|
Objection 1: It would seem that the prophecy which has intellective
and imaginative vision is more excellent than that which is accompanied
by intellective vision alone. For Augustine says (Gen. ad lit.
xii, 9): "He is less a prophet, who sees in spirit nothing but
the signs representative of things, by means of the images of things
corporeal: he is more a prophet, who is merely endowed with the
understanding of these signs; but most of all is he a prophet, who
excels in both ways," and this refers to the prophet who has
intellective together with imaginative vision. Therefore this kind of
prophecy is more excellent.
Objection 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 (Question 173, Article
2). Therefore apparently the prophecy that extends to the
imagination is greater than that which is confined to the intellect.
Objection 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.
Objection 4: Further, Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) that
"it is impossible for the Divine ray to shine on us, except as
screened round about by the many-colored sacred veils." Now the
prophetic revelation is conveyed by the infusion of the divine ray.
Therefore it seems that it cannot be without the veils of phantasms.
On the contrary, A gloss says at the beginning of the Psalter that
"the most excellent manner of prophecy is when a man prophesies by the
mere inspiration of the Holy Ghost, apart from any outward assistance
of deed, word, vision, or dream."
I answer that, The excellence of the means is measured chiefly by the
end. Now the end of prophecy is the manifestation of a truth that
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 Kgs. 23:3): "The
strong one of Israel spoke to me," and further on (2 Kgs.
23:4): "As the light of the morning, when the sun riseth,
shineth in the morning without clouds."
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
|
|