Reply Obj. 2: When the mind is intent, in its act, upon distant things which are far removed from the senses, the intensity of its application leads to abstraction from the senses; but when it is intent, in its act, upon the coordination of or judgment concerning objects of sense, there is no need for abstraction from the senses.
Reply Obj. 3: The movement of the prophetic mind results not from its own power, but from a power acting on it from above. Hence there is no abstraction from the senses when the prophet"s mind is led to judge or coordinate matters relating to objects of sense, but only when the mind is raised to the contemplation of certain more lofty things.
Reply Obj. 4: The spirit of the prophets is said to be subject to the prophets as regards the prophetic utterances to which the Apostle refers in the words quoted; because, to wit, the prophets in declaring what they have seen speak their own mind, and are not thrown off their mental balance, like persons who are possessed, as Priscilla and Monta.n.u.s maintained. But as regards the prophetic revelation itself, it would be more correct to say that the prophets are subject to the spirit of prophecy, i.e. to the prophetic gift.
_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 173, Art. 4]
Whether Prophets Always Know the Things Which They Prophesy?
Objection 1: It would seem that the prophets always know the things which they prophesy. For, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 9), "those to whom signs were shown in spirit by means of the likenesses of bodily things, had not the gift of prophecy, unless the mind was brought into action, so that those signs were also understood by them." Now what is understood cannot be unknown. Therefore the prophet is not ignorant of what he prophesies.
Obj. 2: Further, the light of prophecy surpa.s.ses the light of natural reason. Now one who possesses a science by his natural light, is not ignorant of his scientific acquirements. Therefore he who utters things by the prophetic light cannot ignore them.
Obj. 3: Further, prophecy is directed for man"s enlightenment; wherefore it is written (2 Pet. 1:19): "We have the more firm prophetical word, whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place." Now nothing can enlighten others unless it be lightsome in itself. Therefore it would seem that the prophet is first enlightened so as to know what he declares to others.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (John 11:51): "And this he"
(Caiphas) "spoke, not of himself, but being the High Priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation," etc. Now Caiphas knew this not. Therefore not every prophet knows what he prophesies.
_I answer that,_ In prophetic revelation the prophet"s mind is moved by the Holy Ghost, as an instrument that is deficient in regard to the princ.i.p.al agent. Now the prophet"s mind is moved not only to apprehend something, but also to speak or to do something; sometimes indeed to all these three together, sometimes to two, sometimes to one only, and in each case there may be a defect in the prophet"s knowledge. For when the prophet"s mind is moved to think or apprehend a thing, sometimes he is led merely to apprehend that thing, and sometimes he is further led to know that it is divinely revealed to him.
Again, sometimes the prophet"s mind is moved to speak something, so that he understands what the Holy Ghost means by the words he utters; like David who said (2 Kings 23:2): "The Spirit of the Lord hath spoken by me"; while, on the other hand, sometimes the person whose mind is moved to utter certain words knows not what the Holy Ghost means by them, as was the case with Caiphas (John 11:51).
Again, when the Holy Ghost moves a man"s mind to do something, sometimes the latter understands the meaning of it, like Jeremias who hid his loin-cloth in the Euphrates (Jer. 13:1-11); while sometimes he does not understand it--thus the soldiers, who divided Christ"s garments, understood not the meaning of what they did.
Accordingly, when a man knows that he is being moved by the Holy Ghost to think something, or signify something by word or deed, this belongs properly to prophecy; whereas when he is moved, without his knowing it, this is not perfect prophecy, but a prophetic instinct.
Nevertheless it must be observed that since the prophet"s mind is a defective instrument, as stated above, even true prophets know not all that the Holy Ghost means by the things they see, or speak, or even do.
And this suffices for the Replies to the Objections, since the arguments given at the beginning refer to true prophets whose minds are perfectly enlightened from above.
_______________________
QUESTION 174
OF THE DIVISION OF PROPHECY (SIX ARTICLES)
We must now consider the division of prophecy, and under this head there are six points of inquiry:
(1) The division of prophecy into its species;
(2) Whether the more excellent prophecy is that which is without imaginative vision?
(3) The various degrees of prophecy;
(4) Whether Moses was the greatest of the prophets?
(5) Whether a comprehensor can be a prophet?
(6) Whether prophecy advanced in perfection as time went on?
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 174, Art. 1]
Whether Prophecy Is Fittingly Divided into the Prophecy of Divine Predestination, of Foreknowledge, and of Denunciation?
Objection 1: It would seem that prophecy is unfittingly divided according to a gloss on Matt. 1:23, "Behold a virgin shall be with child," where it is stated that "one kind of prophecy proceeds from the Divine predestination, and must in all respects be accomplished so that its fulfillment is independent of our will, for instance the one in question. Another prophecy proceeds from G.o.d"s foreknowledge: and into this our will enters. And another prophecy is called denunciation, which is significative of G.o.d"s disapproval." For that which results from every prophecy should not be reckoned a part of prophecy. Now all prophecy is according to the Divine foreknowledge, since the prophets "read in the book of foreknowledge," as a gloss says on Isa. 38:1. Therefore it would seem that prophecy according to foreknowledge should not be reckoned a species of prophecy.
Obj. 2: Further, just as something is foretold in denunciation, so is something foretold in promise, and both of these are subject to alteration. For it is written (Jer. 18:7, 8): "I will suddenly speak against a nation and against a kingdom, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy it. If that nation against which I have spoken shall repent of their evil, I also will repent"--and this pertains to the prophecy of denunciation, and afterwards the text continues in reference to the prophecy of promise (Jer. 18:9, 10): "I will suddenly speak of a nation and of a kingdom, to build up and plant it. If it shall do evil in My sight ... I will repent of the good that I have spoken to do unto it." Therefore as there is reckoned to be a prophecy of denunciation, so should there be a prophecy of promise.
Obj. 3: Further, Isidore says (Etym. vii, 8): "There are seven kinds of prophecy. The first is an ecstasy, which is the transport of the mind: thus Peter saw a vessel descending from heaven with all manner of beasts therein. The second kind is a vision, as we read in Isaias, who says (Isa. 6:1): "I saw the Lord sitting," etc. The third kind is a dream: thus Jacob in a dream, saw a ladder. The fourth kind is from the midst of a cloud: thus G.o.d spake to Moses. The fifth kind is a voice from heaven, as that which called to Abraham saying (Gen.
22:11): "Lay not thy hand upon the boy." The sixth kind is taking up a parable, as in the example of Balaam (Num. 23:7; 24:15). The seventh kind is the fullness of the Holy Ghost, as in the case of nearly all the prophets." Further, he mentions three kinds of vision; "one by the eyes of the body, another by the soul"s imagination, a third by the eyes of the mind." Now these are not included in the aforesaid division. Therefore it is insufficient.
_On the contrary,_ stands the authority of Jerome to whom the gloss above quoted is ascribed.
_I answer that,_ The species of moral habits and acts are distinguished according to their objects. Now the object of prophecy is something known by G.o.d and surpa.s.sing the faculty of man.
Wherefore, according to the difference of such things, prophecy is divided into various species, as a.s.signed above. Now it has been stated above (Q. 71, A. 6, ad 2) that the future is contained in the Divine knowledge in two ways. First, as in its cause: and thus we have the prophecy of _denunciation,_ which is not always fulfilled.
but it foretells the relation of cause to effect, which is sometimes hindered by some other occurrence supervening. Secondly, G.o.d foreknows certain things in themselves--either as to be accomplished by Himself, and of such things is the prophecy of _predestination,_ since, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 30), "G.o.d predestines things which are not in our power"--or as to be accomplished through man"s free-will, and of such is the prophecy of _foreknowledge._ This may regard either good or evil, which does not apply to the prophecy of predestination, since the latter regards good alone. And since predestination is comprised under foreknowledge, the gloss in the beginning of the Psalter a.s.signs only two species to prophecy, namely of _foreknowledge,_ and of _denunciation._
Reply Obj. 1: Foreknowledge, properly speaking, denotes precognition of future events in themselves, and in this sense it is reckoned a species of prophecy. But in so far as it is used in connection with future events, whether as in themselves, or as in their causes, it is common to every species of prophecy.
Reply Obj. 2: The prophecy of promise is included in the prophecy of denunciation, because the aspect of truth is the same in both. But it is denominated in preference from denunciation, because G.o.d is more inclined to remit punishment than to withdraw promised blessings.
Reply Obj. 3: Isidore divides prophecy according to the manner of prophesying. Now we may distinguish the manner of prophesying--either according to man"s cognitive powers, which are sense, imagination, and intellect, and then we have the three kinds of vision mentioned both by him and by Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xii, 6, 7)--or according to the different ways in which the prophetic current is received.
Thus as regards the enlightening of the intellect there is the "fullness of the Holy Ghost" which he mentions in the seventh place.
As to the imprinting of pictures on the imagination he mentions three, namely "dreams," to which he gives the third place; "vision,"
which occurs to the prophet while awake and regards any kind of ordinary object, and this he puts in the second place; and "ecstasy,"
which results from the mind being uplifted to certain lofty things, and to this he a.s.signs the first place. As regards sensible signs he reckons three kinds of prophecy, because a sensible sign is--either a corporeal thing offered externally to the sight, such as "a cloud,"
which he mentions in the fourth place--or a "voice" sounding from without and conveyed to man"s hearing--this he puts in the fifth place--or a voice proceeding from a man, conveying something under a similitude, and this pertains to the "parable" to which he a.s.signs the sixth place.
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 174, Art. 2]
Whether the Prophecy Which Is Accompanied by Intellective and Imaginative Vision Is More Excellent Than That Which Is Accompanied by Intellective Vision Alone?
Objection 1: It would seem that the prophecy which has intellective and imaginative vision is more excellent than that which is accompanied by intellective vision alone. For Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 9): "He is less a prophet, who sees in spirit nothing but the signs representative of things, by means of the images of things corporeal: he is more a prophet, who is merely endowed with the understanding of these signs; but most of all is he a prophet, who excels in both ways," and this refers to the prophet who has intellective together with imaginative vision. Therefore this kind of prophecy is more excellent.
Obj. 2: Further, the greater a thing"s power is, the greater the distance to which it extends. Now the prophetic light pertains chiefly to the mind, as stated above (Q. 173, A. 2). Therefore apparently the prophecy that extends to the imagination is greater than that which is confined to the intellect.
Obj. 3: Further, Jerome (Prol. in Lib. Reg.) distinguishes the "prophets" from the "sacred writers." Now all those whom he calls prophets (such as Isaias, Jeremias, and the like) had intellective together with imaginative vision: but not those whom he calls sacred writers, as writing by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost (such as Job, David, Solomon, and the like). Therefore it would seem more proper to call prophets those who had intellective together with imaginative vision, than those who had intellective vision alone.
Obj. 4: Further, Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) that "it is impossible for the Divine ray to shine on us, except as screened round about by the many-colored sacred veils." Now the prophetic revelation is conveyed by the infusion of the divine ray. Therefore it seems that it cannot be without the veils of phantasms.
_On the contrary,_ A gloss says at the beginning of the Psalter that "the most excellent manner of prophecy is when a man prophesies by the mere inspiration of the Holy Ghost, apart from any outward a.s.sistance of deed, word, vision, or dream."
_I answer that,_ The excellence of the means is measured chiefly by the end. Now the end of prophecy is the manifestation of a truth that surpa.s.ses the faculty of man. Wherefore the more effective this manifestation is, the more excellent the prophecy. But it is evident that the manifestation of divine truth by means of the bare contemplation of the truth itself, is more effective than that which is conveyed under the similitude of corporeal things, for it approaches nearer to the heavenly vision whereby the truth is seen in G.o.d"s essence. Hence it follows that the prophecy whereby a supernatural truth is seen by intellectual vision, is more excellent than that in which a supernatural truth is manifested by means of the similitudes of corporeal things in the vision of the imagination.
Moreover the prophet"s mind is shown thereby to be more lofty: even as in human teaching the hearer, who is able to grasp the bare intelligible truth the master propounds, is shown to have a better understanding than one who needs to be taken by the hand and helped by means of examples taken from objects of sense. Hence it is said in commendation of David"s prophecy (2 Kings 23:3): "The strong one of Israel spoke to me," and further on (2 Kings 23:4): "As the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, shineth in the morning without clouds."
Reply Obj. 1: When a particular supernatural truth has to be revealed by means of corporeal images, he that has both, namely the intellectual light and the imaginary vision, is more a prophet than he that has only one, because his prophecy is more perfect; and it is in this sense that Augustine speaks as quoted above. Nevertheless the prophecy in which the bare intelligible truth is revealed is greater than all.