447. Tertio videamus fastigium visionis, quod quidem est excellens, quia raptus usque ad tertium caelum. 447. Third, let us see the high point of the vision, because he was caught up to the third heaven. Sed sciendum quod aliud est furari et aliud rapi. Furari quidem proprie est, cum res alicui latenter aufertur. Unde Gen. XL, 15 dicebat Ioseph: furtim sublatus sum. Sed rapi proprie dicitur quod subito et per violentiam aufertur. Iob VI, 15: sicut torrens raptim, id est subito et rapide, transit in convallibus. Inde est quod praedones, qui violenter expoliant, dicuntur raptores. But it should be noted that it is one thing to be the victim of thievery and another to be rapt. Properly speaking, the former takes place when something is taken away from another in a secret way, hence, Joseph said: for I was indeed stolen out of the land of the Hebrews (Gen 40:13). A person is properly speaking rapt when something is taken suddenly and by force: as the torrent that passes swiftly, i.e., suddenly and rapidly, in the valleys (Job 6:15). Hence it is that plunderers who despoil violently are called ravagers. Sed attende quod aliquis homo dicitur rapi ab hominibus, sicut Enoch. Sap. IV, 11: raptus est, ne malitia, et cetera. Aliquando rapitur anima a corpore. Lc. XII, 20: stulte, hac nocte animam tuam, et cetera. Aliquando aliquis dicitur rapi a seipso, quando propter aliquid homo efficitur extra se ipsum, et hoc est idem quod extasis. But note that a man is said to be rapt from men, as Enoch: he was caught up lest evil change his understanding or guile deceive his soul (Wis 4:11); sometimes the soul is rapt from the body: fool! This night your soul is required of you (Luke 12:20). Sometimes a person is said to be rapt by himself, when for some reason he is made to be outside himself; and this is the same as ecstasy. Sed et extra se ipsum efficitur homo et per appetitivam virtutem et cognitivam. Per appetitivam enim virtutem homo est solum in se ipso, quando curat quae sunt sua tantum. Efficitur vero extra se ipsum, quando non curat quae sua sunt, sed quae perveniunt ad bona aliorum, et hoc facit caritas. I Cor. c. XIII, 4: caritas non quaerit quae sua sunt. Et de hac extasi dicit Dionysius, IV cap. de Divinis nominibus: est autem extasim faciens divinus amor non sinens amatorem sui ipsius esse, sed amatorum, scilicet rerum amatarum. But a man is made to be outside himself both by his appetitive power and by his cognitive power. For by the former a person is in himself, when he cares only for things that are his own; but he is made to be outside himself when he does not care about things that are his own, but about things that pertain to others; and this is the work of charity. Love does not insist on its own way (1 Cor 13:5). Concerning this ecstasy Dionysius says in The Divine Names 4: ecstasy is produced by divine love not permitting one to be a lover of self but of the beloved, i.e., of the things loved. Secundum cognitivam vero aliquis efficitur extra se, quando aliquis extra naturalem modum hominis elevatur ad aliquid videndum, et de isto raptu loquitur hic Apostolus. But a person is made to be outside himself according to the cognitive power when he is raised up above the human mode to see something. This is the rapture about which the Apostle is speaking here. 448. Sed sciendum quod modus naturalis humanae cognitionis est, ut cognoscat simul per vim mentalem quae est intellectus, et corporalem quae est sensus. Et inde est quod homo non habet in cognoscendo liberum iudicium intellectus, nisi quando sensus fuerint in suo vigore bene dispositi, absque aliquo ligationis impedimento, alias, cum impediuntur, etiam iudicium intellectus impeditur, sicut in dormientibus patet. 448. But it should be noted that a mode natural to human knowing is that a man know simultaneously with his mental power, which is the intellect, and with a bodily one, which is a sense. This is why a man in knowing has a free judgment of the intellect, when the senses are well disposed in their vigor and not hindered by a fettering, as happens during sleep. Tunc ergo homo efficitur extra se secundum cognitivam, quando removetur ab hac naturali dispositione cognitionis, quae est ut intellectus, ab usu sensuum et sensibilium rerum abstractus, ad aliqua videnda moveatur. Therefore a man is made to be outside himself when he is removed from this natural disposition for knowing, namely, when the intellect, being withdrawn from the use of the senses and sense-perceptible things, is moved to see certain things. Quod quidem contingit dupliciter, uno modo per defectum virtutis, undecumque talis defectus contingat, sicut accidit in phreneticis et aliis mente captis, et haec quidem abstractio a sensibus non est elevatio hominis, sed potius depressio, quia virtus eorum debilitatur. This occurs in two ways: first, by a lack of power, no matter how it is produced. This happens in phrenitis and other mental cases, so that this withdrawal from the senses is not a state of being elevated, but of being cast down, because their power has been weakened. Alio vero modo per virtutem divinam, et tunc proprie dicitur elevatio, quia cum agens assimilet sibi patiens, abstractio quae fit virtute divina et est supra hominem, est aliquid altius, quam sit hominis natura. But the other way is by divine power, and then it is, properly speaking, an elevation, because since the agent makes the thing it works on to be like itself, a withdrawal produced by divine power and above men is something higher than man’s nature. 449. Et ideo raptus, sic acceptus, diffinitur sic: raptus est ab eo quod est secundum naturam in id quod est supra naturam, vi superioris naturae, elevatio. In qua quidem definitione tangitur eius genus, dum dicitur elevatio; causa efficiens, quia vi superioris naturae; et duo termini motus, scilicet a quo et in quem, cum dicitur ab eo quod est secundum naturam, in id quod est supra naturam. Sic ergo patet de raptu. 449. Therefore, a rapture of this sort is defined as ‘an elevation from that which is according to nature into that which is above nature, produced in virtue of a higher nature.’ In this definition are mentioned its genus, when it is called an elevation; the efficient cause, because it is by the power of a higher nature; and the two termini of the change, namely, the terminus from which and into which, when it is described as being from that which is according to nature into what is above nature. Thus it is clear what rapture is. 450. Sequitur de termino raptus, scilicet ad quem, cum dicitur usque in tertium caelum. 450. Then he mentions the terminus reached by the rapture, when he says, to the third heaven. Notandum est autem, quod tertium caelum tripliciter accipitur. Uno modo secundum ea, quae sunt infra animam; alio modo secundum ea, quae sunt in anima; tertio modo secundum ea, quae sunt supra animam. But it should be noted that the third heaven is taken in three ways: in one way according to the things below the soul; in another way according to the things in the soul; and in a third way according to things above the soul. Infra animam sunt omnia corpora, ut dicit Augustinus in libro de Vera religione. Et sic possumus accipere triplex caelum corporeum, scilicet aereum, sydereum et Empyreum. Et hoc modo dicitur quod Apostolus erat raptus usque ad tertium caelum, id est usque ad videndum ea quae sunt in caelo Empyreo, non ut existeret ibi, quia sic sciret si fuisset sive in corpore, sive extra corpus. Vel secundum Damascenum, qui non ponit caelum Empyreum, possumus dicere quod tertium caelum, ad quod raptus est Apostolus, est supra octavam sphaeram, ut scilicet evidenter videret ea quae sunt supra totam naturam corporalem. Below the soul are all bodies, as Augustine says in the book On the True Religion (41.77). And so we can think of a threefold heaven: the ethereal, sidereal, and empyrean. In this way the Apostle is said to have been rapt to the third heaven, i.e., to see things in the empyrean heaven; not to exist there, because then he would have known whether he was in the body or out of the body. Or according to Damascene, who does not admit an empyrean heaven, we can say that the third heaven, to which the Apostle was rapt, is above the eighth sphere, so that he could clearly see the things which exist above all corporeal nature. 451. Si autem accipiamus caelum secundum ea, quae sunt in ipsa anima, sic caelum debemus dicere aliquam altitudinem cognitionis, quae excedit naturalem cognitionem humanam. 451. But if we take heaven according to the things in the soul itself, then we should call heaven some altitude of mind which transcends natural human knowledge. Est autem triplex visio, scilicet corporalis, per quam videmus et cognoscimus corporalia, sive imaginaria, qua videmus similitudines corporum, et intellectualis, qua cognoscimus naturas rerum in seipsis. Nam proprie obiectum intellectus est, quod quid est. Huiusmodi autem visiones, si fiant secundum naturalem modum, puta, si video aliquid sensibile, si imaginor aliquid prius visum, si intelligo per phantasmata, non possunt dici caelum. Now there are three kinds of sight, namely, bodily, by which we can see and know bodies; spiritual or imaginary, by which we see likenesses of bodies; and intellectual, by which we know the nature of things in themselves. For the proper object of the intellect is the what it is of things. But such a sight of things, if it takes place according to the natural mode (e.g., if I see something visible, if I imagine something previously seen, or if I understand through phantasms) cannot be called heaven. Sed tunc quaelibet istorum dicitur caelum, quando est supra naturalem facultatem humanae cognitionis, puta, si aliquid vides oculis corporalibus, supra facultatem naturae, sic es raptus ad primum caelum. Sicut Baltassar raptus est videns manum scribentis in pariete, ut dicitur Dan. V, 6. Si vero eleveris per imaginationem, vel per spiritum ad aliquid supernaturaliter cognoscendum, sic es raptus ad secundum caelum. Sic raptus fuit Petrus, quando vidit linteum immissum de caelo, ut dicitur Act. X, 10. Sed si aliquis videret ipsa intelligibilia et naturas ipsorum, non per sensibilia, nec per phantasmata, sic esset raptus usque ad tertium caelum. But each of these is called heaven when they are above the natural faculty of human knowledge. For example, if you see something with your bodily eyes above the faculty of nature, then you are rapt into the first heaven. This is the way Belshazzar was rapt, when he saw the handwriting on the wall (Dan 5:5). But if you are raised up by the imagination or spirit to know something supernaturally, then you are rapt to the second heaven. This is the way Peter was rapt, when he saw the linen sheet descending from heaven (Acts 10:11). But if a person were to see intelligible things themselves and their nature, not through sense-perceptible things not through phantasms, he would be rapt to the third heaven. 452. Sed sciendum est, quod rapi ad primum caelum, est alienari a sensibus corporalibus. Unde cum nullus possit abstrahi totaliter a sensibus corporeis, manifestum est quod nullus potest dici simpliciter raptus in primum caelum, sed secundum quid, inquantum contingit aliquando aliquem sic esse intentum ad unum sensum quod abstrahitur ab actu aliorum. 452. But it should be noted that to be rapt to the first heaven is to be alienated from the bodily senses. Hence, since no one can be totally withdrawn from the bodily senses, it is obvious that no one can be rapt in the strict sense to the first heaven, but only in a qualified sense, inasmuch as it sometimes happens that a person is so engrossed in one sense that he is withdrawn from the act of the others. Rapi ad secundum caelum est, quando aliquis alienatur a sensu ad videndum quaedam imaginabilia, unde tales semper consueverunt fieri in extasi. Et ideo, Act. X, 10, quando Petrus vidit linteum, dicitur quod factus fuit in extasi. One is rapt to the second heaven when he is alienated from sense to see imaginable things; hence, such a person is always said to be in ecstasy. And so when Peter saw the linen sheet, it is said that he was in ecstasy (Acts 10:11). Paulus vero dicitur raptus ad tertium caelum, quia sic fuit alienatus a sensibus, et sublimatus ab omnibus corporalibus, ut videret intelligibilia nuda et pura eo modo quo vident angeli et anima separata, et, quod plus est, etiam ipsum Deum per essentiam, ut Augustinus expresse dicit XII super Genesim ad litteram, et in Glossa, et ad Paulin. in Libr. de Videndo Deum. But Paul is said to have been rapt to the third heaven, because he was so alienated from the senses and lifted above all bodily things that he saw intelligible things naked and pure in the way angels and separated souls see them. What is more, he saw God in his essence, as Augustine expressly says in The Literal Meaning of Genesis, and in a Gloss, and ad Paulinam in the book, De Videndo Deum. Nec etiam est probabile, ut Moyses, minister Veteris Testamenti ad Iudaeos, viderit Deum, et minister Novi Testamenti ad gentes et doctor gentium, hoc dono fuerit privatus. Unde dicit ipse supra III, 7: si ministratio damnationis fuit in gloria, et cetera. De Moyse autem quod viderit Deum per essentiam, patet. Nam ipse a Domino petivit Ex. XXXIII, v. 13: ostende mihi faciem tuam. Et licet tunc negatum fuerit sibi, non tamen dicitur, quod Dominus finaliter negaverit ei. Unde dicit Augustinus, quod concessum fuit ei per hoc quod dicitur Num. XII, 6 ss.: si quis fuerit inter vos propheta Domini, et cetera. At vero non talis servus meus Moyses, et cetera. Palam enim et non per aenigmata vidit Deum. Furthermore, it is not probable that Moses, the minister of the Old Testament to the Jews saw God, and the minister of the New Testament to the gentiles, the teacher of the gentiles, was deprived of this gift. Hence he says above: if the ministration of condemnation is glory, much more does the ministration of justice abound in glory (2 Cor 3:9). That Moses saw God in his essence is clear, for he begged God: show me your face (Exod 33:13). And although it was denied him at that time, it is not stated that the Lord finally denied him. Hence, Augustine says that this was granted him by reason of what is said: if there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses; he is entrusted with all my house (Num 12:5ff). For he saw God openly and not in a dark manner. 453. Sed numquid fieri potuisset Paulo, ut non raptus videret Deum? 453. But would it have been possible for Paul to see God without being rapt? Dicendum quod non. Nam impossibile est, quod Deus videatur in vita ista ab homine non alienato a sensibus, quia nulla imago, nullum phantasma est sufficiens medium ad Dei essentiam ostendendam, ideo oportet quod abstrahatur et alienetur a sensibus. I answer: no, for it is impossible that God be seen in this life by a man not alienated from his senses, because no image or phantasm is a sufficient medium for showing God’s essence; therefore, he must be abstracted and alienated from the senses. 454. Tertio modo accipiendo caelum secundum ea quae sunt supra animam: et sic triplex caelum est triplex hierarchia angelorum, et secundum hoc Apostolus raptus fuit usque ad tertium caelum, id est ad hoc, ut videret essentiam Dei ita clare, sicut vident eum angeli superioris et primae hierarchiae, qui sic vident Deum, quod immediate in ipso Deo recipiunt illuminationes, et cognoscunt divina mysteria. Et sic vidit Paulus. Sic ergo vidit Dei essentiam sicut angeli superioris hierarchiae. 454. In a third way, by taking heaven according to things above the soul; in this way the three heavens are the three hierarchies of angels. According to this the Apostle was rapt to the third heaven, i.e., to see God’s essence as clearly as the angels of the higher and first hierarchy see him, because they see God in such a way as to receive illumination in God himself and to know the divine mysteries. This is the way Paul saw. Thus therefore he saw the essence of God as do the angels of the higher heirarchy. 455. Ergo bene videtur, quod Apostolus fuerit beatus, et per consequens fuerit immortalis. 455. But if he saw God as the angels of the higher and first hierarchy do, then it seems that the Apostle was beatified and, consequently, was immortal. Respondeo, quod licet viderit Deum per essentiam, non tamen fuit beatus simpliciter, sed solum secundum quid. I answer that although he saw God in his essence, he was not absolutely beatified, but only in a qualified sense. Sciendum est autem, quod visio Dei per essentiam fit per lumen aliquod, scilicet per lumen gloriae, de quo dicitur in Ps. XXXV, v. 10: in lumine tuo videbimus lumen. Sed aliquod lumen communicatur alicui per modum passionis, alicui vero per modum formae inhaerentis, sicut lumen solis invenitur in carbunculo et in stellis, ut forma inhaerens, id est connaturalis effecta, sed in aere invenitur ut forma transiens, et non permanens, quia transit, abeunte sole. Yet it should be noted that the vision of God by essence takes place by means of a certain light, namely, the light of glory, of which it is said: in your light we see light (Ps 36:9). But light is communicated to some things after the manner of a passing quality and to others after the manner of an inhering form, as the light of the sun is found in a carbuncle and in the stars as an inhering form, i.e., connaturally produced; but it is found in the air as a passing form and not as a permanent form, because it vanishes when the sun is absent. Similiter et lumen gloriae dupliciter menti infunditur. Uno modo per modum formae connaturalis factae et permanentis, et sic facit mentem simpliciter beatam. Et hoc modo infunditur beatis in patria, et ideo dicuntur comprehensores, et, ut ita dicam, visores. Alio modo contingit lumen gloriae mentem humanam sicut quaedam passio transiens, et sic mens Pauli fuit in raptu lumine gloriae illustrata. Unde etiam ipsum nomen raptus ostendit transeundo hoc esse factum. Et ideo non fuit simpliciter glorificatus, nec habuit dotem gloriae, cum illa claritas non fuerit effecta proprietas. Et propter hoc non fuit derivata ab anima in corpus, nec in hoc statu perpetuo permansit. Unde solum actum beati habuit in ipso raptu, sed non fuit beatus. Similarly, the light of glory is infused in the mind in two ways: in one way, after the manner of a form connaturally made and permanent, and then it makes a mind beatified in the strict sense. This is the way it is infused in the beatified in heaven. Hence they are called comprehenders and, so to say, seers. In another way the light of glory affects a human mind as a passing quality; this is the way Paul’s mind in rapture was enlightened by the light of glory. Hence, the very name, ‘rapture,’ suggests that this was done in a passing manner. Consequently, he was not glorified in the strict sense or had the mark of glory, because that brightness was not produced as a property. As a result it was not derived from the soul in the body, nor did he remain in this state permanently. Hence, when he was in rapture, he had only the act of the beatified, but he was not beatified. Sic per hoc patet quid Apostolus scivit in suo raptu, scilicet videntis conditionem, visionis tempus et visionis fastigium. Thus it is clear what the Apostle saw in his rapture, namely, the condition of the beholder, the time of the vision, and the high point of the vision. 456. Sequitur quid nescivit, scilicet utrum esset in corpore, vel extra corpus, quod tamen dicit Deum scire. Unde dicit sive in corpore, sive extra corpus, nescio, Deus scit; quod quidam intelligere voluerunt, ut raptus referatur ad corpus, dicentes Apostolum dixisse se nescire, non quidem an anima esset coniuncta corpori in illo raptu an non, sed esset raptus secundum animam et corpus simul, ut simul corporaliter portaretur in caelum, sicut Habacuc portatus fuit Dan. ult.; an secundum animam tantum esset in visionibus Dei, ut dicitur Ez. c. VIII, 3: in visione adduxit me in terram Israel. 456. Then he tells what he did not know, namely, whether he was in the body or out of the body, although he says that God knew. Hence he says, whether in the body, I do not know, or out of the body, I do not know: God knows. Some interpret this as meaning that the rapture referred to his body, saying that the Apostle did not say he did not know whether the soul was joined to the body in that rapture, but whether he was rapt according to the soul and body simultaneously, so as to have been transported bodily into heaven as Habakkuk was transported (Dan 14:35–39), or whether it was according to the soul only that he enjoyed the vision of God, as it is said: he brought me in visions of God to Jerusalem (Ezek 8:3). Et iste fuit intellectus cuiusdam Iudaei, quem exponit Hieronymus in prologo super Danielem, ubi dicit: denique et Apostolum nostrum dicit non fuisse ausum affirmare se raptum in corpore, sed dixisse: sive in corpore, et cetera. This was the way a certain Jew understood, as Jerome mentions in the prologue to Daniel, where he says: finally, he says that even our Apostle does not dare to say that he was rapt in the body, but he said: whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. Sed hunc intellectum Augustinus maxime improbat II super Genesim ad litteram, quia non conveniunt cum aliis verbis Apostoli. Apostolus enim dicit se raptum usque in tertium caelum; unde scivit pro certo, illud fuisse verum caelum. Scivit ergo an illud caelum esset corporeum an incorporeum, id est res incorporea. Sed si fuit incorporeum, scivit quod corporaliter ibi rapi non potuit, quia in re incorporea non potest esse corpus. Si vero corporeum fuerat, scivit quod non fuit ibi anima sine corpore; quia anima coniuncta corpori non potest esse in loco ubi non est corpus, nisi caelum incorporeum dicatur similitudo caeli corporei. Sed si sic, Apostolus non dixisset se scire quod esset raptus in tertium caelum, id est in similitudinem caeli, quia, pari ratione, dicere potuisset quod fuisset raptus in corpore, id est in similitudine corporis. But Augustine disproves this interpretation in The Literal Meaning of Genesis, because it does not agree with the other words of the Apostle. For the Apostle says that he was rapt to the third heaven; hence he knew for certain that it was the third heaven. Consequently, he knew whether that heaven was corporeal or incorporeal, i.e., an incorporeal thing. But if it was incorporeal, he knew that he could not have been rapt there bodily, because a body cannot exist in an incorporeal thing. But if it had been corporeal, he knew that the soul was not there without the body, because the soul joined to the body cannot be in a place where there is no body, unless the incorporeal heaven is called a likeness of the bodily heaven. But if that were the case, the Apostle would not have said that he knew he was rapt to the third heaven, i.e., to a likeness of heaven, because by that same token it could be said that he was rapt in the body, i.e., in the likeness of a body. 457. Dicendum est ergo, secundum Augustinum, quod divinam essentiam nullus in hac vita positus, et in hac mortali vita vivens, videre potest. Unde dicit Dominus Ex. c. XXXIII, 20: non videbit me homo, et vivet, id est non videbit me homo, nisi totaliter separetur a corpore, ita scilicet quod anima eius non insit corpori, ut forma, vel si inest ut forma, tamen mens eius omnino in huiusmodi visione totaliter alienetur a sensibus. Et ideo dicendum est, quod hoc quod Apostolus dicit se nescire, utrum scilicet in illa visione anima eius fuerit totaliter separata a corpore, unde dicit sive extra corpus; vel utrum anima eius extiterit in corpore, ut forma, tamen mens eius fuerit a sensibus corporeis alienata, unde dicit sive in corpore. Et hoc etiam alii concedunt. 457. Therefore it must be admitted according to Augustine that no one set in this life and living this mortal life can see the divine essence. Hence, the Lord says: for man shall not see me and live (Exod 33:20), i.e., no man will see me, unless he is entirely separated from the body, namely, in such a way that his soul is not in the body as a form, or if it is as a form, nevertheless his mind is totally and altogether alienated from the sense in such a vision. Therefore, it must be said that the Apostle says he does not know whether the soul was entirely separated from the body in that vision. Hence he says, or out of the body, or whether his soul existed in the body as a form, but his mind was alienated from the bodily senses; hence, he says, whether in the body. Even others concede this. Lectio 2 Lecture 2 Verba Dei arcana Hidden words of God ^12:3 Et scio hujusmodi hominem sive in corpore, sive extra corpus nescio, Deus scit: [n. 458] ^12:3 And I know such a man (whether in the body, or out of the body, I do not know: God knows): [n. 458] ^12:4 quoniam raptus est in paradisum: et audivit arcana verba, quae non licet homini loqui. [n. 461] ^12:4 That he was caught up into paradise and heard secret words which it is not granted to man to utter. [n. 461]