Quaestio 173 Question 173 De modo cognitionis propheticae The Manner of Prophetic Knowledge Deinde considerandum est de modo cognitionis propheticae. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. We must now consider the manner in which prophetic knowledge is conveyed, and under this head there are four points of inquiry: Primo, utrum prophetae videant ipsam Dei essentiam. (1) Whether the prophets see God’s very essence? Secundo, utrum revelatio prophetica fiat per influentiam aliquarum specierum, vel per solam influentiam luminis. (2) Whether the prophetic revelation is effected by the infusion of certain species, or by the infusion of Divine light alone? Tertio, utrum prophetica revelatio semper sit cum alienatione a sensibus. (3) Whether prophetic revelation is always accompanied by abstraction from the senses? Quarto, utrum prophetia semper sit cum cognitione eorum quae prophetantur. (4) Whether prophecy is always accompanied by knowledge of the things prophesied? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum prophetae ipsam Dei essentiam videant Whether the prophets see the very essence of God? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod prophetae ipsam Dei essentiam videant. Quia super illud Isaiae XXXVIII, dispone domui tuae etc., dicit Glossa, prophetae in ipso libro praescientiae Dei, in quo omnia scripta sunt, legere possunt. Sed praescientia Dei est ipsa eius essentia. Ergo prophetae vident ipsam Dei essentiam. Objection 1: It would seem that the prophets see the very essence of God, for a gloss on Isa. 38:1, Take order with thy house, for thou shalt die and not live, says: Prophets can read in the book of God’s foreknowledge in which all things are written. Now God’s foreknowledge is His very essence. Therefore prophets see God’s very essence. Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in IX de Trin., quod in illa aeterna veritate, ex qua temporalia facta sunt omnia, formam secundum quam sumus, et secundum quam operamur, visu mentis aspicimus. Sed prophetae altissimam inter omnes homines habent divinorum cognitionem. Ergo ipsi maxime divinam essentiam vident. Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Trin. ix, 7) that in that eternal truth from which all temporal things are made, we see with the mind’s eye the type both of our being and of our actions. Now, of all men, prophets have the highest knowledge of Divine things. Therefore they, especially, see the Divine essence. Praeterea, futura contingentia praecognoscuntur a prophetis secundum immobilem veritatem. Sic autem non sunt nisi in ipso Deo. Ergo prophetae ipsum Deum vident. Obj. 3: Further, future contingencies are foreknown by the prophets with unchangeable truth. Now future contingencies exist thus in God alone. Therefore the prophets see God Himself. Sed contra est quod visio divinae essentiae non evacuatur in patria. Prophetia autem evacuatur, ut habetur I ad Cor. XIII. Ergo prophetia non fit per visionem divinae essentiae. On the contrary, The vision of the Divine essence is not made void in heaven; whereas prophecy is made void (1 Cor 13:8). Therefore prophecy is not conveyed by a vision of the Divine essence. Respondeo dicendum quod prophetia importat cognitionem divinam ut procul existentem, unde et de prophetis dicitur, Heb. XI, quod erant a longe aspicientes. Illi autem qui sunt in patria, in statu beatitudinis existentes, non vident ut a remotis, sed quasi ex propinquo, secundum illud Psalmi, habitabunt recti cum vultu tuo. Unde manifestum est quod cognitio prophetica alia est a cognitione perfecta, quae erit in patria. Unde et distinguitur ab ea sicut imperfectum a perfecto, et ea adveniente evacuatur, ut patet per apostolum, I ad Cor. XIII. I answer that, Prophecy denotes Divine knowledge as existing afar off. Wherefore it is said of the prophets (Heb 11:13) that they were beholding . . . afar off. But those who are in heaven and in the state of bliss see, not as from afar off, but rather, as it were, from near at hand, according to Ps. 139:14, The upright shall dwell with Thy countenance. Hence it is evident that prophetic knowledge differs from the perfect knowledge, which we shall have in heaven, so that it is distinguished therefrom as the imperfect from the perfect, and when the latter comes the former is made void, as appears from the words of the Apostle (1 Cor 13:10). Fuerunt autem quidam qui, cognitionem propheticam a cognitione beatorum distinguere volentes, dixerunt quod prophetae viderunt ipsam divinam essentiam, quam vocant speculum aeternitatis, non tamen secundum quod est obiectum beatorum, sed secundum quod sunt in ea rationes futurorum eventuum. Quod quidem est omnino impossibile. Deus enim est obiectum beatitudinis secundum ipsam sui essentiam, secundum id quod Augustinus dicit, in V Confess., beatus est qui te scit, etiam si illa, idest creaturas, nesciat. Non est autem possibile quod aliquis videat rationes creaturarum in ipsa divina essentia, ita quod eam non videat. Tum quia ipsa divina essentia est ratio omnium quae fiunt, ratio autem idealis non addit super divinam essentiam nisi respectum ad creaturam. Tum etiam quia prius est cognoscere aliquid in se, quod est cognoscere Deum ut est obiectum beatitudinis, quam cognoscere illud per comparationem ad alterum, quod est cognoscere Deum secundum rationes rerum in ipso existentes. Et ideo non potest esse quod prophetae videant Deum secundum rationes creaturarum, et non prout est obiectum beatitudinis. Et ideo dicendum est quod visio prophetica non est visio ipsius divinae essentiae, nec in ipsa divina essentia vident ea quae vident, sed in quibusdam similitudinibus, secundum illustrationem divini luminis. Some, however, wishing to discriminate between prophetic knowledge and the knowledge of the blessed, have maintained that the prophets see the very essence of God (which they call the mirror of eternity), not, however, in the way in which it is the object of the blessed, but as containing the types of future events. But this is altogether impossible. For God is the object of bliss in His very essence, according to the saying of Augustine (Confess. v, 4): Happy whoso knoweth Thee, though he know not these, i.e., creatures. Now it is not possible to see the types of creatures in the very essence of God without seeing It, both because the Divine essence is Itself the type of all things that are made—the ideal type adding nothing to the Divine essence save only a relationship to the creature—and because knowledge of a thing in itself—and such is the knowledge of God as the object of heavenly bliss—precedes knowledge of that thing in its relation to something else—and such is the knowledge of God as containing the types of things. Consequently it is impossible for prophets to see God as containing the types of creatures, and yet not as the object of bliss. Therefore we must conclude that the prophetic vision is not the vision of the very essence of God, and that the prophets do not see in the Divine essence Itself the things they do see, but that they see them in certain images, according as they are enlightened by the Divine light. Unde Dionysius dicit, IV cap. Cael. Hier., de visionibus propheticis loquens, quod sapiens theologus visionem illam dicit esse divinam quae fit per similitudinem rerum forma corporali carentium, ex reductione videntium in divina. Et huiusmodi similitudines divino lumine illustratae magis habent rationem speculi quam Dei essentia. Nam in speculo resultant species ab aliis rebus, quod non potest dici de Deo. Sed huiusmodi illustratio mentis prophetice potest dici speculum, inquantum resultat ibi similitudo veritatis divinae praescientiae et propter hoc dicitur speculum aeternitatis, quasi repraesentans Dei praescientiam, qui in sua aeternitate omnia praesentialiter videt, ut dictum est. Wherefore Dionysius (Coel. Hier. iv), in speaking of prophetic visions, says that the wise theologian calls that vision divine which is effected by images of things lacking a bodily form through the seer being rapt in divine things. And these images illumined by the Divine light have more of the nature of a mirror than the Divine essence: since in a mirror images are formed from other things, and this cannot be said of God. Yet the prophet’s mind thus enlightened may be called a mirror, insofar as a likeness of the truth of the Divine foreknowledge is formed therein, for which reason it is called the mirror of eternity, as representing God’s foreknowledge, for God in His eternity sees all things as present before Him, as stated above (Q. 172, A. 1). Ad primum ergo dicendum quod prophetae dicuntur inspicere in libro praescientiae Dei, inquantum ex ipsa Dei praescientia resultat veritas in mentem prophetae. Reply Obj. 1: The prophets are said to read the book of God’s foreknowledge, inasmuch as the truth is reflected from God’s foreknowledge on the prophet’s mind. Ad secundum dicendum quod in prima veritate dicitur homo videre propriam formam, qua existit, inquantum primae veritatis similitudo refulget in mente humana, ex quo anima habet quod seipsam cognoscat. Reply Obj. 2: Man is said to see in the First Truth the type of his existence, insofar as the image of the First Truth shines forth on man’s mind, so that he is able to know himself. Ad tertium dicendum quod ex hoc ipso quod in Deo futura contingentia sunt secundum immobilem veritatem, potest imprimere menti prophetae similem cognitionem, absque eo quod prophetae Deum per essentiam videant. Reply Obj. 3: From the very fact that future contingencies are in God according to unalterable truth, it follows that God can impress a like knowledge on the prophet’s mind without the prophet seeing God in His essence. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum in prophetica revelatione imprimantur divinitus menti prophetae novae rerum species, aut solum novum lumen Whether, in prophetic revelation, new species of things are impressed on the prophet’s mind, or merely a new light? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in prophetica revelatione non imprimantur divinitus menti prophetae novae rerum species, sed solum novum lumen. Quia sicut dicit Glossa Hieronymi, Amos I, prophetae utuntur similitudinibus rerum in quibus conversati sunt. Sed si visio prophetica fieret per aliquas species de novo impressas, nihil operaretur ibi praecedens conversatio. Ergo non imprimuntur aliquae species de novo in animam prophetae, sed solum propheticum lumen. Objection 1: It would seem that in prophetic revelation no new species of things are impressed on the prophet’s mind, but only a new light. For a gloss of Jerome on Amos 1:2 says that prophets draw comparisons from things with which they are conversant. But if prophetic vision were effected by means of species newly impressed, the prophet’s previous experience of things would be inoperative. Therefore no new species are impressed on the prophet’s soul, but only the prophetic light. Praeterea, sicut Augustinus dicit, XII super Gen. ad Litt., visio imaginaria non facit prophetam, sed solum visio intellectualis, unde etiam Dan. X dicitur quod intelligentia opus est in visione. Sed visio intellectualis, sicut in eodem libro dicitur, non fit per aliquas similitudines, sed per ipsam rerum veritatem. Ergo videtur quod prophetica revelatio non fiat per impressionem aliquarum specierum. Obj. 2: Further, according to Augustine (Gen ad lit. xii, 9), It is not imaginative but intellective vision that makes the prophet; wherefore it is declared (Dan 10:1) that there is need of understanding in a vision. Now intellective vision, as stated in the same book (Gen ad lit. xii, 6) is not effected by means of images, but by the very truth of things. Therefore it would seem that prophetic revelation is not effected by impressing species on the soul. Praeterea, per donum prophetiae Spiritus Sanctus exhibet homini id quod est supra facultatem naturae. Sed formare quascumque rerum species potest homo ex facultate naturali. Ergo videtur quod in prophetica revelatione non infundantur aliquae species rerum, sed solum intelligibile lumen. Obj. 3: Further, by the gift of prophecy the Holy Spirit endows man with something that surpasses the faculty of nature. Now man can by his natural faculties form all kinds of species of things. Therefore it would seem that in prophetic revelation no new species of things are impressed, but merely an intellectual light. Sed contra est quod dicitur Osee XII, ego visiones multiplicavi eis, et in manibus prophetarum assimilatus sum. Sed multiplicatio visionum non fit secundum lumen intelligibile, quod est commune in omni prophetica visione, sed solum secundum diversitatem specierum, secundum quas etiam est assimilatio. Ergo videtur quod in prophetica revelatione imprimuntur novae species rerum, et non solum intelligibile lumen. On the contrary, It is written (Hos 12:10): I have multiplied their visions, and I have used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets. Now multiplicity of visions results, not from a diversity of intellectual light, which is common to every prophetic vision, but from a diversity of species, whence similitudes also result. Therefore it seems that in prophetic revelation new species of things are impressed, and not merely an intellectual light. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, XII super Gen. ad Litt., cognitio prophetica maxime ad mentem pertinet. Circa cognitionem autem humanae mentis duo oportet considerare, scilicet acceptionem, sive repraesentationem rerum; et iudicium de rebus praesentatis. Repraesentantur autem menti humanae res aliquae secundum aliquas species, et secundum naturae ordinem, primo oportet quod species praesententur sensui; secundo, imaginationi; tertio, intellectui possibili, qui immutatur a speciebus phantasmatum secundum illustrationem intellectus agentis. In imaginatione autem non solum sunt formae rerum sensibilium secundum quod accipiuntur a sensu, sed transmutatur diversimode, vel propter aliquam transmutationem corporalem, sicut accidit in dormientibus et furiosis; vel etiam secundum imperium rationis disponuntur phantasmata in ordine ad id quod est intelligendum. Sicut enim ex diversa ordinatione earundem litterarum accipiuntur diversi intellectus, ita etiam secundum diversam dispositionem phantasmatum resultant in intellectu diversae species intelligibiles. I answer that, As Augustine says (Gen ad lit. xii, 9), Prophetic knowledge pertains most of all to the intellect. Now two things have to be considered in connection with the knowledge possessed by the human mind, namely the acceptance or representation of things, and the judgment of the things represented. Now things are represented to the human mind under the form of species: and according to the order of nature, they must be represented first to the senses, second to the imagination, third to the potential intellect, and these are changed by the species derived from the phantasms, which change results from the enlightening action of the agent intellect. Now in the imagination there are the forms of sensible things not only as received from the senses, but also transformed in various ways, either on account of some bodily transformation (as in the case of people who are asleep or out of their senses), or through the coordination of the phantasms, at the command of reason, for the purpose of understanding something. For just as the various arrangements of the letters of the alphabet convey various ideas to the understanding, so the various coordinations of the phantasms produce various intelligible species of the intellect. Iudicium autem humanae mentis fit secundum vim intellectualis luminis. As to the judgment formed by the human mind, it depends on the power of the intellectual light. Per donum autem prophetiae confertur aliquid humanae menti supra id quod pertinet ad naturalem facultatem, quantum ad utrumque, scilicet et quantum ad iudicium, per influxum intellectualis luminis; et quantum ad acceptionem seu repraesentationem rerum, quae fit per aliquas species. Et quantum ad hoc secundum, potest assimilari doctrina humana revelationi propheticae, non autem quantum ad primum, homo enim suo discipulo repraesentat aliquas res per signa locutionum, non autem potest interius illuminare, sicut facit Deus. Now the gift of prophecy confers on the human mind something which surpasses the natural faculty in both these respects, namely as to the judgment which depends on the inflow of intellectual light, and as to the acceptance or representation of things, which is effected by means of certain species. Human teaching may be likened to prophetic revelation in the second of these respects, but not in the first. For a man represents certain things to his disciple by signs of speech, but he cannot enlighten him inwardly as God does. Horum autem duorum primum principalius est in prophetia, quia iudicium est completivum cognitionis. Et ideo, si cui fiat divinitus repraesentatio aliquarum rerum per similitudines imaginarias, ut Pharaoni et Nabuchodonosor; aut etiam per similitudines corporales, sicut Baltassar, non est talis censendus propheta, nisi illuminetur eius mens ad iudicandum; sed talis apparitio est quiddam imperfectum in genere prophetiae, unde a quibusdam vocatur casus prophetiae, sicut et divinatio somniorum. Erit autem propheta si solummodo intellectus eius illuminetur ad diiudicandum etiam ea quae ab aliis imaginarie visa sunt, ut patet de Ioseph, qui exposuit somnium Pharaonis. Sed sicut Augustinus dicit, XII super Gen. ad Litt., maxime propheta est qui utroque praecellit, ut videat in spiritu corporalium rerum significativas similitudines; et eas vivacitate mentis intelligat. But it is the first of these two that holds the chief place in prophecy, since judgment is the complement of knowledge. Wherefore if certain things are divinely represented to any man by means of imaginary likenesses, as happened to Pharaoh (Gen 41:1–7) and to Nabuchodonosor (Dan 4:1–2), or even by bodily likenesses, as happened to Balthasar (Dan 5:5), such a man is not to be considered a prophet, unless his mind be enlightened for the purpose of judgment; and such an apparition is something imperfect in the genus of prophecy. Wherefore some have called this prophetic ecstasy, and such is divination by dreams. And yet a man will be a prophet, if his intellect be enlightened merely for the purpose of judging of things seen in imagination by others, as in the case of Joseph who interpreted Pharaoh’s dream. But, as Augustine says (Gen ad lit. xii, 9), Especially is he a prophet who excels in both respects, so, to wit, as to see in spirit likenesses significant of things corporeal, and understand them by the quickness of his intellect. Repraesentantur autem divinitus menti prophetae quandoque quidem mediante sensu exterius, quaedam formae sensibiles, sicut Daniel vidit Scripturam parietis, ut legitur Dan. V. Quandoque autem per formas imaginarias, sive omnino divinitus impressas, non per sensum acceptas, puta si alicui caeco nato imprimerentur in imaginatione colorum similitudines; vel etiam divinitus ordinatas ex his quae a sensibus sunt acceptae, sicut Ieremias vidit ollam succensam a facie Aquilonis, ut habetur Ierem. I. Sive etiam imprimendo species intelligibiles ipsi menti, sicut patet de his qui accipiunt scientiam vel sapientiam infusam, sicut Salomon et apostoli. Now sensible forms are divinely presented to the prophet’s mind, sometimes externally by means of the senses—thus Daniel saw the writing on the wall (Dan 5:25)—sometimes by means of imaginary forms, either of exclusively Divine origin and not received through the senses (for instance, if images of colors were imprinted on the imagination of one blind from birth), or divinely coordinated from those derived from the senses—thus Jeremiah saw the boiling caldron . . . from the face of the north (Jer 1:13)—or by the direct impression of intelligible species on the mind, as in the case of those who receive infused scientific knowledge or wisdom, such as Solomon or the apostles. Lumen autem intelligibile quandoque quidem imprimitur menti humanae divinitus ad diiudicandum ea quae ab aliis visa sunt, sicut dictum est de Ioseph; et sicut patet de apostolis, quibus dominus aperuit sensum ut intelligerent Scripturas, ut dicitur Luc. XXIV; et ad hoc pertinet interpretatio sermonum. Sive etiam ad diiudicandum secundum divinam veritatem ea quae cursu naturali homo apprehendit. Sive etiam ad diiudicandum veraciter et efficaciter ea quae agenda sunt, secundum illud Isaiae LXIII, spiritus domini ductor eius fuit. But intellectual light is divinely imprinted on the human mind—sometimes for the purpose of judging of things seen by others, as in the case of Joseph, quoted above, and of the apostles whose understanding our Lord opened that they might understand the scriptures (Luke 24:45); and to this pertains the interpretation of speeches—sometimes for the purpose of judging according to Divine truth, of the things which a man apprehends in the ordinary course of nature—sometimes for the purpose of discerning truthfully and efficaciously what is to be done, according to Isa. 63:14, The Spirit of the Lord was their leader. Sic igitur patet quod prophetica revelatio quandoque quidem fit per solam luminis influentiam, quandoque autem per species de novo impressas, vel aliter ordinatas. Hence it is evident that prophetic revelation is conveyed sometimes by the mere infusion of light, sometimes by imprinting species anew, or by a new coordination of species. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, quando in prophetica revelatione divinitus ordinantur species imaginariae praeacceptae a sensu secundum congruentiam ad veritatem revelandam, tunc conversatio praecedens aliquid operatur ad ipsas similitudines, non autem quando totaliter ab extrinseco imprimuntur. Reply Obj. 1: As stated above, sometimes in prophetic revelation imaginary species previously derived from the senses are divinely coordinated so as to accord with the truth to be revealed, and then previous experience is operative in the production of the images, but not when they are impressed on the mind wholly from without. Ad secundum dicendum quod visio intellectualis non fit secundum aliquas similitudines corporales et individuales, fit tamen secundum aliquam similitudinem intelligibilem, unde Augustinus dicit, IX de Trin., quod habet animus nonnullam speciei notae similitudinem. Quae quidem similitudo intelligibilis in revelatione prophetica aliquando immediate a Deo imprimitur, aliquando autem ex formis imaginatis resultat secundum adiutorium prophetici luminis; quia ex eisdem formis imaginatis subtilior conspicitur veritas secundum illustrationem altioris luminis. Reply Obj. 2: Intellectual vision is not effected by means of bodily and individual images, but by an intelligible image. Hence Augustine says (De Trin. ix, 11) that the soul possesses a certain likeness of the species known to it. Sometimes this intelligible image is, in prophetic revelation, imprinted immediately by God, sometimes it results from pictures in the imagination, by the aid of the prophetic light, since a deeper truth is gathered from these pictures in the imagination by means of the enlightenment of the higher light. Ad tertium dicendum quod quascumque formas imaginatas naturali virtute homo potest formare, absolute huiusmodi formas considerando, non tamen ut sint ordinatae ad repraesentandas intelligibiles veritates quae hominis intellectum excedunt, sed ad hoc necessarium est auxilium supernaturalis luminis. Reply Obj. 3: It is true that man is able by his natural powers to form all kinds of pictures in the imagination, by simply considering these pictures, but not so that they be directed to the representation of intelligible truths that surpass his intellect, since for this purpose he needs the assistance of a supernatural light. Articulus 3 Article 3