QUESTIONS 171-182 PERTAINING TO KNOWLEDGE QUESTIONS 171-175 QUESTION OF PROPHECY (SIX ARTICLES)

After treating individually of all the virtues and vices that pertain to men of all conditions and estates, we must now consider those things which pertain especially to certain men. Now there is a triple difference between men as regards things connected with the soul’s habits and acts. First, in reference to the various gratuitous graces, according to 1 Corinthians 12:4,7: “There are diversities of graces... and to one... by the Spirit is given the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge,” etc.

Another difference arises from the diversities of life, namely the active and the contemplative life, which correspond to diverse purposes of operation, wherefore it is stated ( 1 Corinthians 12:4,7) that “there are diversities of operations.” For the purpose of operation in Martha, who “was busy about much serving,” which pertains to the active life, differed from the purpose of operation in Mary, “who sitting... at the Lord’s feet, heard His word” ( Luke 10:39,40), which pertains to the contemplative life. A third difference corresponds to the various duties and states of life, as expressed in Ephesians 4:11, “And He gave some apostles; and some prophets; and other some evangelists; and other some pastors and doctors”: and this pertains to diversity of ministries, of which it is written ( 1 Corinthians 12:5): “There are diversities of ministries.”

With regard to gratuitous graces, which are the first object to be considered, it must be observed that some of them pertain to knowledge, some to speech, and some to operation. Now all things pertaining to knowledge may be comprised under “prophecy,” since prophetic revelation extends not only to future events relating to man, but also to things relating to God, both as to those which are to be believed by all and are matters of “faith,” and as to yet higher mysteries, which concern the perfect and belong to “wisdom.” Again, prophetic revelation is about things pertaining to spiritual substances, by whom we are urged to good or evil; this pertains to the “discernment of spirits.” Moreover it extends to the direction of human acts, and this pertains to “knowledge,” as we shall explain further on ( Q(177) ). Accordingly we must first of all consider prophecy, and rapture which is a degree of prophecy.

Prophecy admits of four heads of consideration: (1) its essence; (2) its cause; (3) the mode of prophetic knowledge; (4) the division of prophecy.

Under the first head there are six points of inquiry: (1) Whether prophecy pertains to knowledge? (2) Whether it is a habit? (3) Whether it is only about future contingencies? (4) Whether a prophet knows all possible matters of prophecy? (5) Whether a prophet distinguishes that which he perceives by the gift of God, from that which he perceives by his own spirit? (6) Whether anything false can be the matter of prophecy?

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(1) Whether prophecy pertains to knowledge?

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(1)- O(1) —

It would seem that prophecy does not pertain to knowledge. For it is written (Ecclus. 48:14) that after death the body of Eliseus prophesied, and further on (Ecclus. 49:18) it is said of Joseph that “his bones were visited, and after death they prophesied.” Now no knowledge remains in the body or in the bones after death. Therefore prophecy does not pertain to knowledge.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, it is written ( 1 Corinthians 14:3): “He that prophesieth, speaketh to men unto edification.” Now speech is not knowledge itself, but its effect. Therefore it would seem that prophecy does not pertain to knowledge.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, every cognitive perfection excludes folly and madness. Yet both of these are consistent with prophecy; for it is written ( Hosea 9:7): “Know ye, O Israel, that the prophet was foolish and mad [*Vulg.: ‘the spiritual man was mad’].” Therefore prophecy is not a cognitive perfection.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(1)- O(4) —

Further, just as revelation regards the intellect, so inspiration regards, apparently, the affections, since it denotes a kind of motion. Now prophecy is described as “inspiration” or “revelation,” according to Cassiodorus [*Prolog. super Psalt. i]. Therefore it would seem that prophecy does not pertain to the intellect more than to the affections.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(1) —

On the contrary, It is written ( 1 Kings 9:9): “For he that is now called a prophet, in time past was called a seer.” Now sight pertains to knowledge. Therefore prophecy pertains to knowledge.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(1) —

I answer that, Prophecy first and chiefly consists in knowledge, because, to wit, prophets know things that are far [procul] removed from man’s knowledge. Wherefore they may be said to take their name from \phanos\, “apparition,” because things appear to them from afar. Wherefore, as Isidore states (Etym. vii, 8), “in the Old Testament, they were called Seers, because they saw what others saw not, and surveyed things hidden in mystery.” Hence among heathen nations they were known as “vates, on account of their power of mind [vi mentis],” [*The Latin ‘vates’ is from the Greek \phates\, and may be rendered ‘soothsayer’] (Etym. viii, 7).

Since, however, it is written ( 1 Corinthians 12:7): “The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit,” and further on ( Corinthians 14:12): “Seek to abound unto the edification of the Church,” it follows that prophecy consists secondarily in speech, in so far as the prophets declare for the instruction of others, the things they know through being taught of God, according to the saying of Isaiah 21:10, “That which I have heard of the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, I have declared unto you.” Accordingly, as Isidore says (Etym. viii, 7), “prophets” may be described as “proefatores [foretellers], because they tell from afar [porro fantur],” that is, speak from a distance, “and foretell the truth about things to come.”

Now those things above human ken which are revealed by God cannot be confirmed by human reason, which they surpass as regards the operation of the Divine power, according to Mark 16:20, “They... preached everywhere, the Lord working withal and confirming the word with signs that followed.”

Hence, thirdly, prophecy is concerned with the working of miracles, as a kind of confirmation of the prophetic utterances. Wherefore it is written ( Deuteronomy 34:10,11): “There arose no more a prophet in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, in all the signs and wonders.”

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(1)- RO(1) —

These passages speak of prophecy in reference to the third point just mentioned, which regards the proof of prophecy.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(1)- RO(2) —

The Apostle is speaking there of the prophetic utterances.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(1)- RO(3) —

Those prophets who are described as foolish and mad are not true but false prophets, of whom it is said ( Jeremiah 3:16): “Hearken not to the words of the prophets that prophesy to you, and deceive you; they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord,” and ( Ezekiel 13:3): “Woe to the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and see nothing.”

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(1)- RO(4) —

It is requisite to prophecy that the intention of the mind be raised to the perception of Divine things: wherefore it is written ( Ezekiel 2:1): “Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak to thee.” This raising of the intention is brought about by the motion of the Holy Ghost, wherefore the text goes on to say: “And the Spirit entered into me... and He set me upon my feet.” After the mind’s intention has been raised to heavenly things, it perceives the things of God; hence the text continues: “And I heard Him speaking to me.” Accordingly inspiration is requisite for prophecy, as regards the raising of the mind, according to Job 32:8, “The inspiration of the Almighty giveth understanding”: while revelation is necessary, as regards the very perception of Divine things, whereby prophecy is completed; by its means the veil of darkness and ignorance is removed, according to Job 12:22, “He discovereth great things out of darkness.”

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(2) Whether prophecy is a habit?

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(2)- O(1) —

It would seem that prophecy is a habit. For according to Ethic. ii, 5, “there are three things in the soul, power, passion, and habit.” Now prophecy is not a power, for then it would be in all men, since the powers of the soul are common to them. Again it is not a passion, since the passions belong to the appetitive faculty, as stated above ( P(2a), Q(22) , A(2) ); whereas prophecy pertains principally to knowledge, as stated in the foregoing Article. Therefore prophecy is a habit.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, every perfection of the soul, which is not always in act, is a habit. Now prophecy is a perfection of the soul; and it is not always in act, else a prophet could not be described as asleep.

Therefore seemingly prophecy is a habit.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, prophecy is reckoned among the gratuitous graces. Now grace is something in the soul, after the manner of a habit, as stated above ( P(2a), Q(110), A(2) ). Therefore prophecy is a habit.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(2) —

On the contrary, A habit is something “whereby we act when we will,” as the Commentator [*Averroes or Ibn Roshd, 1120-1198] says (De Anima iii). But a man cannot make use of prophecy when he will, as appears in the case of Eliseus ( 2 Kings 3:15), “who on Josaphat inquiring of him concerning the future, and the spirit of prophecy failing him, caused a minstrel to be brought to him, that the spirit of prophecy might come down upon him through the praise of psalmody, and fill his mind with things to come,” as Gregory observes (Hom. i super Ezech.). Therefore prophecy is not a habit.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(2) —

I answer that, As the Apostle says ( Ephesians 5:13), “all that is made manifest is light,” because, to wit, just as the manifestation of the material sight takes place through material light, so too the manifestation of intellectual sight takes place through intellectual light.

Accordingly manifestation must be proportionate to the light by means of which it takes place, even as an effect is proportionate to its cause. Since then prophecy pertains to a knowledge that surpasses natural reason, as stated above ( A(1) ), it follows that prophecy requires an intellectual light surpassing the light of natural reason. Hence the saying of Micah 7:8: “When I sit in darkness, the Lord is my light.” Now light may be in a subject in two ways: first, by way of an abiding form, as material light is in the sun, and in fire; secondly, by way of a passion, or passing impression, as light is in the air. Now the prophetic light is not in the prophet’s intellect by way of an abiding form, else a prophet would always be able to prophesy, which is clearly false. For Gregory says (Hom. i super Ezech.): “Sometimes the spirit of prophecy is lacking to the prophet, nor is it always within the call of his mind, yet so that in its absence he knows that its presence is due to a gift.” Hence Eliseus said of the Sunamite woman ( 2 Kings 4:27): “Her soul is in anguish, and the Lord hath hid it from me, and hath not told me.” The reason for this is that the intellectual light that is in a subject by way of an abiding and complete form, perfects the intellect chiefly to the effect of knowing the principle of the things manifested by that light; thus by the light of the active intellect the intellect knows chiefly the first principles of all things known naturally.

Now the principle of things pertaining to supernatural knowledge, which are manifested by prophecy, is God Himself, Whom the prophets do not see in His essence, although He is seen by the blessed in heaven, in whom this light is by way of an abiding and complete form, according to Psalm 35:10, “In Thy light we shall see light.”

It follows therefore that the prophetic light is in the prophet’s soul by way of a passion or transitory impression. This is indicated Exodus 33:22: “When my glory shall pass, I will set thee in a hole of the rock,” etc., and 3 Kings 19:11: “Go forth and stand upon the mount before the Lord; and behold the Lord passeth,” etc. Hence it is that even as the air is ever in need of a fresh enlightening, so too the prophet’s mind is always in need of a fresh revelation; thus a disciple who has not yet acquired the principles of an art needs to have every detail explained to him. Wherefore it is written ( Isaiah 1:4): “In the morning He wakeneth my ear, so that I may hear Him as a master.” This is also indicated by the very manner in which prophecies are uttered: thus it is stated that “the Lord spake to such and such a prophet,” or that “the word of the Lord,” or “the hand of the Lord was made upon him.”

But a habit is an abiding form. Wherefore it is evident that, properly speaking, prophecy is not a habit.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(2)- RO(1) —

This division of the Philosopher’s does not comprise absolutely all that is in the soul, but only such as can be principles of moral actions, which are done sometimes from passion, sometimes from habit, sometimes from mere power, as in the case of those who perform an action from the judgment of their reason before having the habit of that action.

However, prophecy may be reduced to a passion, provided we understand passion to denote any kind of receiving, in which sense the Philosopher says (De Anima iii, 4) that “to understand is, in a way, to be passive.” For just as, in natural knowledge, the possible intellect is passive to the light of the active intellect, so too in prophetic knowledge the human intellect is passive to the enlightening of the Divine light.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(2)- RO(2) —

Just as in corporeal things, when a passion ceases, there remains a certain aptitude to a repetition of the passion — thus wood once ignited is more easily ignited again, so too in the prophet’s intellect, after the actual enlightenment has ceased, there remains an aptitude to be enlightened anew — thus when the mind has once been aroused to devotion, it is more easily recalled to its former devotion. Hence Augustine says (De orando Deum. Ep. cxxx, 9) that our prayers need to be frequent, “lest devotion be extinguished as soon as it is kindled.”

We might, however, reply that a person is called a prophet, even while his prophetic enlightenment ceases to be actual, on account of his being deputed by God, according to Jeremiah 1:5, “And I made thee a prophet unto the nations.”

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(2)- RO(3) —

Every gift of grace raises man to something above human nature, and this may happen in two ways. First, as to the substance of the act — for instance, the working of miracles, and the knowledge of the uncertain and hidden things of Divine wisdom — and for such acts man is not granted a habitual gift of grace. Secondly, a thing is above human nature as to the mode but not the substance of the act — for instance to love God and to know Him in the mirror of His creatures — and for this a habitual gift of grace is bestowed.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(3) Whether prophecy is only about future contingencies?

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(3)- O(1) —

It would seem that prophecy is only about future contingencies. For Cassiodorus says [*Prol. super Psalt. i] that “prophecy is a Divine inspiration or revelation, announcing the issue of things with unchangeable truth.” Now issues pertain to future contingencies. Therefore the prophetic revelation is about future contingencies alone.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, according to 1 Corinthians 12, the grace of prophecy is differentiated from wisdom and faith, which are about Divine things; and from the discernment of spirits, which is about created spirits; and from knowledge, which is about human things. Now habits and acts are differentiated by their objects, as stated above ( P(2a), Q(54) , A(2) ). Therefore it seems that the object of prophecy is not connected with any of the above. Therefore it follows that it is about future contingencies alone.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, difference of object causes difference of species, as stated above ( P(2a), Q(54) , A(2) ). Therefore, if one prophecy is about future contingencies, and another about other things, it would seem to follow that these are different species of prophecy.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(3) —

On the contrary, Gregory says (Hom. i super Ezech.) that some prophecies are “about the future, for instance ( Isaiah 7:14), ‘Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son’“; some are “about the past, as ( Genesis 1:1), ‘In the beginning God created heaven and earth’“; some are “about the present,” as ( 1 Corinthians 14:24,25), “If all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not... the secrets of his heart are made manifest.” Therefore prophecy is not about future contingencies alone.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(3) —

I answer that, A manifestation made by means of a certain light can extend to all those things that are subject to that light: thus the body’s sight extends to all colors, and the soul’s natural knowledge extends to whatever is subject to the light of the active intellect. Now prophetic knowledge comes through a Divine light, whereby it is possible to know all things both Divine and human, both spiritual and corporeal; and consequently the prophetic revelation extends to them all. Thus by the ministry of spirits a prophetic revelation concerning the perfections of God and the angels was made to Isaiah 6:1, where it is written, “I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and elevated.” Moreover his prophecy contains matters referring to natural bodies, according to the words of Isaiah 40:12, “Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of His hand,” etc. It also contains matters relating to human conduct, according to Isaiah 58:1, “Deal thy bread to the hungry,” etc.; and besides this it contains things pertaining to future events, according to Isaiah 47:9, “Two things shall come upon thee suddenly in one day, barrenness and widowhood.”

Since, however, prophecy is about things remote from our knowledge, it must be observed that the more remote things are from our knowledge the more pertinent they are to prophecy. Of such things there are three degrees. One degree comprises things remote from the knowledge, either sensitive or intellective, of some particular man, but not from the knowledge of all men; thus a particular man knows by sense things present to him locally, which another man does not know by human sense, since they are removed from him. Thus Eliseus knew prophetically what his disciple Giezi had done in his absence ( 2 Kings 5:26), and in like manner the secret thoughts of one man are manifested prophetically to another, according to 1 Corinthians 14:25; and again in this way what one man knows by demonstration may be revealed to another prophetically.

The second degree comprises those things which surpass the knowledge of all men without exception, not that they are in themselves unknowable, but on account of a defect in human knowledge; such as the mystery of the Trinity, which was revealed by the Seraphim saying: “Holy, Holy, Holy,” etc. ( Isaiah 6:3).

The last degree comprises things remote from the knowledge of all men, through being in themselves unknowable; such are future contingencies, the truth of which is indeterminate. And since that which is predicated universally and by its very nature, takes precedence of that which is predicated in a limited and relative sense, it follows that revelation of future events belongs most properly to prophecy, and from this prophecy apparently takes its name. Hence Gregory says (Hom. i super Ezech.): “And since a prophet is so called because he foretells the future, his name loses its significance when he speaks of the past or present.”

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(3)- RO(1) —

Prophecy is there defined according to its proper signification; and it is in this sense that it is differentiated from the other gratuitous graces.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(3)- RO(2) —

This is evident from what has just been said. We might also reply that all those things that are the matter of prophecy have the common aspect of being unknowable to man except by Divine revelation; whereas those that are the matter of “wisdom,” “knowledge,” and the “interpretation of speeches,” can be known by man through natural reason, but are manifested in a higher way through the enlightening of the Divine light. As to “faith,” although it is about things invisible to man, it is not concerned with the knowledge of the things believed, but with a man’s certitude of assent to things known by others.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(3)- RO(3) —

The formal element in prophetic knowledge is the Divine light, which being one, gives unity of species to prophecy, although the things prophetically manifested by the Divine light are diverse.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(4) Whether by the Divine revelation a prophet knows all that can be known prophetically?

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(4)- O(1) —

It would seem that by the Divine revelation a prophet knows all that can be known prophetically. For it is written ( Amos 3:7): “The Lord God doth nothing without revealing His secret to His servants the prophets.”

Now whatever is revealed prophetically is something done by God.

Therefore there is not one of them but what is revealed to the prophet.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, “God’s works are perfect” ( Deuteronomy 32:4). Now prophecy is a “Divine revelation,” as stated above ( A(3) ). Therefore it is perfect; and this would not be so unless all possible matters of prophecy were revealed prophetically, since “the perfect is that which lacks nothing” (Phys. iii, 6). Therefore all possible matters of prophecy are revealed to the prophet.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, the Divine light which causes prophecy is more powerful than the right of natural reason which is the cause of human science. Now a man who has acquired a science knows whatever pertains to that science; thus a grammarian knows all matters of grammar. Therefore it would seem that a prophet knows all matters of prophecy.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(4) —

On the contrary, Gregory says (Hom. i super Ezech.) that “sometimes the spirit of prophecy indicates the present to the prophet’s mind and nowise the future; and sometimes it points not to the present but to the future.” Therefore the prophet does not know all matters of prophecy.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(4) —

I answer that, Things which differ from one another need not exist simultaneously, save by reason of some one thing in which they are connected and on which they depend: thus it has been stated above ( P(2a), Q(65) , AA(1),2 ) that all the virtues must needs exist simultaneously on account of prudence and charity. Now all the things that are known through some principle are connected in that principle and depend thereon. Hence he who knows a principle perfectly, as regards all to which its virtue extends, knows at the same time all that can be known through that principle; whereas if the common principle is unknown, or known only in a general way, it does not follow that one knows all those things at the same time, but each of them has to be manifested by itself, so that consequently some of them may be known, and some not.

Now the principle of those things that are prophetically manifested by the Divine light is the first truth, which the prophets do not see in itself.

Wherefore there is no need for their knowing all possible matters of prophecy; but each one knows some of them according to the special revelation of this or that matter.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(4)- RO(1) —

The Lord reveals to the prophets all things that are necessary for the instruction of the faithful; yet not all to every one, but some to one, and some to another.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(4)- RO(2) —

Prophecy is by way of being something imperfect in the genus of Divine revelation: hence it is written ( Corinthians 13:8) that “prophecies shall be made void,” and that “we prophesy in part,” i.e. imperfectly. The Divine revelation will be brought to its perfection in heaven; wherefore the same text continues ( Corinthians 13:10): “When that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.”

Consequently it does not follow that nothing is lacking to prophetic revelation, but that it lacks none of those things to which prophecy is directed.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(4)- RO(3) —

He who has a science knows the principles of that science, whence whatever is pertinent to that science depends; wherefore to have the habit of a science perfectly, is to know whatever is pertinent to that science. But God Who is the principle of prophetic knowledge is not known in Himself through prophecy; wherefore the comparison fails.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(5) Whether the prophet always distinguishes what he says by his own spirit from what he says by the prophetic spirit?

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(5)- O(1) —

It would seem that the prophet always distinguishes what he says by his own spirit from what he says by the prophetic spirit. For Augustine states (Confess. vi, 13) that his mother said “she could, through a certain feeling, which in words she could not express, discern betwixt Divine revelations, and the dreams of her own soul.” Now prophecy is a Divine revelation, as stated above ( A(3) ).

Therefore the prophet always distinguishes what he says by the spirit of prophecy, from what he says by his own spirit.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(5)- O(2) —

Further, God commands nothing impossible, as Jerome [*Pelagius. Ep. xvi, among the supposititious works of St. Jerome] says. Now the prophets were commanded ( Jeremiah 23:28): “The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath My word, let him speak My word with truth.”

Therefore the prophet can distinguish what he has through the spirit of prophecy from what he sees otherwise.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(5)- O(3) —

Further, the certitude resulting from a Divine light is greater than that which results from the light of natural reason.

Now he that has science, by the light of natural reason knows for certain that he has it. Therefore he that has prophecy by a Divine light is much more certain that he has it.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(5) —

On the contrary, Gregory says (Hom. i super Ezech.): “It must be observed that sometimes the holy prophets, when consulted, utter certain things by their own spirit, through being much accustomed to prophesying, and think they are speaking by the prophetic spirit.”

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(5) —

I answer that, The prophet’s mind is instructed by God in two ways: in one way by an express revelation, in another way by a most mysterious instinct to “which the human mind is subjected without knowing it,” as Augustine says (Genesis ad lit. ii, 17). Accordingly the prophet has the greatest certitude about those things which he knows by an express revelation, and he has it for certain that they are revealed to him by God; wherefore it is written ( Jeremiah 26:15): “In truth the Lord sent me to you, to speak all these words in your hearing.” Else, were he not certain about this, the faith which relies on the utterances of the prophet would not be certain. A sign of the prophet’s certitude may be gathered from the fact that Abraham being admonished in a prophetic vision, prepared to sacrifice his only-begotten son, which he nowise would have done had he not been most certain of the Divine revelation.

On the other hand, his position with regard to the things he knows by instinct is sometimes such that he is unable to distinguish fully whether his thoughts are conceived of Divine instinct or of his own spirit. And those things which we know by Divine instinct are not all manifested with prophetic certitude, for this instinct is something imperfect in the genus of prophecy. It is thus that we are to understand the saying of Gregory. Lest, however, this should lead to error, “they are very soon set aright by the Holy Ghost [*For instance, cf. 2 Kings 7:3 seqq.], and from Him they hear the truth, so that they reproach themselves for having said what was untrue,” as Gregory adds (Hom. i super Ezech.).

The arguments set down in the first place consider the revelation that is made by the prophetic spirit; wherefore the answer to all the objections is clear.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(6) Whether things known or declared prophetically can be false?

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(6)- O(1) —

It would seem that things known or declared prophetically can be false. For prophecy is about future contingencies, as stated above ( A(3) ). Now future contingencies may possibly not happen; else they would happen of necessity. Therefore the matter of prophecy can be false.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(6)- O(2) —

Further, Isaias prophesied to Ezechias saying ( Isaiah 38:1): “Take order with thy house, for thou shalt surely die, and shalt not live,” and yet fifteen years were added to his life ( 2 Kings 20:6). Again the Lord said ( Jeremiah 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 of the evil that I have thought to do them.”

This is instanced in the example of the Ninevites, according to John 3:10: “The Lord [Vulg.: ‘God’] had mercy with regard to the evil which He had said that He would do to them, and He did it not.”

Therefore the matter of prophecy can be false.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(6)- O(3) —

Further, in a conditional proposition, whenever the antecedent is absolutely necessary, the consequent is absolutely necessary, because the consequent of a conditional proposition stands in the same relation to the antecedent, as the conclusion to the premises in a syllogism, and a syllogism whose premises are necessary always leads to a necessary conclusion, as we find proved in I Poster. 6.

But if the matter of a prophecy cannot be false, the following conditional proposition must needs be true: “If a thing has been prophesied, it will be.” Now the antecedent of this conditional proposition is absolutely necessary, since it is about the past. Therefore the consequent is also necessary absolutely; yet this is unfitting, for then prophecy would not be about contingencies. Therefore it is untrue that the matter of prophecy cannot be false.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(6) —

On the contrary, Cassiodorus says [*Prol. in Psalt. i] that “prophecy is a Divine inspiration or revelation, announcing the issue of things with invariable truth.” Now the truth of prophecy would not be invariable, if its matter could be false. Therefore nothing false can come under prophecy.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(6) —

I answer that, As may be gathered from what has been said ( AA(1),3,5 ), prophecy is a kind of knowledge impressed under the form of teaching on the prophet’s intellect, by Divine revelation. Now the truth of knowledge is the same in disciple and teacher since the knowledge of the disciple is a likeness of the knowledge of the teacher, even as in natural things the form of the thing generated is a likeness of the form of the generator. Jerome speaks in this sense when he says [*Comment. in Daniel ii, 10] that “prophecy is the seal of the Divine foreknowledge.” Consequently the same truth must needs be in prophetic knowledge and utterances, as in the Divine knowledge, under which nothing false can possibly come, as stated in the P(1), Q(16) , A(8) .

Therefore nothing false can come under prophecy.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(6)- RO(1) —

As stated in the P(1), Q(14) , A(13) - the certitude of the Divine foreknowledge does not exclude the contingency of future singular events, because that knowledge regards the future as present and already determinate to one thing. Wherefore prophecy also, which is an “impressed likeness” or “seal of the Divine foreknowledge,” does not by its unchangeable truth exclude the contingency of future things.

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(6)- RO(2) —

The Divine foreknowledge regards future things in two ways. First, as they are in themselves, in so far, to wit, as it sees them in their presentiality: secondly, as in their causes, inasmuch as it sees the order of causes in relation to their effects. And though future contingencies, considered as in themselves, are determinate to one thing, yet, considered as in their causes, they are not so determined but that they can happen otherwise. Again, though this twofold knowledge is always united in the Divine intellect, it is not always united in the prophetic revelation, because an imprint made by an active cause is not always on a par with the virtue of that cause. Hence sometimes the prophetic revelation is an imprinted likeness of the Divine foreknowledge, in so far as the latter regards future contingencies in themselves: and such things happen in the same way as foretold, for example this saying of Isaiah 7:14: “Behold a virgin shall conceive.” Sometimes, however, the prophetic revelation is an imprinted likeness of the Divine foreknowledge as knowing the order of causes to effects; and then at times the event is otherwise than foretold. Yet the prophecy does not cover a falsehood, for the meaning of the prophecy is that inferior causes, whether they be natural causes or human acts, are so disposed as to lead to such a result. In this way we are to understand the saying of Isaiah 38:1: “Thou shalt die, and not live”; in other words, “The disposition of thy body has a tendency to death”: and the saying of Jonah 3:4, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be destroyed,” that is to say, “Its merits demand that it should be destroyed.”

God is said “to repent,” metaphorically, inasmuch as He bears Himself after the manner of one who repents, by “changing His sentence, although He changes not His counsel” [*Cf. P(1), Q(19) , A(7), ad 2].

P(2b)- Q(171)- A(6)- RO(3) —

Since the same truth of prophecy is the same as the truth of Divine foreknowledge, as stated above, the conditional proposition: “If this was prophesied, it will be,” is true in the same way as the proposition: “If this was foreknown, it will be”: for in both cases it is impossible for the antecedent not to be. Hence the consequent is necessary, considered, not as something future in our regard, but as being present to the Divine foreknowledge, as stated in the P(1), Q(14) , A(13), ad 2.

QUESTION OF THE CAUSE OF PROPHECY (SIX ARTICLES)

We must now consider the cause of prophecy. Under this head there are six points of inquiry: (1) Whether prophecy is natural? (2) Whether it is from God by means of the angels? (3) Whether a natural disposition is requisite for prophecy? (4) Whether a good life is requisite? (5) Whether any prophecy is from the demons? (6) Whether prophets of the demons ever tell what is true?

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(1) Whether prophecy can be natural?

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(1)- O(1) —

It would seem that prophecy can be natural.

For Gregory says (Dial. iv, 26) that “sometimes the mere strength of the soul is sufficiently cunning to foresee certain things”: and Augustine says (Genesis ad lit. xii, 13) that the human soul, according as it is withdrawn from the sense of the body, is able to foresee the future [*Cf. P(1), Q(86) , A(4), ad 2]. Now this pertains to prophecy. Therefore the soul can acquire prophecy naturally.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, the human soul’s knowledge is more alert while one wakes than while one sleeps. Now some, during sleep, naturally foresee the future, as the Philosopher asserts (De Somn. et Vigil. [*De Divinat. per Somn. ii, which is annexed to the work quoted]). Much more therefore can a man naturally foreknow the future.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, man, by his nature, is more perfect than dumb animals. Yet some dumb animals have foreknowledge of future things that concern them. Thus ants foreknow the coming rains, which is evident from their gathering grain into their nest before the rain commences; and in like manner fish foreknow a coming storm, as may be gathered from their movements in avoiding places exposed to storm. Much more therefore can men foreknow the future that concerns themselves, and of such things is prophecy. Therefore prophecy comes from nature.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(1)- O(4) —

Further, it is written ( Proverbs 29:18): “When prophecy shall fail, the people shall be scattered abroad”; wherefore it is evident that prophecy is necessary for the stability of the human race. Now “nature does not fail in necessaries” [*Aristotle, de Anima iii, 9]. Therefore it seems that prophecy is from nature.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(1) —

On the contrary, It is written ( 2 Peter 1:21): “For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time, but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.”

Therefore prophecy comes not from nature, but through the gift of the Holy Ghost.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(1) —

I answer that, As stated above ( Q(171), A(6), ad 2) prophetic foreknowledge may regard future things in two ways: in one way, as they are in themselves; in another way, as they are in their causes.

Now, to foreknow future things, as they are in themselves, is proper to the Divine intellect, to Whose eternity all things are present, as stated in the P(1), Q(14) , A(13) . Wherefore such like foreknowledge of the future cannot come from nature, but from Divine revelation alone. On the other hand, future things can be foreknown in their causes with a natural knowledge even by man: thus a physician foreknows future health or death in certain causes, through previous experimental knowledge of the order of those causes to such effects. Such like knowledge of the future may be understood to be in a man by nature in two ways. In one way that the soul, from that which it holds, is able to foreknow the future, and thus Augustine says (Genesis ad lit. xii, 13): “Some have deemed the human soul to contain a certain power of divination.” This seems to be in accord with the opinion of Plato [*Phaed. xxvii; Civit. vi], who held that our souls have knowledge of all things by participating in the ideas; but that this knowledge is obscured in them by union with the body; yet in some more, in others less, according to a difference in bodily purity. According to this it might be said that men, whose souls are not much obscured through union with the body, are able to foreknow such like future things by their own knowledge. Against this opinion Augustine says (Genesis ad lit. xii, 13): “How is it that the soul cannot always have this power of divination, since it always wishes to have it?”

Since, however, it seems truer, according to the opinion of Aristotle, that the soul acquires knowledge from sensibles, as stated in the P(1), Q(84) , A(6), it is better to have recourse to another explanation, and to hold that men have no such foreknowledge of the future, but that they can acquire it by means of experience, wherein they are helped by their natural disposition, which depends on the perfection of a man’s imaginative power, and the clarity of his understanding.

Nevertheless this latter foreknowledge of the future differs in two ways from the former, which comes through Divine revelation. First, because the former can be about any events whatever, and this infallibly; whereas the latter foreknowledge, which can be had naturally, is about certain effects, to which human experience may extend. Secondly, because the former prophecy is “according to the unchangeable truth” [* Q(171), A(3), O(1) ], while the latter is not, and can cover a falsehood. Now the former foreknowledge, and not the latter, properly belongs to prophecy, because, as stated above ( Q(171), A(3) ), prophetic knowledge is of things which naturally surpass human knowledge. Consequently we must say that prophecy strictly so called cannot be from nature, but only from Divine revelation.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(1)- RO(1) —

When the soul is withdrawn from corporeal things, it becomes more adapted to receive the influence of spiritual substances [*Cf. P(1), Q(88) , A(4), ad 2], and also is more inclined to receive the subtle motions which take place in the human imagination through the impression of natural causes, whereas it is hindered from receiving them while occupied with sensible things. Hence Gregory says (Dial. iv, 26) that “the soul, at the approach of death, foresees certain future things, by reason of the subtlety of its nature,” inasmuch as it is receptive even of slight impressions. Or again, it knows future things by a revelation of the angels; but not by its own power, because according to Augustine (Genesis ad lit. xii, 13), “if this were so, it would be able to foreknow the future whenever it willed,” which is clearly false.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(1)- O(2) —

Knowledge of the future by means of dreams, comes either from the revelation of spiritual substances, or from a corporeal cause, as stated above ( Q(95) , A(6) ), when we were treating of divination. Now both these causes are more applicable to a person while asleep than while awake, because, while awake, the soul is occupied with external sensibles, so that it is less receptive of the subtle impressions either of spiritual substances, or even of natural causes; although as regards the perfection of judgment, the reason is more alert in waking than in sleeping.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(1)- RO(3) —

Even dumb animals have no foreknowledge of future events, except as these are foreknown in their causes, whereby their imagination is moved more than man’s, because man’s imagination, especially in waking, is more disposed according to reason than according to the impression of natural causes. Yet reason effects much more amply in man, that which the impression of natural causes effects in dumb animals; and Divine grace by inspiring the prophecy assists man still more.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(1)- RO(4) —

The prophetic light extends even to the direction of human acts; and in this way prophecy is requisite for the government of a people, especially in relation to Divine worship; since for this nature is not sufficient, and grace is necessary.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(2) Whether prophetic revelation comes through the angels?

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(2)- O(1) —

It would seem that prophetic revelation does not come through the angels. For it is written (Wis. 7:27) that Divine wisdom “conveyeth herself into holy souls,” and “maketh the friends of God, and the prophets.” Now wisdom makes the friends of God immediately. Therefore it also makes the prophets immediately, and not through the medium of the angels.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, prophecy is reckoned among the gratuitous graces. But the gratuitous graces are from the Holy Ghost, according to 1 Corinthians 12:4, “There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit.” Therefore the prophetic revelation is not made by means of an angel.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, Cassiodorus [*Prol. in Psalt. i] says that prophecy is a “Divine revelation”: whereas if it were conveyed by the angels, it would be called an angelic revelation. Therefore prophecy is not bestowed by means of the angels.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(2) —

On the contrary, Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv): “Our glorious fathers received Divine visions by means of the heavenly powers”; and he is speaking there of prophetic visions. Therefore prophetic revelation is conveyed by means of the angels.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(2) —

I answer that, As the Apostle says ( Romans 13:1), “Things that are of God are well ordered [*Vulg.: ‘Those that are, are ordained of God.’].” Now the Divine ordering, according to Dionysius [*Coel. Hier. iv; Eccl. Hier. v], is such that the lowest things are directed by middle things. Now the angels hold a middle position between God and men, in that they have a greater share in the perfection of the Divine goodness than men have. Wherefore the Divine enlightenments and revelations are conveyed from God to men by the angels. Now prophetic knowledge is bestowed by Divine enlightenment and revelation. Therefore it is evident that it is conveyed by the angels.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(2)- RO(1) —

Charity which makes man a friend of God, is a perfection of the will, in which God alone can form an impression; whereas prophecy is a perfection of the intellect, in which an angel also can form an impression, as stated in the P(1), Q(111), A(1), wherefore the comparison fails between the two.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(2)- RO(2) —

The gratuitous graces are ascribed to the Holy Ghost as their first principle: yet He works grace of this kind in men by means of the angels.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(2)- RO(3) —

The work of the instrument is ascribed to the principal agent by whose power the instrument acts. And since a minister is like an instrument, prophetic revelation, which is conveyed by the ministry of the angels, is said to be Divine.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(3) Whether a natural disposition is requisite for prophecy?

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(3)- O(1) —

It would seem that a natural disposition is requisite for prophecy. For prophecy is received by the prophet according to the disposition of the recipient, since a gloss of Jerome on Amos 1:2, “The Lord will roar from Sion,” says: “Anyone who wishes to make a comparison naturally turns to those things of which he has experience, and among which his life is spent. For example, sailors compare their enemies to the winds, and their losses to a shipwreck. In like manner Amos, who was a shepherd, likens the fear of God to that which is inspired by the lion’s roar.” Now that which is received by a thing according to the mode of the recipient requires a natural disposition. Therefore prophecy requires a natural disposition.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, the considerations of prophecy are more lofty than those of acquired science. Now natural indisposition hinders the considerations of acquired science, since many are prevented by natural indisposition from succeeding to grasp the speculations of science. Much more therefore is a natural disposition requisite for the contemplation of prophecy.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, natural indisposition is a much greater obstacle than an accidental impediment. Now the considerations of prophecy are hindered by an accidental occurrence. For Jerome says in his commentary on Matthew [*The quotation is from Origen, Hom. vi in Num.] that “at the time of the marriage act, the presence of the Holy Ghost will not be vouchsafed, even though it be a prophet that fulfils the duty of procreation.” Much more therefore does a natural indisposition hinder prophecy; and thus it would seem that a good natural disposition is requisite for prophecy.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(3) —

On the contrary, Gregory says in a homily for Pentecost (xxx in Ev.): “He,” namely the Holy Ghost, “fills the boy harpist and makes him a Psalmist; He fills the herdsman plucking wild figs, and makes him a prophet.” Therefore prophecy requires no previous disposition, but depends on the will alone of the Holy Ghost, of Whom it is written ( 1 Corinthians 12:2): “All these things, one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one according as He will.”

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(3) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(1) ), prophecy in its true and exact sense comes from Divine inspiration; while that which comes from a natural cause is not called prophecy except in a relative sense. Now we must observe that as God Who is the universal efficient cause requires neither previous matter nor previous disposition of matter in His corporeal effects, for He is able at the same instant to bring into being matter and disposition and form, so neither does He require a previous disposition in His spiritual effects, but is able to produce both the spiritual effect and at the same time the fitting disposition as requisite according to the order of nature. More than this, He is able at the same time, by creation, to produce the subject, so as to dispose a soul for prophecy and give it the prophetic grace, at the very instant of its creation.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(3)- RO(1) —

It matters not to prophecy by what comparisons the thing prophesied is expressed; and so the Divine operation makes no change in a prophet in this respect. Yet if there be anything in him incompatible with prophecy, it is removed by the Divine power.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(3)- RO(2) —

The considerations of science proceed from a natural cause, and nature cannot work without a previous disposition in matter. This cannot be said of God Who is the cause of prophecy.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(3)- RO(3) —

A natural indisposition, if not removed, might be an obstacle to prophetic revelation, for instance if a man were altogether deprived of the natural senses. In the same way a man might be hindered from the act of prophesying by some very strong passion, whether of anger, or of concupiscence as in coition, or by any other passion. But such a natural indisposition as this is removed by the Divine power, which is the cause of prophecy.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(4) Whether a good life is requisite for prophecy?

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(4)- O(1) —

It would seem that a good life is requisite for prophecy. For it is written (Wis. 7:27) that the wisdom of God “through nations conveyeth herself into holy souls,” and “maketh the friends of God, and prophets.” Now there can be no holiness without a good life and sanctifying grace. Therefore prophecy cannot be without a good life and sanctifying grace.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, secrets are not revealed save to a friend, according to John 15:15, “But I have called you friends, because all things whatsoever I have heard of My Father, I have made known to you.”

Now God reveals His secrets to the prophets ( Amos 3:7). Therefore it would seem that the prophets are the friends of God; which is impossible without charity. Therefore seemingly prophecy cannot be without charity; and charity is impossible without sanctifying grace.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, it is written ( Matthew 7:15) “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

Now all who are without grace are likened inwardly to a ravening wolf, and consequently all such are false prophets. Therefore no man is a true prophet except he be good by grace.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(4)- O(4) —

Further, the Philosopher says (De Somn. et Vigil. [*Cf. De Divinat. per Somn. i, which is annexed to the work quoted]) that “if interpretation of dreams is from God, it is unfitting for it to be bestowed on any but the best.” Now it is evident that the gift of prophecy is from God. Therefore the gift of prophecy is vouchsafed only to the best men.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(4) —

On the contrary, To those who had said, “Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name?” this reply is made: “I never knew you” ( Matthew 7:22,23). Now “the Lord knoweth who are His” ( 2 Timothy 2:19). Therefore prophecy can be in those who are not God’s by grace.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(4) —

I answer that, A good life may be considered from two points of view. First, with regard to its inward root, which is sanctifying grace. Secondly, with regard to the inward passions of the soul and the outward actions. Now sanctifying grace is given chiefly in order that man’s soul may be united to God by charity. Wherefore Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 18): “A man is not transferred from the left side to the right, unless he receive the Holy Ghost, by Whom he is made a lover of God and of his neighbor.” Hence whatever can be without charity can be without sanctifying grace, and consequently without goodness of life. Now prophecy can be without charity; and this is clear on two counts. First, on account of their respective acts: for prophecy pertains to the intellect, whose act precedes the act of the will, which power is perfected by charity. For this reason the Apostle ( 1 Corinthians 13) reckons prophecy with other things pertinent to the intellect, that can be had without charity. Secondly, on account of their respective ends. For prophecy like other gratuitous graces is given for the good of the Church, according to 1 Corinthians 12:7, “The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit”; and is not directly intended to unite man’s affections to God, which is the purpose of charity. Therefore prophecy can be without a good life, as regards the first root of this goodness.

If, however, we consider a good life, with regard to the passions of the soul, and external actions, from this point of view an evil life is an obstacle to prophecy. For prophecy requires the mind to be raised very high in order to contemplate spiritual things, and this is hindered by strong passions, and the inordinate pursuit of external things. Hence we read of the sons of the prophets ( 2 Kings 4:38) that they “dwelt together with [Vulg.: ‘before’]” Eliseus, leading a solitary life, as it were, lest worldly employment should be a hindrance to the gift of prophecy.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(4)- RO(1) —

Sometimes the gift of prophecy is given to a man both for the good of others, and in order to enlighten his own mind; and such are those whom Divine wisdom, “conveying itself” by sanctifying grace to their minds, “maketh the friends of God, and prophets.” Others, however, receive the gift of prophecy merely for the good of others. Hence Jerome commenting on Matthew 7:22, says: “Sometimes prophesying, the working of miracles, and the casting out of demons are accorded not to the merit of those who do these things, but either to the invoking the name of Christ, or to the condemnation of those who invoke, and for the good of those who see and hear.”

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(4)- RO(2) —

Gregory [*Hom. xxvii in Ev.] expounding this passage [* John 15:15] says: “Since we love the lofty things of heaven as soon as we hear them, we know them as soon as we love them, for to love is to know. Accordingly He had made all things known to them, because having renounced earthly desires they were kindled by the torches of perfect love.” In this way the Divine secrets are not always revealed to prophets.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(4)- RO(3) —

Not all wicked men are ravening wolves, but only those whose purpose is to injure others. For Chrysostom says [*Opus Imperf. in Matth., Hom. xix, among the works of St. John Chrysostom, and falsely ascribed to him] that “Catholic teachers, though they be sinners, are called slaves of the flesh, but never ravening wolves, because they do not purpose the destruction of Christians.” And since prophecy is directed to the good of others, it is manifest that such are false prophets, because they are not sent for this purpose by God.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(4)- RO(4) —

God’s gifts are not always bestowed on those who are simply the best, but sometimes are vouchsafed to those who are best as regards the receiving of this or that gift. Accordingly God grants the gift of prophecy to those whom He judges best to give it to.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(5) Whether any prophecy comes from the demons?

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(5)- O(1) —

It would seem that no prophecy comes from the demons. For prophecy is “a Divine revelation,” according to Cassiodorus [*Prol. in Psalt. i]. But that which is done by a demon is not Divine. Therefore no prophecy can be from a demon.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(5)- O(2) —

Further, some kind of enlightenment is requisite for prophetic knowledge, as stated above ( Q(171), AA(2),3 ).

Now the demons do not enlighten the human intellect, as stated above in the P(1), Q(119), A(3) . Therefore no prophecy can come from the demons.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(5)- O(3) —

Further, a sign is worthless if it betokens contraries. Now prophecy is a sign in confirmation of faith; wherefore a gloss on Romans 12:6, “Either prophecy to be used according to the rule of faith,” says: “Observe that in reckoning the graces, he begins with prophecy, which is the first proof of the reasonableness of our faith; since believers, after receiving the Spirit, prophesied.” Therefore prophecy cannot be bestowed by the demons.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(5) —

On the contrary, It is written ( 1 Kings 18:19): “Gather unto me all Israel unto mount Carmel, and the prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty, and the prophets of the grove four hundred, who eat at Jezebel’s table.”

Now these were worshippers of demons. Therefore it would seem that there is also a prophecy from the demons.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(5) —

I answer that, As stated above ( Q(171), A(1) ), prophecy denotes knowledge far removed from human knowledge. Now it is evident that an intellect of a higher order can know some things that are far removed from the knowledge of an inferior intellect. Again, above the human intellect there is not only the Divine intellect, but also the intellects of good and bad angels according to the order of nature. Hence the demons, even by their natural knowledge, know certain things remote from men’s knowledge, which they can reveal to men: although those things which God alone knows are remote simply and most of all.

Accordingly prophecy, properly and simply, is conveyed by Divine revelations alone; yet the revelation which is made by the demons may be called prophecy in a restricted sense. Wherefore those men to whom something is revealed by the demons are styled in the Scriptures as prophets, not simply, but with an addition, for instance as “false prophets,” or “prophets of idols.” Hence Augustine says (Genesis ad lit. xii, 19): “When the evil spirit lays hold of a man for such purposes as these,” namely visions, “he makes him either devilish, or possessed, or a false prophet.”

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(5)- RO(1) —

Cassiodorus is here defining prophecy in its proper and simple acceptation.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(5)- RO(2) —

The demons reveal what they know to men, not by enlightening the intellect, but by an imaginary vision, or even by audible speech; and in this way this prophecy differs from true prophecy.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(5)- RO(3) —

The prophecy of the demons can be distinguished from Divine prophecy by certain, and even outward, signs.

Hence Chrysostom says [*Opus Imperf. in Matth., Hom. xix, falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom] that “some prophesy by the spirit of the devil, such as diviners, but they may be discerned by the fact that the devil sometimes utters what is false, the Holy Ghost never.” Wherefore it is written ( Deuteronomy 18:21,22): “If in silent thought thou answer: How shall I know the word that the Lord hath spoken? Thou shalt have this sign: Whatsoever that same prophet foretelleth in the name of the Lord, and it come not to pass, that thing the Lord hath not spoken.”

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(6) Whether the prophets of the demons ever foretell the truth?

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(6)- O(1) —

It would seem that the prophets of the demons never foretell the truth. For Ambrose [*Hilary the Deacon (Ambrosiaster) on 1 Corinthians 12:3] says that “Every truth, by whomsoever spoken, is from the Holy Ghost.” Now the prophets of the demons do not speak from the Holy Ghost, because “there is no concord between Christ and Belial [*’What concord hath Christ with Belial?’]” ( 2 Corinthians 6:15). Therefore it would seem that they never foretell the truth.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(6)- O(2) —

Further, just as true prophets are inspired by the Spirit of truth, so the prophets of the demons are inspired by the spirit of untruth, according to 1 Kings 22:22, “I will go forth, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.” Now the prophets inspired by the Holy Ghost never speak false, as stated above ( Q(111), A(6) ). Therefore the prophets of the demons never speak truth.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(6)- O(3) —

Further, it is said of the devil ( John 8:44) that “when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for the devil is a liar, and the father thereof,” i.e. of lying. Now by inspiring his prophets, the devil speaks only of his own, for he is not appointed God’s minister to declare the truth, since “light hath no fellowship with darkness [*Vulg.: ‘What fellowship hath light with darkness?’]” ( 2 Corinthians 6:14).

Therefore the prophets of the demons never foretell the truth.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(6) —

On the contrary, A gloss on Numbers 22:14, says that “Balaam was a diviner, for he sometimes foreknew the future by help of the demons and the magic art.” Now he foretold many true things, for instance that which is to be found in Numbers 24:17: “A star shall rise out of Jacob, and a scepter shall spring up from Israel.” Therefore even the prophets of the demons foretell the truth.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(6) —

I answer that, As the good is in relation to things, so is the true in relation to knowledge. Now in things it is impossible to find one that is wholly devoid of good. Wherefore it is also impossible for any knowledge to be wholly false, without some mixture of truth. Hence Bede says [*Comment. in Luc. xvii, 12; Cf. Augustine, QQ. Evang. ii, 40] that “no teaching is so false that it never mingles truth with falsehood.”

Hence the teaching of the demons, with which they instruct their prophets, contains some truths whereby it is rendered acceptable. For the intellect is led astray to falsehood by the semblance of truth, even as the will is seduced to evil by the semblance of goodness. Wherefore Chrysostom says [*Opus Imperf. in Matth., Hom. xix, falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom]: “The devil is allowed sometimes to speak true things, in order that his unwonted truthfulness may gain credit for his lie.”

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(6)- RO(1) —

The prophets of the demons do not always speak from the demons’ revelation, but sometimes by Divine inspiration.

This was evidently the case with Balaam, of whom we read that the Lord spoke to him ( Numbers 22:12), though he was a prophet of the demons, because God makes use even of the wicked for the profit of the good.

Hence He foretells certain truths even by the demons’ prophets, both that the truth may be rendered more credible, since even its foes bear witness to it, and also in order that men, by believing such men, may be more easily led on to truth. Wherefore also the Sibyls foretold many true things about Christ.

Yet even when the demons’ prophets are instructed by the demons, they foretell the truth, sometimes by virtue of their own nature, the author of which is the Holy Ghost, and sometimes by revelation of the good spirits, as Augustine declares (Genesis ad lit. xii, 19): so that even then this truth which the demons proclaim is from the Holy Ghost.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(6)- RO(2) —

A true prophet is always inspired by the Spirit of truth, in Whom there is no falsehood, wherefore He never says what is not true; whereas a false prophet is not always instructed by the spirit of untruth, but sometimes even by the Spirit of truth. Even the very spirit of untruth sometimes declares true things, sometimes false, as stated above.

P(2b)- Q(172)- A(6)- RO(3) —

Those things are called the demons’ own, which they have of themselves, namely lies and sins; while they have, not of themselves but of God, those things which belong to them by nature: and it is by virtue of their own nature that they sometimes foretell the truth, as stated above (ad 1). Moreover God makes use of them to make known the truth which is to be accomplished through them, by revealing Divine mysteries to them through the angels, as already stated (Genesis ad lit. xii, 19; P(1), Q(109), A(4), ad 1).

QUESTION OF THE MANNER IN WHICH PROPHETIC KNOWLEDGE IS CONVEYED (FOUR ARTICLES)

We must now consider the manner in which prophetic knowledge is conveyed, and under this head there are four points of inquiry: (1) Whether the prophets see God’s very essence? (2) Whether the prophetic revelation is effected by the infusion of certain species, or by the infusion of Divine light alone? (3) Whether prophetic revelation is always accompanied by abstraction from the sense? (4) Whether prophecy is always accompanied by knowledge of the things prophesied?

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(1) Whether the prophets see the very essence of God?

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(1)- O(1) —

It would seem that the prophets see the very essence of God, for a gloss on Isaiah 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.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(1)- O(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.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(1)- O(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.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(1) —

On the contrary, The vision of the Divine essence is not made void in heaven; whereas “prophecy is made void” ( Corinthians 13:8). Therefore prophecy is not conveyed by a vision of the Divine essence.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(1) —

I answer that, Prophecy denotes Divine knowledge as existing afar off. Wherefore it is said of the prophets ( Hebrews 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 <19D914> Psalm 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 Corinthians 13:10).

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”) [*Cf. De Veritate, xii, 6; Sent. II, D, XI, part 2, art. 2, ad 4], not, however, in the way in which it is the object of the blessed, but as containing the types [*Cf. P(1), Q(15) ] 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.

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, in so far 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) ).

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(1)- RO(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.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(1)- RO(2) —

Man is said to see in the First Truth the type of his existence, in so far as the image of the First Truth shines forth on man’s mind, so that he is able to know himself.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(1)- RO(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.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(2) Whether, in prophetic revelation, new species of things are impressed on the prophet’s mind, or merely a new light?

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(2)- O(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.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, according to Augustine (Genesis ad lit. xii, 9), “it is not imaginative but intellective vision that makes the prophet”; wherefore it is declared ( Daniel 10:1) that “there is need of understanding in a vision.” Now intellective vision, as stated in the same book (Genesis 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.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, by the gift of prophecy the Holy Ghost 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.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(2) —

On the contrary, It is written ( Hosea 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.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(2) —

I answer that, As Augustine says (Genesis 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, secondly to the imagination, thirdly to the passive intellect, and these are changed by the species derived from the phantasms, which change results from the enlightening action of the active 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.

As to the judgment formed by the human mind, it depends on the power of the intellectual light.

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.

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 ( Genesis 41:1-7) and to Nabuchodonosor ( Daniel 4:1-2), or even by bodily likenesses, as happened to Balthasar ( Daniel 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 [*Rabbi Moyses, Doct. Perplex. II, xxxvi] 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 (Genesis 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.”

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 ( Daniel 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” ( Jeremiah 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.

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 Isaiah 63:14, “The Spirit of the Lord was their leader.”

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.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(2)- RO(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.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(2)- RO(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.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(2)- RO(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.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(3) Whether the prophetic vision is always accompanied by abstraction from the senses?

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(3)- O(1) —

It would seem that the prophetic vision is always accompanied by abstraction from the senses. For it is written ( Numbers 12:6): “If there be among you a prophet of the Lord, I will appear to him in a vision, or I will speak to him in a dream.” Now a gloss says at the beginning of the Psalter, “a vision that takes place by dreams and apparitions consists of things which seem to be said or done.” But when things seem to be said or done, which are neither said nor done, there is abstraction from the senses. Therefore prophecy is always accompanied by abstraction from the senses.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, when one power is very intent on its own operation, other powers are drawn away from theirs; thus men who are very intent on hearing something fail to see what takes place before them. Now in the prophetic vision the intellect is very much uplifted, and intent on its act. Therefore it seems that the prophetic vision is always accompanied by abstraction from the senses.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, the same thing cannot, at the same time, tend in opposite directions. Now in the prophetic vision the mind tends to the acceptance of things from above, and consequently it cannot at the same time tend to sensible objects. Therefore it would seem necessary for prophetic revelation to be always accompanied by abstraction from the senses.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(3)- O(4) —

On the contrary, It is written ( Corinthians 14:32): “The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.” Now this were impossible if the prophet were not in possession of his faculties, but abstracted from his senses. Therefore it would seem that prophetic vision is not accompanied by abstraction from the senses.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(3) —

I answer that, As stated in the foregoing Article, the prophetic revelation takes place in four ways: namely, by the infusion of an intelligible light, by the infusion of intelligible species, by impression or coordination of pictures in the imagination, and by the outward presentation of sensible images. Now it is evident that there is no abstraction from the senses, when something is presented to the prophet’s mind by means of sensible species — whether these be divinely formed for this special purpose, as the bush shown to Moses ( Exodus 3:2), and the writing shown to Daniel ( Daniel 5:) — or whether they be produced by other causes; yet so that they are ordained by Divine providence to be prophetically significant of something, as, for instance, the Church was signified by the ark of Noah.

Again, abstraction from the external senses is not rendered necessary when the prophet’s mind is enlightened by an intellectual light, or impressed with intelligible species, since in us the perfect judgment of the intellect is effected by its turning to sensible objects, which are the first principles of our knowledge, as stated in the P(1), Q(84) , A(6) .

When, however, prophetic revelation is conveyed by images in the imagination, abstraction from the senses is necessary lest the things thus seen in imagination be taken for objects of external sensation. Yet this abstraction from the senses is sometimes complete, so that a man perceives nothing with his senses; and sometimes it is incomplete, so that he perceives something with his senses, yet does not fully discern the things he perceives outwardly from those he sees in imagination. Hence Augustine says (Genesis ad lit. xii, 12): “Those images of bodies which are formed in the soul are seen just as bodily things themselves are seen by the body, so that we see with our eyes one who is present, and at the same time we see with the soul one who is absent, as though we saw him with our eyes.”

Yet this abstraction from the senses takes place in the prophets without subverting the order of nature, as is the case with those who are possessed or out of their senses; but is due to some well-ordered cause. This cause may be natural — for instance, sleep — or spiritual — for instance, the intenseness of the prophets’ contemplation; thus we read of Peter ( Acts 10:9) that while he was praying in the supper-room [*Vulg.: ‘the house- top’ or ‘upper-chamber’] “he fell into an ecstasy” — or he may be carried away by the Divine power, according to the saying of Ezekiel 1:3: “The hand of the Lord was upon him.”

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(3)- RO(1) —

The passage quoted refers to prophets in whom imaginary pictures were formed or coordinated, either while asleep, which is denoted by the word “dream,” or while awake, which is signified by the word “vision.”

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(3)- RO(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.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(3)- RO(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.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(3)- RO(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 Montanus 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.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(4) Whether prophets always know the things which they prophesy?

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(4)- O(1) —

It would seem that the prophets always know the things which they prophesy. For, as Augustine says (Genesis 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.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, the light of prophecy surpasses 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.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, prophecy is directed for man’s enlightenment; wherefore it is written ( 2 Peter 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.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(4) —

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.

P(2b)- Q(173)- A(4) —

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 principal 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 ( Jeremiah 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 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?

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(1) Whether prophecy is fittingly divided into the prophecy of divine predestination, of foreknowledge, and of denunciation?

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(1)- O(1) —

It would seem that prophecy is unfittingly divided according to a gloss on Matthew 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 God’s foreknowledge: and into this our will enters. And another prophecy is called denunciation, which is significative of God’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 Isaiah 38:1. Therefore it would seem that prophecy according to foreknowledge should not be reckoned a species of prophecy.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(1)- O(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 ( Jeremiah 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 ( Jeremiah 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.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(1)- O(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 ( Isaiah 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 God spake to Moses. The fifth kind is a voice from heaven, as that which called to Abraham saying ( Genesis 22:11): ‘Lay not thy hand upon the boy.’ The sixth kind is taking up a parable, as in the example of Balaam ( Numbers 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.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(1) —

On the contrary, stands the authority of Jerome to whom the gloss above quoted is ascribed.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(1) —

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 God and surpassing the faculty of man. Wherefore, according to the difference of such things, prophecy is divided into various species, as assigned 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, God 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), “God 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 assigns only two species to prophecy, namely of “foreknowledge,” and of “denunciation.”

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(1)- RO(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.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(1)- RO(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 God is more inclined to remit punishment than to withdraw promised blessings.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(1)- RO(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 (Genesis 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 assigns 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 assigns the sixth place.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(2) Whether the prophecy which is accompanied by intellective and imaginative vision is more excellent than that which is accompanied by intellective vision alone?

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(2)- O(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 (Genesis 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.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(2)- O(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.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(2)- O(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.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(2)- O(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.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(2) —

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 assistance of deed, word, vision, or dream.”

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(2) —

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 surpasses 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 God’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.”

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(2)- RO(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.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(2)- RO(2) —

The same judgment does not apply to things that are sought for their own sake, as to things sought for the sake of something else. For in things sought for their own sake, the agent’s power is the more effective according as it extends to more numerous and more remote objects; even so a physician is thought more of, if he is able to heal more people, and those who are further removed from health. on the other hand, in things sought only for the sake of something else, that agent would seem to have greater power, who is able to achieve his purpose with fewer means and those nearest to hand: thus more praise is awarded the physician who is able to heal a sick person by means of fewer and more gentle remedies. Now, in the prophetic knowledge, imaginary vision is required, not for its own sake, but on account of the manifestation of the intelligible truth. Wherefore prophecy is all the more excellent according as it needs it less.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(2)- RO(3) —

The fact that a particular predicate is applicable to one thing and less properly to another, does not prevent this latter from being simply better than the former: thus the knowledge of the blessed is more excellent than the knowledge of the wayfarer, although faith is more properly predicated of the latter knowledge, because faith implies an imperfection of knowledge. In like manner prophecy implies a certain obscurity, and remoteness from the intelligible truth; wherefore the name of prophet is more properly applied to those who see by imaginary vision. And yet the more excellent prophecy is that which is conveyed by intellectual vision, provided the same truth be revealed in either case. If, however, the intellectual light be divinely infused in a person, not that he may know some supernatural things, but that he may be able to judge, with the certitude of divine truth, of things that can be known by human reason, such intellectual prophecy is beneath that which is conveyed by an imaginary vision leading to a supernatural truth. It was this kind of prophecy that all those had who are included in the ranks of the prophets, who moreover were called prophets for the special reason that they exercised the prophetic calling officially. Hence they spoke as God’s representatives, saying to the people: “Thus saith the Lord”: but not so the authors of the “sacred writings,” several of whom treated more frequently of things that can be known by human reason, not in God’s name, but in their own, yet with the assistance of the Divine light withal.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(2)- RO(4) —

In the present life the enlightenment by the divine ray is not altogether without any veil of phantasms, because according to his present state of life it is unnatural to man not to understand without a phantasm. Sometimes, however, it is sufficient to have phantasms abstracted in the usual way from the senses without any imaginary vision divinely vouchsafed, and thus prophetic vision is said to be without imaginary vision.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(3) Whether the degrees of prophecy can be distinguished according to the imaginary vision?

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(3)- O(1) —

It would seem that the degrees of prophecy cannot be distinguished according to the imaginary vision. For the degrees of a thing bear relation to something that is on its own account, not on account of something else. Now, in prophecy, intellectual vision is sought on its own account, and imaginary vision on account of something else, as stated above ( A(2), ad 2). Therefore it would seem that the degrees of prophecy are distinguished not according to imaginary, but only according to intellectual, vision.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, seemingly for one prophet there is one degree of prophecy. Now one prophet receives revelation through various imaginary visions. Therefore a difference of imaginary visions does not entail a difference of prophecy.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, according to a gloss [*Cassiodorus, super Prolog. Hieron. in Psalt.], prophecy consists of words, deeds, dreams, and visions. Therefore the degrees of prophecy should not be distinguished according to imaginary vision, to which vision and dreams pertain, rather than according to words and deeds.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(3) —

On the contrary, The medium differentiates the degrees of knowledge: thus science based on direct [*”Propter quid”] proofs is more excellent than science based on indirect [*”Quia”] premises or than opinion, because it comes through a more excellent medium. Now imaginary vision is a kind of medium in prophetic knowledge. Therefore the degrees of prophecy should be distinguished according to imaginary vision.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(3) —

I answer that, As stated above ( Q(173), A(2) ), the prophecy wherein, by the intelligible light, a supernatural truth is revealed through an imaginary vision, holds the mean between the prophecy wherein a supernatural truth is revealed without imaginary vision, and that wherein through the intelligible light and without an imaginary vision, man is directed to know or do things pertaining to human conduct. Now knowledge is more proper to prophecy than is action; wherefore the lowest degree of prophecy is when a man, by an inward instinct, is moved to perform some outward action. Thus it is related of Samson ( Judges 15:14) that “the Spirit of the Lord came strongly upon him, and as the flax [*’Lina.’ St. Thomas apparently read ‘ligna’ (‘wood’)] is wont to be consumed at the approach of fire, so the bands with which he was bound were broken and loosed.” The second degree of prophecy is when a man is enlightened by an inward light so as to know certain things, which, however, do not go beyond the bounds of natural knowledge: thus it is related of Solomon ( 1 Kings 4:32,33) that “he spoke... parables... and he treated about trees from the cedar that is in Libanus unto the hyssop that cometh out of the wall, and he discoursed of beasts and of fowls, and of creeping things and of fishes”: and all of this came from divine inspiration, for it was stated previously ( 1 Kings 4:29): “God gave to Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much.”

Nevertheless these two degrees are beneath prophecy properly so called, because they do not attain to supernatural truth. The prophecy wherein supernatural truth is manifested through imaginary vision is differentiated first according to the difference between dreams which occur during sleep, and vision which occurs while one is awake. The latter belongs to a higher degree of prophecy, since the prophetic light that draws the soul away to supernatural things while it is awake and occupied with sensible things would seem to be stronger than that which finds a man’s soul asleep and withdrawn from objects of sense. Secondly the degrees of this prophecy are differentiated according to the expressiveness of the imaginary signs whereby the intelligible truth is conveyed. And since words are the most expressive signs of intelligible truth, it would seem to be a higher degree of prophecy when the prophet, whether awake or asleep, hears words expressive of an intelligible truth, than when he sees things significative of truth, for instance “the seven full ears of corn” signified “seven years of plenty” ( Genesis 41:22,26). In such like signs prophecy would seem to be the more excellent, according as the signs are more expressive, for instance when Jeremias saw the burning of the city under the figure of a boiling cauldron ( Jeremiah 1:13). Thirdly, it is evidently a still higher degree of prophecy when a prophet not only sees signs of words or deeds, but also, either awake or asleep, sees someone speaking or showing something to him, since this proves the prophet’s mind to have approached nearer to the cause of the revelation. Fourthly, the height of a degree of prophecy may be measured according to the appearance of the person seen: for it is a higher degree of prophecy, if he who speaks or shows something to the waking or sleeping prophet be seen by him under the form of an angel, than if he be seen by him under the form of man: and higher still is it, if he be seen by the prophet whether asleep or awake, under the appearance of God, according to Isaiah 6:1, “I saw the Lord sitting.”

But above all these degrees there is a third kind of prophecy, wherein an intelligible and supernatural truth is shown without any imaginary vision.

However, this goes beyond the bounds of prophecy properly so called, as stated above ( A(2), ad 3); and consequently the degrees of prophecy are properly distinguished according to imaginary vision.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(3)- RO(1) —

We are unable to know how to distinguish the intellectual light, except by means of imaginary or sensible signs. Hence the difference in the intellectual light is gathered from the difference in the things presented to the imagination.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(3)- RO(2) —

As stated above ( Q(171), A(2) ), prophecy is by way, not of an abiding habit, but of a transitory passion; wherefore there is nothing inconsistent if one and the same prophet, at different times, receive various degrees of prophetic revelation.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(3)- RO(3) —

The words and deeds mentioned there do not pertain to the prophetic revelation, but to the announcement, which is made according to the disposition of those to whom that which is revealed to the prophet is announced; and this is done sometimes by words, sometimes by deeds. Now this announcement, and the working of miracles, are something consequent upon prophecy, as stated above ( Q(171), A(1) ).

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(4) Whether Moses was the greatest of the prophets?

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(4)- O(1) —

It would seem that Moses was not the greatest of the prophets. For a gloss at the beginning of the Psalter says that “David is called the prophet by way of excellence.” Therefore Moses was not the greatest of all.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, greater miracles were wrought by Josue, who made the sun and moon to stand still (Josue 10:12-14), and by Isaias, who made the sun to turn back ( Isaiah 38:8), than by Moses, who divided the Red Sea ( Exodus 14:21). In like manner greater miracles were wrought by Elias, of whom it is written (Ecclus. 48:4,5): “Who can glory like to thee? Who raisedst up a dead man from below.” Therefore Moses was not the greatest of the prophets.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, it is written ( Matthew 11:11) that “there hath not risen, among them that are born of women, a greater than John the Baptist.” Therefore Moses was not greater than all the prophets.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(4) —

On the contrary, It is written ( Deuteronomy 34:10): “There arose no more a prophet in Israel like unto Moses.”

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(4) —

I answer that, Although in some respect one or other of the prophets was greater than Moses, yet Moses was simply the greatest of all. For, as stated above ( A(3) ; Q(171), A(1) ), in prophecy we may consider not only the knowledge, whether by intellectual or by imaginary vision, but also the announcement and the confirmation by miracles. Accordingly Moses was greater than the other prophets. First, as regards the intellectual vision, since he saw God’s very essence, even as Paul in his rapture did, according to Augustine (Genesis ad lit. xii, 27).

Hence it is written ( Numbers 12:8) that he saw God “plainly and not by riddles.” Secondly, as regards the imaginary vision, which he had at his call, as it were, for not only did he hear words, but also saw one speaking to him under the form of God, and this not only while asleep, but even when he was awake. Hence it is written ( Exodus 33:11) that “the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man is wont to speak to his friend.” Thirdly, as regards the working of miracles which he wrought on a whole nation of unbelievers. Wherefore it is written ( Deuteronomy 34:10,11): “There arose no more a prophet in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face: in all the signs and wonders, which He sent by him, to do in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh, and to all his servants, and to his whole land.”

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(4)- RO(1) —

The prophecy of David approaches near to the vision of Moses, as regards the intellectual vision, because both received a revelation of intelligible and supernatural truth, without any imaginary vision. Yet the vision of Moses was more excellent as regards the knowledge of the Godhead; while David more fully knew and expressed the mysteries of Christ’s incarnation.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(4)- RO(2) —

These signs of the prophets mentioned were greater as to the substance of the thing done; yet the miracles of Moses were greater as regards the way in which they were done, since they were wrought on a whole people.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(4)- RO(3) —

John belongs to the New Testament, whose ministers take precedence even of Moses, since they are spectators of a fuller revelation, as stated in 2 Corinthians 3.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(5) Whether there is a degree of prophecy in the blessed?

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(5)- O(1) —

It would seem that there is a degree of prophecy in the blessed. For, as stated above ( A(4) ), Moses saw the Divine essence, and yet he is called a prophet. Therefore in like manner the blessed can be called prophets.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(5)- O(2) —

Further, prophecy is a “divine revelation.”

Now divine revelations are made even to the blessed angels. Therefore even blessed angels can be prophets.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(5)- O(3) —

Further, Christ was a comprehensor from the moment of His conception; and yet He calls Himself a prophet ( Matthew 13:57), when He says: “A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country.” Therefore even comprehensors and the blessed can be called prophets.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(5)- O(4) —

Further, it is written of Samuel (Ecclus. 46:23): “He lifted up his voice from the earth in prophecy to blot out the wickedness of the nation.” Therefore other saints can likewise be called prophets after they have died.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(5) —

On the contrary, The prophetic word is compared ( 2 Peter 1:19) to a “light that shineth in a dark place.” Now there is no darkness in the blessed. Therefore they cannot be called prophets.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(5) —

I answer that, Prophecy denotes vision of some supernatural truth as being far remote from us. This happens in two ways.

First, on the part of the knowledge itself, because, to wit, the supernatural truth is not known in itself, but in some of its effects; and this truth will be more remote if it be known by means of images of corporeal things, than if it be known in its intelligible effects; and such most of all is the prophetic vision, which is conveyed by images and likenesses of corporeal things.

Secondly, vision is remote on the part of the seer, because, to wit, he has not yet attained completely to his ultimate perfection, according to Corinthians 5:6, “While we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord.”

Now in neither of these ways are the blessed remote; wherefore they cannot be called prophets.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(5)- RO(1) —

This vision of Moses was interrupted after the manner of a passion, and was not permanent like the beatific vision, wherefore he was as yet a seer from afar. For this reason his vision did not entirely lose the character of prophecy.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(5)- RO(2) —

The divine revelation is made to the angels, not as being far distant, but as already wholly united to God; wherefore their revelation has not the character of prophecy.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(5)- RO(3) —

Christ was at the same time comprehensor and wayfarer [*Cf. TP,QQ(9) , seqq.]. Consequently the notion of prophecy is not applicable to Him as a comprehensor, but only as a wayfarer.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(5)- RO(4) —

Samuel had not yet attained to the state of blessedness. Wherefore although by God’s will the soul itself of Samuel foretold to Saul the issue of the war as revealed to him by God, this pertains to the nature of prophecy. It is not the same with the saints who are now in heaven. Nor does it make any difference that this is stated to have been brought about by the demons’ art, because although the demons are unable to evoke the soul of a saint, or to force it to do any particular thing, this can be done by the power of God, so that when the demon is consulted, God Himself declares the truth by His messenger: even as He gave a true answer by Elias to the King’s messengers who were sent to consult the god of Accaron ( 2 Kings 1).

It might also be replied [*The Book of Ecclesiasticus was not as yet declared by the Church to be Canonical Scripture; Cf. P(1), Q(89) , A(8), ad 2] that it was not the soul of Samuel, but a demon impersonating him; and that the wise man calls him Samuel, and describes his prediction as prophetic, in accordance with the thoughts of Saul and the bystanders who were of this opinion.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(6) Whether the degrees of prophecy change as time goes on?

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(6)- O(1) —

It would seem that the degrees of prophecy change as time goes on. For prophecy is directed to the knowledge of Divine things, as stated above ( A(2) ). Now according to Gregory (Hom. in Ezech.), “knowledge of God went on increasing as time went on.”

Therefore degrees of prophecy should be distinguished according to the process of time.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(6)- O(2) —

Further, prophetic revelation is conveyed by God speaking to man; while the prophets declared both in words and in writing the things revealed to them. Now it is written ( 1 Kings 3:1) that before the time of Samuel “the word of the Lord was precious,” i.e. rare; and yet afterwards it was delivered to many. In like manner the books of the prophets do not appear to have been written before the time of Isaias, to whom it was said ( Isaiah 8:1): “Take thee a great book and write in it with a man’s pen,” after which many prophets wrote their prophecies.

Therefore it would seem that in course of time the degree of prophecy made progress.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(6)- O(3) —

Further, our Lord said ( Matthew 11:13): “The prophets and the law prophesied until John”; and afterwards the gift of prophecy was in Christ’s disciples in a much more excellent manner than in the prophets of old, according to Ephesians 3:5, “In other generations” the mystery of Christ “was not known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit.”

Therefore it would seem that in course of time the degree of prophecy advanced.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(6) —

On the contrary, As stated above ( A(4) ), Moses was the greatest of the prophets, and yet he preceded the other prophets.

Therefore prophecy did not advance in degree as time went on.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(6) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(2) ), prophecy is directed to the knowledge of Divine truth, by the contemplation of which we are not only instructed in faith, but also guided in our actions, according to Psalm 42:3, “Send forth Thy light and Thy truth: they have conducted me.” Now our faith consists chiefly in two things: first, in the true knowledge of God, according to Hebrews 11:6, “He that cometh to God must believe that He is”; secondly, in the mystery of Christ’s incarnation, according to John 14:1, “You believe in God, believe also in Me.” Accordingly, if we speak of prophecy as directed to the Godhead as its end, it progressed according to three divisions of time, namely before the law, under the law, and under grace. For before the law, Abraham and the other patriarchs were prophetically taught things pertinent to faith in the Godhead. Hence they are called prophets, according to <19A415> Psalm 104:15, “Do no evil to My prophets,” which words are said especially on behalf of Abraham and Isaac. Under the Law prophetic revelation of things pertinent to faith in the Godhead was made in a yet more excellent way than hitherto, because then not only certain special persons or families but the whole people had to be instructed in these matters. Hence the Lord said to Moses ( Exodus 6:2,3): “I am the Lord that appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, by the name of God almighty, and My name Adonai I did not show to them”; because previously the patriarchs had been taught to believe in a general way in God, one and Almighty, while Moses was more fully instructed in the simplicity of the Divine essence, when it was said to him ( Exodus 3:14): “I am Who am”; and this name is signified by Jews in the word “Adonai” on account of their veneration for that unspeakable name.

Afterwards in the time of grace the mystery of the Trinity was revealed by the Son of God Himself, according to Matthew 28:19: “Going... teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

In each state, however, the most excellent revelation was that which was given first. Now the first revelation, before the Law, was given to Abraham, for it was at that time that men began to stray from faith in one God by turning aside to idolatry, whereas hitherto no such revelation was necessary while all persevered in the worship of one God. A less excellent revelation was made to Isaac, being founded on that which was made to Abraham. Wherefore it was said to him ( Genesis 26:24): “I am the God of Abraham thy father,” and in like manner to Jacob ( Genesis 28:13): “I am the God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac.” Again in the state of the Law the first revelation which was given to Moses was more excellent, and on this revelation all the other revelations to the prophets were founded. And so, too, in the time of grace the entire faith of the Church is founded on the revelation vouchsafed to the apostles, concerning the faith in one God and three Persons, according to Matthew 16:18, “On this rock,” i.e. of thy confession, “I will build My Church.”

As to the faith in Christ’s incarnation, it is evident that the nearer men were to Christ, whether before or after Him, the more fully, for the most part, were they instructed on this point, and after Him more fully than before, as the Apostle declares ( Ephesians 3:5).

As regards the guidance of human acts, the prophetic revelation varied not according to the course of time, but according as circumstances required, because as it is written ( Proverbs 29:18), “When prophecy shall fail, the people shall be scattered abroad.” Wherefore at all times men were divinely instructed about what they were to do, according as it was expedient for the spiritual welfare of the elect.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(6)- RO(1) —

The saying of Gregory is to be referred to the time before Christ’s incarnation, as regards the knowledge of this mystery.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(6)- RO(2) —

As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xviii, 27), “just as in the early days of the Assyrian kingdom promises were made most explicitly to Abraham, so at the outset of the western Babylon,” which is Rome, “and under its sway Christ was to come, in Whom were to be fulfilled the promises made through the prophetic oracles testifying in word and writing to that great event to come,” the promises, namely, which were made to Abraham. “For while prophets were scarcely ever lacking to the people of Israel from the time that they began to have kings, it was exclusively for their benefit, not for that of the nations. But when those prophetic writings were being set up with greater publicity, which at some future time were to benefit the nations, it was fitting to begin when this city,” Rome to wit, “was being built, which was to govern the nations.”

The reason why it behooved that nation to have a number of prophets especially at the time of the kings, was that then it was not over-ridden by other nations, but had its own king; wherefore it behooved the people, as enjoying liberty, to have prophets to teach them what to do.

P(2b)- Q(174)- A(6)- RO(3) —

The prophets who foretold the coming of Christ could not continue further than John, who with his finger pointed to Christ actually present. Nevertheless as Jerome says on this passage, “This does not mean that there were no more prophets after John. For we read in the Acts of the apostles that Agabus and the four maidens, daughters of Philip, prophesied.” John, too, wrote a prophetic book about the end of the Church; and at all times there have not been lacking persons having the spirit of prophecy, not indeed for the declaration of any new doctrine of faith, but for the direction of human acts. Thus Augustine says (De Civ. Dei v, 26) that “the emperor Theodosius sent to John who dwelt in the Egyptian desert, and whom he knew by his ever-increasing fame to be endowed with the prophetic spirit: and from him he received a message assuring him of victory.”

QUESTION OF RAPTURE (SIX ARTICLES)

We must now consider rapture. Under this head there are six points of inquiry: (1) Whether the soul of man is carried away to things divine? (2) Whether rapture pertains to the cognitive or to the appetitive power? (3) Whether Paul when in rapture saw the essence of God? (4) Whether he was withdrawn from his senses? (5) Whether, when in that state, his soul was wholly separated from his body? (6) What did he know, and what did he not know about this matter?

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(1) Whether the soul of man is carried away to things divine?

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(1)- O(1) —

It would seem that the soul of man is not carried away to things divine. For some define rapture as “an uplifting by the power of a higher nature, from that which is according to nature to that which is above nature” [*Reference unknown; Cf. De Veritate xiii, 1]. Now it is in accordance with man’s nature that he be uplifted to things divine; for Augustine says at the beginning of his Confessions: “Thou madest us, Lord, for Thyself, and our heart is restless, till it rest in Thee.” Therefore man’s soul is not carried away to things divine.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(1)- O(2) —

Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. viii) that “God’s justice is seen in this that He treats all things according to their mode and dignity.” But it is not in accordance with man’s mode and worth that he be raised above what he is according to nature. Therefore it would seem that man’s soul is not carried away to things divine.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(1)- O(3) —

Further, rapture denotes violence of some kind. But God rules us not by violence or force, as Damascene says [*De Fide Orth. ii, 30]. Therefore man’s soul is not carried away to things divine.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(1) —

On the contrary, The Apostle says ( Corinthians 12:2): “I know a man in Christ... rapt even to the third heaven.” On which words a gloss says: “Rapt, that is to say, uplifted contrary to nature.”

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(1) —

I answer that, Rapture denotes violence of a kind as stated above ( O(3) ); and “the violent is that which has its principle without, and in which he that suffers violence concurs not at all” (Ethic. iii, 1). Now everything concurs in that to which it tends in accordance with its proper inclination, whether voluntary or natural. Wherefore he who is carried away by some external agent, must be carried to something different from that to which his inclination tends. This difference arises in two ways: in one way from the end of the inclination — for instance a stone, which is naturally inclined to be borne downwards, may be thrown upwards; in another way from the manner of tending — for instance a stone may be thrown downwards with greater velocity than consistent with its natural movement.

Accordingly man’s soul also is said to be carried away, in a twofold manner, to that which is contrary to its nature: in one way, as regards the term of transport — as when it is carried away to punishment, according to Psalm 49:22, “Lest He snatch you away, and there be none to deliver you”; in another way, as regards the manner connatural to man, which is that he should understand the truth through sensible things. Hence when he is withdrawn from the apprehension of sensibles, he is said to be carried away, even though he be uplifted to things whereunto he is directed naturally: provided this be not done intentionally, as when a man betakes himself to sleep which is in accordance with nature, wherefore sleep cannot be called rapture, properly speaking.

This withdrawal, whatever its term may be, may arise from a threefold cause. First, from a bodily cause, as happens to those who suffer abstraction from the senses through weakness: secondly, by the power of the demons, as in those who are possessed: thirdly, by the power of God.

In this last sense we are now speaking of rapture, whereby a man is uplifted by the spirit of God to things supernatural, and withdrawn from his senses, according to Ezekiel 8:3, “The spirit lifted me up between the earth and the heaven, and brought me in the vision of God into Jerusalem.”

It must be observed, however, that sometimes a person is said to be carried away, not only through being withdrawn from his senses, but also through being withdrawn from the things to which he was attending, as when a person’s mind wanders contrary to his purpose. But this is to use the expression in a less proper signification.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(1)- RO(1) —

It is natural to man to tend to divine things through the apprehension of things sensible, according to Romans 1:20, “The invisible things of God... are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.”

But the mode, whereby a man is uplifted to divine things and withdrawn from his senses, is not natural to man.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(1)- RO(2) —

It belongs to man’s mode and dignity that he be uplifted to divine things, from the very fact that he is made to God’s image. And since a divine good infinitely surpasses the faculty of man in order to attain that good, he needs the divine assistance which is bestowed on him in every gift of grace. Hence it is not contrary to nature, but above the faculty of nature that man’s mind be thus uplifted in rapture by God.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(1)- RO(3) —

The saying of Damascene refers to those things which a man does by himself. But as to those things which are beyond the scope of the free-will, man needs to be uplifted by a stronger operation, which in a certain respect may be called force if we consider the mode of operation, but not if we consider its term to which man is directed both by nature and by his intention.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(2) Whether rapture pertains to the cognitive rather than to the appetitive power?

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(2)- O(1) —

It would seem that rapture pertains to the appetitive rather than to the cognitive power. For Dionysius says (Div.

Nom. iv): “The Divine love causes ecstasy.” Now love pertains to the appetitive power. Therefore so does ecstasy or rapture.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(2)- O(2) —

Further, Gregory says (Dial. ii, 3) that “he who fed the swine debased himself by a dissipated mind and an unclean life; whereas Peter, when the angel delivered him and carried him into ecstasy, was not beside himself, but above himself.” Now the prodigal son sank into the depths by his appetite. Therefore in those also who are carried up into the heights it is the appetite that is affected.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(2)- O(3) —

Further, a gloss on Psalm 30:1, “In Thee, O Lord, have I hoped, let me never be confounded,” says in explaining the title [*Unto the end, a psalm for David, in an ecstasy]: “\Ekstasis\ in Greek signifies in Latin ‘excessus mentis,’ an aberration of the mind. This happens in two ways, either through dread of earthly things or through the mind being rapt in heavenly things and forgetful of this lower world.” Now dread of earthly things pertains to the appetite. Therefore rapture of the mind in heavenly things, being placed in opposition to this dread, also pertains to the appetite.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(2) —

On the contrary, A gloss on <19B502> Psalm 115:2, “I said in my excess: Every man is a liar,” says: “We speak of ecstasy, not when the mind wanders through fear, but when it is carried aloft on the wings of revelation.” Now revelation pertains to the intellective power. Therefore ecstasy or rapture does also.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(2) —

I answer that, We can speak of rapture in two ways. First, with regard to the term of rapture, and thus, properly speaking, rapture cannot pertain to the appetitive, but only to the cognitive power. For it was stated ( A(1) ) that rapture is outside the inclination of the person who is rapt; whereas the movement of the appetitive power is an inclination to an appetible good. Wherefore, properly speaking, in desiring something, a man is not rapt, but is moved by himself.

Secondly, rapture may be considered with regard to its cause, and thus it may have a cause on the part of the appetitive power. For from the very fact that the appetite is strongly affected towards something, it may happen, owing to the violence of his affection, that a man is carried away from everything else. Moreover, it has an effect on the appetitive power, when for instance a man delights in the things to which he is rapt. Hence the Apostle said that he was rapt, not only “to the third heaven” — which pertains to the contemplation of the intellect — but also into “paradise,” which pertains to the appetite.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(2)- RO(1) —

Rapture adds something to ecstasy. For ecstasy means simply a going out of oneself by being placed outside one’s proper order [*Cf. P(2a), Q(28) , A(3) ]; while rapture denotes a certain violence in addition. Accordingly ecstasy may pertain to the appetitive power, as when a man’s appetite tends to something outside him, and in this sense Dionysius says that “the Divine love causes ecstasy,” inasmuch as it makes man’s appetite tend to the object loved. Hence he says afterwards that “even God Himself, the cause of all things, through the overflow of His loving goodness, goes outside Himself in His providence for all beings.” But even if this were said expressly of rapture, it would merely signify that love is the cause of rapture.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(2)- RO(2) —

There is a twofold appetite in man; to wit, the intellective appetite which is called the will, and the sensitive appetite known as the sensuality. Now it is proper to man that his lower appetite be subject to the higher appetite, and that the higher move the lower.

Hence man may become outside himself as regards the appetite, in two ways. In one way, when a man’s intellective appetite tends wholly to divine things, and takes no account of those things whereto the sensitive appetite inclines him; thus Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that “Paul being in ecstasy through the vehemence of Divine love” exclaimed: “I live, now not I, but Christ liveth in me.”

In another way, when a man tends wholly to things pertaining to the lower appetite, and takes no account of his higher appetite. It is thus that “he who fed the swine debased himself”; and this latter kind of going out of oneself, or being beside oneself, is more akin than the former to the nature of rapture because the higher appetite is more proper to man. Hence when through the violence of his lower appetite a man is withdrawn from the movement of his higher appetite, it is more a case of being withdrawn from that which is proper to him. Yet, because there is no violence therein, since the will is able to resist the passion, it falls short of the true nature of rapture, unless perchance the passion be so strong that it takes away entirely the use of reason, as happens to those who are mad with anger or love.

It must be observed. however, that both these excesses affecting the appetite may cause an excess in the cognitive power, either because the mind is carried away to certain intelligible objects, through being drawn away from objects of sense, or because it is caught up into some imaginary vision or fanciful apparition.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(2)- RO(3) —

Just as love is a movement of the appetite with regard to good, so fear is a movement of the appetite with regard to evil. Wherefore either of them may equally cause an aberration of mind; and all the more since fear arises from love, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7,9).

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(3) Whether Paul, when in rapture, saw the essence of God?

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(3)- O(1) —

It would seem that Paul, when in rapture, did not see the essence of God. For just as we read of Paul that he was rapt to the third heaven, so we read of Peter ( Acts 10:10) that “there came upon him an ecstasy of mind.” Now Peter, in his ecstasy, saw not God’s essence but an imaginary vision. Therefore it would seem that neither did Paul see the essence of God.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(3)- O(2) —

Further, the vision of God is beatific. But Paul, in his rapture, was not beatified; else he would never have returned to the unhappiness of this life, but his body would have been glorified by the overflow from his soul, as will happen to the saints after the resurrection, and this clearly was not the case. Therefore Paul when in rapture saw not the essence of God.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(3)- O(3) —

Further, according to 1 Corinthians 13:10-12, faith and hope are incompatible with the vision of the Divine essence.

But Paul when in this state had faith and hope. Therefore he saw not the essence of God.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(3)- O(4) —

Further, as Augustine states (Genesis ad lit. xii, 6,7), “pictures of bodies are seen in the imaginary vision.” Now Paul is stated ( 2 Corinthians 12:2,4) to have seen certain pictures in his rapture, for instance of the “third heaven” and of “paradise.” Therefore he would seem to have been rapt to an imaginary vision rather than to the vision of the Divine essence.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(3) —

On the contrary, Augustine (Ep. CXLVII, 13; ad Paulin., de videndo Deum) concludes that “possibly God’s very substance was seen by some while yet in this life: for instance by Moses, and by Paul who in rapture heard unspeakable words, which it is not granted unto man to utter.”

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(3) —

I answer that, Some have said that Paul, when in rapture, saw “not the very essence of God, but a certain reflection of His clarity.” But Augustine clearly comes to an opposite decision, not only in his book (De videndo Deum), but also in Genesis ad lit. xii, 28 (quoted in a gloss on 2 Corinthians 12:2). Indeed the words themselves of the Apostle indicate this. For he says that “he heard secret words, which it is not granted unto man to utter”: and such would seem to be words pertaining to the vision of the blessed, which transcends the state of the wayfarer, according to Isaiah 64:4, “Eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that love [Vulg.: ‘wait for’] Thee” [* 1 Corinthians 2:9]. Therefore it is more becoming to hold that he saw God in His essence.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(3)- RO(1) —

Man’s mind is rapt by God to the contemplation of divine truth in three ways. First, so that he contemplates it through certain imaginary pictures, and such was the ecstasy that came upon Peter. Secondly, so that he contemplates the divine truth through its intelligible effects; such was the ecstasy of David, who said ( <19B511> Psalm 115:11): “I said in my excess: Every man is a liar.” Thirdly, so that he contemplates it in its essence. Such was the rapture of Paul, as also of Moses [*Cf. Q(174), A(4) ]; and not without reason, since as Moses was the first Teacher of the Jews, so was Paul the first “Teacher of the gentiles” [*Cf. P(1), Q(68) , A(4) ].

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(3)- RO(2) —

The Divine essence cannot be seen by a created intellect save through the light of glory, of which it is written ( Psalm 35:10): “In Thy light we shall see light.” But this light can be shared in two ways. First by way of an abiding form, and thus it beatifies the saints in heaven. Secondly, by way of a transitory passion, as stated above ( Q(171), A(2) ) of the light of prophecy; and in this way that light was in Paul when he was in rapture. Hence this vision did not beatify him simply, so as to overflow into his body, but only in a restricted sense.

Consequently this rapture pertains somewhat to prophecy.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(3)- RO(3) —

Since, in his rapture, Paul was beatified not as to the habit, but only as to the act of the blessed, it follows that he had not the act of faith at the same time, although he had the habit.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(3)- RO(4) —

In one way by the third heaven we may understand something corporeal, and thus the third heaven denotes the empyrean [* 1 Timothy 2:7; Cf. P(1), Q(12) , A(11), ad 2], which is described as the “third,” in relation to the aerial and starry heavens, or better still, in relation to the aqueous and crystalline heavens. Moreover Paul is stated to be rapt to the “third heaven,” not as though his rapture consisted in the vision of something corporeal, but because this place is appointed for the contemplation of the blessed. Hence the gloss on <471201> Corinthians 12 says that the “third heaven is a spiritual heaven, where the angels and the holy souls enjoy the contemplation of God: and when Paul says that he was rapt to this heaven he means that God showed him the life wherein He is to be seen forevermore.”

In another way the third heaven may signify a supra-mundane vision. Such a vision may be called the third heaven in three ways. First, according to the order of the cognitive powers. In this way the first heaven would indicate a supramundane bodily vision, conveyed through the senses; thus was seen the hand of one writing on the wall ( Daniel 5:5); the second heaven would be an imaginary vision such as Isaias saw, and John in the Apocalypse; and the third heaven would denote an intellectual vision according to Augustine’s explanation (Genesis ad lit. xii, 26,28,34).

Secondly, the third heaven may be taken according to the order of things knowable, the first heaven being “the knowledge of heavenly bodies, the second the knowledge of heavenly spirits, the third the knowledge of God Himself.” Thirdly, the third heaven may denote the contemplation of God according to the degrees of knowledge whereby God is seen. The first of these degrees belongs to the angels of the lowest hierarchy [*Cf. P(1), Q(108), A(1) ], the second to the angels of the middle hierarchy, the third to the angels of the highest hierarchy, according to the gloss on Corinthians 12.

And since the vision of God cannot be without delight, he says that he was not only “rapt to the third heaven” by reason of his contemplation, but also into “Paradise” by reason of the consequent delight.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(4) Whether Paul, when in rapture, was withdrawn from his senses?

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(4)- O(1) —

It would seem that Paul, when in rapture, was not withdrawn from his senses. For Augustine says (Genesis ad lit. xii, 28): “Why should we not believe that when so great an apostle, the teacher of the gentiles, was rapt to this most sublime vision, God was willing to vouchsafe him a glimpse of that eternal life which is to take the place of the present life?” Now in that future life after the resurrection the saints will see the Divine essence without being withdrawn from the senses of the body. Therefore neither did such a withdrawal take place in Paul.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(4)- O(2) —

Further, Christ was truly a wayfarer, and also enjoyed an uninterrupted vision of the Divine essence, without, however, being withdrawn from His senses. Therefore there was no need for Paul to be withdrawn from his senses in order for him to see the essence of God.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(4)- O(3) —

Further, after seeing God in His essence, Paul remembered what he had seen in that vision; hence he said ( Corinthians 12:4): “He heard secret words, which it is not granted to man to utter.” Now the memory belongs to the sensitive faculty according to the Philosopher (De Mem. et Remin. i). Therefore it seems that Paul, while seeing the essence of God, was not withdrawn from his senses.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(4) —

On the contrary, Augustine says (Genesis ad lit. xii, 27): “Unless a man in some way depart this life, whether by going altogether out of his body or by turning away and withdrawing from his carnal senses, so that he truly knows not as the Apostle said, whether he be in the body or out of the body, he is not rapt and caught up into that vision.*” [*The text of St. Augustine reads: “when he is rapt,” etc.]

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(4) — I answer that, The Divine essence cannot be seen by man through any cognitive power other than the intellect. Now the human intellect does not turn to intelligible objects except by means of the phantasms [*Cf. P(1), Q(84) , A(7) ] which it takes from the senses through the intelligible species; and it is in considering these phantasms that the intellect judges of and coordinates sensible objects. Hence in any operation that requires abstraction of the intellect from phantasms, there must be also withdrawal of the intellect from the senses. Now in the state of the wayfarer it is necessary for man’s intellect, if it see God’s essence, to be withdrawn from phantasms. For God’s essence cannot be seen by means of a phantasm, nor indeed by any created intelligible species [*Cf. P(1), Q(12) , A(2) ], since God’s essence infinitely transcends not only all bodies, which are represented by phantasms, but also all intelligible creatures.

Now when man’s intellect is uplifted to the sublime vision of God’s essence, it is necessary that his mind’s whole attention should be summoned to that purpose in such a way that he understand naught else by phantasms, and be absorbed entirely in God. Therefore it is impossible for man while a wayfarer to see God in His essence without being withdrawn from his senses.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(4)- RO(1) —

As stated above ( A(3), O(2) ), after the resurrection, in the blessed who see God in His essence, there will be an overflow from the intellect to the lower powers and even to the body.

Hence it is in keeping with the rule itself of the divine vision that the soul will turn towards phantasms and sensible objects. But there is no such overflow in those who are raptured, as stated ( A(3), O(2), ad 2), and consequently the comparison fails.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(4)- RO(2) —

The intellect of Christ’s soul was glorified by the habit of the light of glory, whereby He saw the Divine essence much more fully than an angel or a man. He was, however, a wayfarer on account of the passibility of His body, in respect of which He was “made a little lower than the angels” ( Hebrews 2:9), by dispensation, and not on account of any defect on the part of His intellect. Hence there is no comparison between Him and other wayfarers.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(4)- RO(3) —

Paul, after seeing God in His essence, remembered what he had known in that vision, by means of certain intelligible species that remained in his intellect by way of habit; even as in the absence of the sensible object, certain impressions remain in the soul which it recollects when it turns to the phantasms. And so this was the knowledge that he was unable wholly to think over or express in words.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(5) Whether, while in this state, Paul’s soul was wholly separated from his body?

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(5)- O(1) —

It would seem that, while in this state, Paul’s soul was wholly separated from his body. For the Apostle says ( Corinthians 5:6,7): “While we are in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith, and not by sight” [*’Per speciem,’ i.e. by an intelligible species]. Now, while in that state, Paul was not absent from the Lord, for he saw Him by a species, as stated above ( A(3) ). Therefore he was not in the body.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(5)- O(2) —

Further, a power of the soul cannot be uplifted above the soul’s essence wherein it is rooted. Now in this rapture the intellect, which is a power of the soul, was withdrawn from its bodily surroundings through being uplifted to divine contemplation. Much more therefore was the essence of the soul separated from the body.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(5)- O(3) —

Further, the forces of the vegetative soul are more material than those of the sensitive soul. Now in order for him to be rapt to the vision of God, it was necessary for him to be withdrawn from the forces of the sensitive soul, as stated above ( A(4) ). Much more, therefore, was it necessary for him to be withdrawn from the forces of the vegetative soul. Now when these forces cease to operate, the soul is no longer in any way united to the body. Therefore it would seem that in Paul’s rapture it was necessary for the soul to be wholly separated from the body.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(5) —

On the contrary, Augustine says (Ep. CXLVII, 13, ad Paulin.; de videndo Deum): “It is not incredible that this sublime revelation” (namely, that they should see God in His essence) “was vouchsafed certain saints, without their departing this life so completely as to leave nothing but a corpse for burial.” Therefore it was not necessary for Paul’s soul, when in rapture, to be wholly separated from his body.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(5) —

I answer that, As stated above ( A(1), O(1) ), in the rapture of which we are speaking now, man is uplifted by God’s power, “from that which is according to nature to that which is above nature.”

Wherefore two things have to be considered: first, what pertains to man according to nature; secondly, what has to be done by God in man above his nature. Now, since the soul is united to the body as its natural form, it belongs to the soul to have a natural disposition to understand by turning to phantasms; and this is not withdrawn by the divine power from the soul in rapture, since its state undergoes no change, as stated above ( A(3), ad 2,3). Yet, this state remaining, actual conversion to phantasms and sensible objects is withdrawn from the soul, lest it be hindered from being uplifted to that which transcends all phantasms, as stated above ( A(4) ).

Therefore it was not necessary that his soul in rapture should be so separated from the body as to cease to be united thereto as its form; and yet it was necessary for his intellect to be withdrawn from phantasms and the perception of sensible objects.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(5)- RO(1) —

In this rapture Paul was absent from the Lord as regards his state, since he was still in the state of a wayfarer, but not as regards the act by which he saw God by a species, as stated above ( A(3), ad 2,3).

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(5)- RO(2) —

A faculty of the soul is not uplifted by the natural power above the mode becoming the essence of the soul; but it can be uplifted by the divine power to something higher, even as a body by the violence of a stronger power is lifted up above the place befitting it according to its specific nature.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(5)- RO(3) —

The forces of the vegetative soul do not operate through the soul being intent thereon, as do the sensitive forces, but by way of nature. Hence in the case of rapture there is no need for withdrawal from them, as from the sensitive powers, whose operations would lessen the intentness of the soul on intellective knowledge.

P(2b)- Q(175)- A(6) Did Paul know whether his soul were separated from his body?