V. The Prophetic State of Inspiration. — We learn from Holy Scripture that it was by the agency of the Spirit of God that the prophets received the divine communication. Thus, on the appointment of the sev* enty elders, "The Lord said, I will take of the Spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them. . . . And the Lord . . . took of the Spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders; and it came to pass that when the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied and did not cease. . . . And Moses said, Would God that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his Spirit upon them" (Numb, xi, 17, 25, 29). Here we see that what made the seventy prophesy was their being endued with the Lord's Spirit by the Lord himself. So it is the Spirit of the Lord which made Said (1 Sam. x, 6) and his messengers (xix, 20) prophesy. Thus Peter assures us that "prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake, moved (<pep6[itvoi) by the Holy Ghost" (2 Pet. i, 21), while false prophets are described as those "who speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord" (Jer. xxiii, 16), "who prophesy out of their own hearts, . . . who follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing" (Ezek. xiii, 2, 3). Hence the emphatic declarations of the Great Prophet of the Church that he did not speak of himself (John vii, 17, etc.). The prophet held an intermediate position in communication between God and man. God communicated with him by his Spirit, and he, having received this communication, was "the spokesman" of God to man (comp. Exod. vii, 1, and iv, 16). But the means by which the Divine Spirit com- municated with the human spirit, and the conditions of the human spirit under which the divine communica- tions were received, have not been clearly declared to us. They are, however, indicated. On the occasion of the sedition of Miriam and Aaron, we read, "And the Lord said, Hear now my words : If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house : with him will I speak mouth to mouth, even ap- parently, and not in dark speeches, and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold" (Numb. xii. 6-8). Here we have an exhaustive division of the different ways in which the revelations of God are made to man: 1. Di- rect declaration and manifestation — " I will speak mouth to mouth, apparently, and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold ;" 2. Vision ; 3. Dream. It is indicated that, at least at this time, the vision and the dream were the special means of conveying a revelation to a prophet, while the higher form of direct declaration and manifestation was reserved for the more highly favored Moses. Joel's prophecy appears to make the same division, "Your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions," these being the two methods in which the promise, "your sons and your daughters shall prophesy," is to be carried out (ii, 28). Of Daniel we are told that "he had understanding in all visions and dreams" (Dan. i, 17). Can these phases of the prophetic state be distinguished from each other? and in what did they consist?
According to the theory of Philo and the Alexandrian school, the prophet was in a state of entire unconscious- ness at the time that he was under the influence of di- vine inspiration, "for the human understanding," says Philo, " takes its departure on the arrival of the Divine Spirit, and on the removal of the latter again returns to its home, for the mortal must not dwell with the im- mortal" (Quis Rer. Die. Hmr. i, 511). Balaam is de- scribed by him as an unconscious instrument through
PROPHET
646
PROPHET
whom God spoke {Dt Vila Moats, lib. i. vol. ii, p. 124). Josephua makes Balaam excuse bimsell to Balak on the same principle: "When the Spirit of God seizes us, it utters whatsoever sounds ami words it pleases, without any knowledge on our part. . . . lor when it has come into 11-. there is nothing in us which remains our own" {Ant. iv. 6, 5 I. This theory identifies Jewish prophecy in all essential points with the heathen pavrucfi, or div- ination, a- distinct from irpoQtiTiia, or interpretation. Montanism adopted the same view: "Defendimus, in causa nova- prophethe, gratis exstasin, id est anient iam. convenire. In spiritu enim homo constitutus, prseser- tim cum gloriam Dei conspicit, vel cum per ipsum Deus loquitur, neeesse est excidat sensu, obumbratus scilicet virtute divina; de quo inter nos el Psychicos (catboli- cos) qusestio est" (Tertullian, Adv. Marcion. iv, 22). According to the belief, then, of the heathen, of the Al- exandrian .lews, and of the Montanists, the vision of the prophet was Been while be was in a state of ecstatic un- consciousness, and the enunciation of the vision was made by him in the same state. The fathers of the Church opposed the Montanisl theory with great una- nimity. In Eusebius'8 History (v, 17) we read that Miltiades wrote a hook IIhh mr pi) Suv irpotyifrnv iv iKtrraaet \a\kh>. St. Jerome writes: "Non loquitur propheta iv tKOTciati, ut Montanus et Prisca'Maximil- laque delirant, sed quod prophet at liber est visionis in- telligentis universa qua? loquitur" {Prolog, in Nahutn). Again: ^Neque vero ut Montanus cum insanis femiuis somniat, propheta- in eestasi locuti sunt ut nescierint quid loquerentur, et cum alios erudirent ipsi ignorarent quid dicerent" {Prolog, in Esau). Origen {Contr. Cel- sum. \ ii, 4) and St. Basil {Commentary on Isaiah, Pro- 03m. c. 5) contrast the prophet with the soothsayer, on the ground of the latter being deprived of his senses. St. Chrysostom draws out the contrast: Tovto yap pdvTtwc ISiov, to iZtornicivai, ro avayyy\v viropi- veiv, ro utSeiffSat, tu t\Kto~5ai, to avpto&ai wairip uaivoptvov. '<> 81 TTpotprirnQ oi>x ovtwq, dXXu para diavolae vijtpovoijg Kal auxfipoi'ovaip; kutiwtucsuoc, • r ii (pSiyytTai, (pnaiv uiravra' (iirrrt- Kai jrpd -//(_• EK/3dff£w£ KavTtvSnv yvwpit,i top pavriv Kai TOV -i)(toijTijv | //"///. xxix in Epist. mi Corinth."). At the same lime, while drawing the distinction sharply be- tween heathen soothsaying and Montani.-t prophesying on the one Bide, and Hebrew- prophecy on the other, the fathers use expressions so strong as almost to represent the prophets to be passive instruments acted on by the Spirit of (hid. Thus it is that they describe them as musical instruments the pipe ( Athenagoras, /,<//. pro fin isiiains, c.ix; Clem. Alex. Cohort, mi Gent, a i i, the lyre (Justin .Martyr. Cohort, ad Grate, c. viii ; Ephraem Syr. Rhythm, xxix; Chrysostom, Ail Pop. Antioch. Horn. i. t. iii. or as pens (St. Greg. Magn. Prcef. in Mor. in Jol'). Expressions Buch as these (many ol which arc quoted by l>r. Lee. On Inspiration, Appendix (ii most lie set against the passages which were direct- ed against the Montanists. Nevertheless, there is a very appreciable difference between their view and that of Tertullian and Philo. Which is most in accordance with the indication- of Holy Scripture?