to be, when the body dies; but the intellective power is not the act of any bodily organ, as is proved in On the Soul III, and therefore, it must remain when the body dies. Therefore, if any acquired knowledge is preserved in the intellective part of the soul, it must remain after death.
791. Quidam ergo posuerunt quod species intelligibiles non conservantur in intellectu possibili, nisi quamdiu intelligit. Conservantur autem species phantasmatum in potentiis animae sensitivae, puta in memorativa et imaginativa; ita scilicet quod semper intellectus possibilis quando de novo vult intelligere, etiam quae prius intellexit, indiget abstrahere a phantasmatibus per lumen intellectus agentis, et secundum hoc consequens est quod scientia hic acquisita non remaneat post mortem.
791. Some, therefore, have supposed that the intelligible species are not conserved in the possible intellect except as long as it is understanding. But the species of the phantasms are conserved in the powers of the sensitive soul; for example in the memory or the imagination, in such a way that when the possible intellect wants to think of something anew, even things it previously understood, it always needs to abstract from the phantasms by the light of the active intellect. Therefore, according to this the consequence is that knowledge acquired here does not remain after death.
Sed haec positio est primo quidem contra rationem. Manifestum est enim quod species intelligibiles in intellectu possibili recipiuntur ad minus dum actu intelligit. Quod autem recipitur in aliquo, est in eo per modum recipientis. Cum ergo substantia intellectus possibilis sit immutabilis et fixa, consequens est, quod species intelligibiles remaneant in eo immobiliter.
But this position is, of course, against reason. For it is obvious that the intelligible species in the possible intellect are received at least while it is actually understanding. But whatever is received in something exists in it after the manner of the recipient. Therefore, since the substance of the possible intellect is fixed and unchangeable, the consequence is that the intelligible species remain in it unchangeably.
Secundo est contra auctoritatem Aristotelis in III de Anima, qui dicit quod cum intellectus possibilis est sciens unumquodque, tunc etiam est intelligens in potentia. Et sic patet quod habet species intelligibiles per quas dicitur sciens, et tamen adhuc est in potentia ad intelligendum in actu, et ita species intelligibiles sunt in intellectu possibili, etiam quando non intelligit actu. Unde etiam, ibidem, Philosophus dicit, quod anima intellectiva est locus specierum, quia scilicet in ea conservantur species intelligibiles.
Second, it is against the authority of Aristotle in On the Soul III, who says that when the possible intellect is knowing anything, then also it is understanding in potency. And so it is clear that it has an intelligible species, through which it is said to be knowing, and yet it is still in potency to understanding in act, and so the intelligible species are in the possible intellect, even when it is not actually understanding. Hence the Philosopher says that the intellective soul is the locus of the species, namely, because the intelligible species are conserved in it.
Indiget tamen in hac vita convertere se ad phantasmata, ad hoc quod actu intelligat, non solum ut abstrahat species a phantasmatibus, sed etiam ut species habitas phantasmatibus applicet: cuius signum est quod laeso organo virtutis imaginativae, vel etiam memorativae, non solum impeditur homo ab acquisitione novae scientiae, sed etiam ab usu scientiae prius habitae.
Yet it needs to refer to the phantasms in this life in order actually to understand, not only to abstract species from the phantasms but also to apply the species it has to the phantasms. The sign of this is that if the organ of the imagination or even of the memory is injured, a man is not only prevented from acquiring new knowledge, but also from the use of knowledge previously possessed.
Sic ergo remanet scientia in anima post corporis mortem, quantum ad species intelligibiles, non autem quantum ad inspectionem phantasmatum, quibus anima separata non indigebit, habens esse et operationem absque corporis communione.
Thus, therefore, knowledge remains in the soul after the death of the body as to the intelligible species, but not as to inspecting phantasms, which the separated soul does not need, since it has existence and activity without union with the body.
Et secundum hoc Apostolus hic dicit, quod scientia destruetur, scilicet secundum conversionem ad phantasmata. Unde et Is. XXIX, v. 14 dicitur: peribit sapientia a sapientibus, et intellectus prudentium eius abscondetur.
And according to this the Apostle says here that knowledge is destroyed, namely, according to referring to phantasms: hence, is is said: the wisdom of their wise men shall perish (Isa 29:14).
792. Deinde cum dicit ex parte enim cognoscimus, probat quod dixerat: et
792. Then when he says: for we know in part, he proves what he had said:
primo inducit probationem;
first, he presents a proof;
secundo manifestat ea, quae in probatione continentur, ibi cum essem parvulus, et cetera.
second, he clarifies things contained in the proof, at when I was a child.
793. Inducit ergo primo ad probandum propositum talem rationem: adveniente perfecto cessat imperfectum; sed dona alia praeter caritatem habent imperfectionem; ergo cessabunt superveniente perfectione gloriae.
793. To prove the proposition he presents this proof: when the perfect comes, the imperfect ceases; but gifts other than charity have imperfection. Therefore, they will cease, when the perfection of glory triumphs.
Primo ergo proponit minorem propositionem quo ad imperfectionem scientiae, cum dicit ex parte enim cognoscimus, id est imperfecte. Nam pars habet rationem imperfecti. Et hoc praecipue verificatur quantum ad cognitionem Dei, secundum illud Iob XXXVI, v. 26: ecce Deus magnus vincens scientiam nostram; et XXVI, 14: ecce haec ex parte dicta sunt viarum eius.
First, therefore, he proposes the minor proposition referring to the imperfection of knowledge, when he says: for we know in part, i.e., imperfectly. For a part has the nature of something imperfect. And this is especially true in regard to knowledge of God: behold, God is great, and we know him not (Job 36:26); behold, these are not but the outskirts of his ways (Job 26:14).
Proponit etiam imperfectionem prophetiae, cum subdit et ex parte id est imperfecte, prophetamus. Est enim prophetia cognitio cum imperfectione, ut dictum est. Tacet autem de dono linguarum, quod est imperfectius his duobus, ut infra XIV, 2 patebit.
He also proposes the imperfection of prophecy, when he adds: and we prophesy in part, i.e., imperfectly. For prophecy is knowledge with imperfection, as has been said. But he is silent about the gift of tongues, which is more imperfect than these two, as will be shown (1 Cor 14:2).