Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram, Vol. 11: Prolegomena (prefaces and canons)
Eighth, they not only saw the thing and heard the words, but also at times saw the person speaking and pointing out the things, and this was most perfect; because by this it was shown that the mind of the Prophet drew nearer to the cause revealing. Again, it was more perfect if the speaking person was seen in the form of an angel, as he was seen everywhere by St. John in the Apocalypse; than if he was seen in the form of a man, as Jeremias and Onias appeared to Judas Machabeus, 2 Machabees 15:15, Jeremias saying: “Take this holy sword, a gift from God, with which thou shalt overthrow the adversaries of my people Israel.” Finally, it was more perfect than either if the speaking person was seen in the form of God, as Isaias saw in chapter 6 God sitting on a throne, and thence speaking with him. So St. Thomas, art. 3, cited above.
Similar to this division, and subordinate to it, is the division of Isidore, book 7 of the Etymologies, chapter 8, and from him St. Thomas, II-II, Question 174, art. 1, reply to 3:
“Prophecy,” he says, “has seven kinds. The first is ecstasy, which is a transport of the mind, as Peter saw a vessel let down from heaven with various animals. The second is vision, as is said in Isaias: I saw the Lord sitting. The third is dream, as Jacob saw a ladder sleeping, Genesis 28:12. The fourth kind is by a cloud, as the Lord spoke to Moses. The fifth is a voice from heaven, as God sounded to Abraham saying: Lay not thy hand upon the boy, Genesis 22:12. The sixth is the taking up of a parable, as happened to Balaam, Numbers 23:7. The seventh is the filling with the Holy Spirit, as with almost all the Prophets.”
This division is taken from the variety both of the modes, and of the objects and imaginable or sensible forms of the prophets. For the first three, namely ecstasy, vision and dream, are three modes of prophesying; but the three following are the objects and sensible signs which the Prophets perceived. Of these the first is some bodily thing appearing outwardly to sight, which he places in the fourth place. The second is a voice formed, borne outwardly to a man’s hearing, which he places in the fifth place. The third is a voice formed by a man with the likeness of some thing, which belongs to a parable, which he places in the sixth place. Again, as to the modes of prophesying, Isidore in the same place and St. Augustine, book 12 On Genesis according to the letter, chapter 7 and following, set down three kinds of vision: the first according to the eyes of the body, the second according to the imaginary spirit, the third by the intuition of the mind. This division is taken from the cognitive powers in man, which are three: sense, imagination and understanding, as St. Thomas explains.
Finally St. Augustine, book 19 Against Faustus, chapter 2, distinguishes three kinds of Prophets: the first of the Gentiles, such as Balaam and the Sibyls; the second of the Jews, such as these prophets of ours; the third of Christians, or of the New Testament, such as St. John in the Apocalypse, Paul, the Apostles, and after them many others. Here note the difference between the Sibyls and other Gentile Prophets, and the faithful, our own: for those, alienated in mind, as if forced, and at times unwillingly, as being carried off by a kind of enthusiasm or driven by frenzies, prophesied, and the same befell the prophetesses of Montanus and other possessed persons. Hence Cicero, book 1 On Divination: “Democritus says that without madness there can be no great poet;” and again: “There is therefore in souls a presage thrown in from without, and shut in by a god. If it has blazed up more keenly it is called frenzy, when the soul, drawn away from the body, is stirred by divine impulse.” But the mind of these [ours] was consistent with itself; they knew what they said, they spoke of their own accord, not in ecstasy, nor did they receive it first in ecstasy, as St. Jerome teaches in the preface to Isaias, and St. Paul: “The spirits of the prophets,” he says, “are subject to the prophets,” 1 Corinthians 14:32.
Moreover the Sibyls were prophetesses not of the devil but of God, who, by the merit of virginity, as St. Jerome asserts in book 1 Against Jovinian, obtained the gift of prophecy, and prophesied of things to come, and especially of Christ, with such certainty and clearness of foreknowledge that they seem to write of things past rather than of things to come. There were ten of them, whose native surnames are these: the Cumaean, the Cumana, the Persian, the Hellespontic, the Libyan, the Samian, the Delphic, the Phrygian, the Tiburtine, the Erythraean. Hence some will have it that she is so called as if from “Siobulla,” that is, of God counsel, which namely they themselves should announce to men. For in the Aeolic dialect God is called sios, and counsel bulla. Hence St. Jerome, book 1 Against Jovinian, after the third part of the book: “Why,” he says, “should I mention the Sibyls, etc., whose distinction is virginity, and the reward of virginity divination? For if in the Aeolic manner of speech the Sibyl is called ‘the counsel of God,’ rightly does virginity alone know God’s counsel.”
So also Epiphanius, Heresy 18: “Philip,” he says, “the Evangelist had four daughters who prophesied, Acts 21:8, and they prophesied on account of the virginity which they had been made worthy to keep.” Hence also Virgil, book 6 of the Aeneid, describes the Cumaean Sibyl foretelling the fates, and the chances that were to befall, thus:
“Into her the Delian seer breathes a great mind and soul, and opens the things to come.”
And further on: “They came to the threshold, when the virgin said: ‘It is time to ask the fates; the god, behold, the god!’ As she thus spoke before the doors, suddenly neither her countenance nor her color was one, nor did her locks remain in order; but her breast heaved, and her wild heart swelled with rage, and she seemed greater; nor did she sound mortal, when she was breathed upon by the nearer power of the god.”
“The prophetess raves, if she may shake the great god from her breast: so much the more he wearies her raging mouth, taming her wild heart and shaping her by pressing.”
See on the Sibyls and their oracles, both their verses in St. Augustine, Eusebius and others, and Suidas under the word Sibylla, and Sixtus of Siena, book 2 of the Library, under the word Sibylla.
You will ask, whether the Prophets understood all their prophecies, that is, whether they always received from God the signification and explanation of the oracles they heard, or rather of the things they saw, that is, of their symbols? I answer. It is uncertain, it is certain that they received it when they write it down and expound it; but when they neither write nor expound it, we do not know whether they received it. It is credible that they received it at times and at times not. For God willed to make them, as Prophets, sharers in His secrets before other men, and to know more than they wrote; yet on the other hand He willed also to keep some secrets to Himself, and not to communicate them to them. Just as a king keeps certain secrets to himself, which he discloses to no counselor, so also Christ kept to Himself the secrets of certain parables and of other matters, which He unlocked neither to the Apostles nor to any other.
So in Ezechiel, chapter 1, when Ezechiel saw the chariot of God, the Cherubim, the wheels, the firmament, the fire, the wind, one sitting on a throne in the appearance of amber, etc., it is credible that he understood that all these signified the war-chariot of God, and God with the Cherubim and the hosts of the Angels hastening to the destruction of Jerusalem: for this he himself clearly foretells in what follows. But it is not necessary to say that he understood in particular what each of the things just mentioned (since he himself does not explain them) portended or represented. In like manner, in chapter 40 and the eight following, he describes the temple and city, minutely, by the description and measurement of each of its parts; it is credible that he did not understand what all this symbolically signified; for he scarcely explains any of it. So Daniel, chapter 7, saw the vision of the four beasts, but did not understand it. Whence in verse 16 he asked of the angel its explanation, and received it. The same befell him in chapter 8 in the vision of the ram and the he-goat: for seeking its understanding in verse 15, he received it from Gabriel in verse 17. The same happened to him in chapter 10, where, fasting and praying in verse 2, he received the explanation of the vision from the angel in verses 14 and 19. Again in chapter 12 Daniel plainly says in verse 8: “And I heard, and I understood not. And I said: O my lord, what shall be after these things? And he said: Go thy way, Daniel, because the words are shut up and sealed until the appointed time.” Whence it is clear that these words also were closed to Daniel, and that he did not receive their explanation. So Zacharias, chapter 4, saw a candlestick with seven lamps, and two olive trees; and yet did not understand what these signified. Whence he said to the angel in verse 5: “What are these, my lord?” And the angel answering explained them. So in chapter 6, seeing four chariots of various colors, he said to the angel in verse 5: “What are the four winds?” Moreover, who and what manner of winds these are, whether literal, or rather parabolic and mystical, he did not hear. So in chapter 9, verse 11, as if abruptly, he says: “Thou also by the blood of thy testament hast sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water.” And verse 17: “For what is the good thing of him, and what is his beautiful thing, but the corn of the elect, and wine springing forth virgins?” Whether he himself understood that these things are said of Christ and the Eucharist is uncertain: for he does not explain them. Similar things are in chapter 14. Such too are Jeremias 31:15: “A voice in Rama was heard, lamentation, and mourning, and weeping, of Rachel weeping for her children, and refusing to be comforted for them, because they are not.” And verse 22: “The Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth: A woman shall compass a man.” And in verse 33 to the end he describes the boundaries of the new city to be built. Whether he understood this to be said of the Holy Innocents the martyrs, of the conception of the Mother of God, of the building of the Church, and of its parts and measures in particular, is not established. For he himself unlocks or relates none of this.