Article — Billuart, Summa Summae · from Schola Thomistica
The predictions of the prophets concerning the Christian religion and its author
The prophecies of the Christian religion are contained in the books of Moses and of the other prophets.
Vaticinia religionis christianae continentur in libris Moysis et aliorum prophetarum.
1° God spoke to Moses, and revealed to him the Jewish religion, as is clear from Exod., XIX, 3-6. Further, if the Jewish religion is true and revealed, then Christ is the Messiah. Therefore the Christian religion, which he instituted, and of which the Jewish religion was the foundation, is true and revealed.
1° Deus locutus est Moysi, eique religionem iudaicam revelavit, ut patet Exod., XIX, 3-6. Porro, si religio iudaica sit vera et revelata, ergo Christus est Messias. Ergo religio christiana, quam instituit et cuius religio iudaica erat fundamentum, est vera et revelata.
2° In the books of Moses and the prophets are foretold the Messiah, his birth, the place, the time of his birth, his life, doctrine, works, miracles, passion, death, resurrection and other things pertaining to this, the calling of the nations, the rejection of the Jews, the abolition of the temple and of sacrifice, the substitution of a new law and a new sacrifice, etc. And yet all these things have been verified exactly of Jesus of Nazareth, the author of the Christian law. Therefore he himself is the Messiah; therefore his religion is true and divine.
2° In libris Moysis et prophetarum praenuntiatur Messias, eius nativitas, locus, tempus nativitatis, vita, doctrina, opera, miracula, passio, mors, resurrectio et alia huc spectantia, vocatio gentium, reiectio Iudaeorum, abolitio templi et sacrificii, substitutio novae legis et novi sacrificii, etc. Atqui haec omnia adamussim verificata sunt de Iesu Nazareno, authore legis christianae. Ergo ipse est Messias : ergo vera et divina eius religio.
Proof of the minor. 1° Our Christ was born after the scepter had been taken away from Judah, according to the prophecy of Jacob, Genes., XLIX, 10; at the time fixed in the 70 weeks of Daniel, Daniel, IX, 24-27; before the destruction of the second temple, as Aggaeus, II, 8-10, and Malachias, III, 1 had foretold. — 2° He was born in Bethlehem, as had been foretold, Mich., V, 2; of the tribe of Judah and the family of David, Isa., XI, 1 and 10; of a virgin, Isa., VII, 14. — 3° His coming was preceded by him who would prepare his ways, Malach., III, 1. — 4° He worked miracles, as Isaias, LXI, 1 seqq. had foretold. — 5° He was sold for thirty pieces of silver, with which the potter’s field was bought, as Zacharias, XI, 12 foretold. — 6° He was spat upon and struck in the face, Isa., L, 6. — 7° He was scourged, Psal. XXXIV, 15 and CXXXVII, 3. — 8° His hands and feet were pierced, Psal. XXI, 17. — 9° He was crucified among thieves, Isa., LII, 12. His garments were divided, cast by lot for the robe, Psal. XXI, 19. Hanging on the cross, he was given gall to drink, Psal., LXVII, 22. As he was dying, the sun suffered an eclipse,
Prob. min. 1° Noster Christus natus est adempto sceptro a Iuda, iuxta vaticinium Iacob, Genes., XLIX, 10; tempore statuto in 70 hebdomadibus Danielis, Daniel, IX, 24-27; ante destructionem secundi templi, ut praedixerant Aggaeus, II, 8-10, et Malachias, III, 1. — 2° Natus est in Bethleem, ut praenuntiatum erat, Mich., V, 2; ex tribu Iuda et familia David, Isa., XI, 1 et 10; ex virgine, Isa., VII, 14. — 3° Adventum eius praecessit qui pararet vias eius, Malach., III, 1. — 4° Fecit miracula, ut praedixerat Isaias, LXI, 1 seqq. — 5° Venditus est triginta argenteis, quibus emptus est ager figuli, ut praedixit Zacharias, XI, 12. — 6° Conspuitur et caeditur in faciem, Isa., L, 6. — 7° Flagellatus fuit, Psal. XXXIV, 15 et CXXXVII, 3. — 8° Manus et pedes eius fuerunt perforati, Psal. XXI, 17. — 9° Fuit crucifixus inter latrones, Isa., LII, 12. Divisa sunt eius vestimenta, missa sorte in togam, Psal. XXI, 19. Pendens in cruce fuit felle potatus, Psal., LXVII, 22. Eo moriente, sol deliquium passus est,
Amos, VIII, 9; he rose again, Psal. III, 6;14 he ascended into heaven, Psal. LXVII, 34; he sent the Holy Spirit, Ioel, II, 28. — 10° He called the nations through the Apostles to his religion, and destroyed idolatry, as had been foretold, Genes., XXII, 17 et 18; Isa., II, 2, 3 et 18; XIX, 19; XLIX, 6 seqq.; Zach., XII, 2, and elsewhere. — 11° He substituted a new priesthood for the Levitical, a new law for the Mosaic law, and finally rejected the Jews, as foretold everywhere in the prophets, Isai., Ierem., Ose., Amos, Mich. 14 Editor's note: the print reads "Psal. III, 6"; the passage proves Christ's resurrection, which Psalm III, 6 ("Ego dormivi") does not treat, so the citation may be a printer's error (cf. Psal. II, 7 or XV, 10).
Amos, VIII, 9; resurrexit, Psal. III, 6;14 ascendit in coelum, Psal. LXVII, 34; misit Spiritum sanctum, Ioel, II, 28. — 10° Vocavit per Apostolos gentes ad suam religionem, et idololatriam destruxit, ut praedictum erat, Genes., XXII, 17 et 18; Isa., II, 2, 3 et 18; XIX, 19; XLIX, 6 seqq.; Zach., XII, 2, et alibi. — 11° Novum sacerdotium substituit Levitico, novam legem legi Mosaicae, ac tandem Iudaeos reiecit, ut praenuntiatum est passim in prophetis, Isai., Ierem., Ose., Amos, Mich. 14 Editor's note: the print reads "Psal. III, 6"; the passage proves Christ's resurrection, which Psalm III, 6 ("Ego dormivi") does not treat, so the citation may be a printer's error (cf. Psal. II, 7 or XV, 10).
Seek all these things set out more fully in our previous Work, tract. de Incarn., dissert. II, a. 3.
Haec omnia latius exposita require in priori nostro Opere, tract. de Incarn., dissert. II, a. 3.
What will the deist say to these things? Will he say that Moses is a teller of fables and an impostor, who fraudulently sold false and invented things to the Israelites as true?
Quid ad haec deista? Dicetne Moysen esse fabulatorem et impostorem, qui falsa et ficta pro veris fraudulenter venditavit Israelitis?
Sed contra : 1° Moses calls the Israelites themselves eyewitnesses of the things he narrates. He narrates the plagues of Egypt, harmless to the Israelites looking on. He narrates that they passed unharmed through the Red Sea, while the Egyptians were drowned in it. He narrates that manna was given them from heaven for forty years, and that during that time their garments were not worn out. He narrates that the law was given them by God on Mount Sinai amid lightnings and thunders. He narrates that he drew forth a fountain from the rock for their relief, and that Dathan and Abiron, while they looked on, were swallowed alive into the earth, as he had foretold; he subjects them to a most harsh law, even under pain of death in certain matters. He narrates that he ordered twenty-five thousand men to be killed by the Levites for idolatry, and many other things. If therefore all these things are false, and Moses fraudulently sold them to the Israelites as true, it must be that Moses was foolish, to hope that he could persuade the Israelites that they had seen what they had not seen, and thereby subject them to a most harsh law; and that the Israelites were in like manner foolish, to believe that they had seen what they had not seen, and thereby subject themselves to a most harsh law.
Sed contra : 1° Moyses eorum quae narrat ipsos Israelitas testes oculatos appellat. Narrat plagas Egypti, Israelitis videntibus innoxias. Narrat ipsos transiisse incolumes per mare rubrum, Egyptiis in eo submersis. Narrat manna coelitus ipsis datum per quadraginta annos, per id tempus eorum vestes non fuisse detritas. Narrat legem ipsis divinitus datam in monte Sinai inter fulgura et tonitrua. Narrat se in eorum sublevamen elicuisse fontem de rupe, Dathan et Abiron, ipsis spectantibus, vivos in terra fuisse absorptos, ut praedixerat; legi durissimae ipsos subiicit, etiam sub poena mortis in certis capitibus. Narrat se iussisse occidi per Levitas viginti quinque millia hominum propter idololatriam, et plura alia. Si ergo haec omnia falsa sunt et Moyses pro veris fraudulenter venditavit Israelitis, necesse est Moysen fuisse stultum, qui speraret se posse persuadere Israelitis eos vidisse quae non viderant, et inde eos legi durissimae subiicere; Israelitas pariter fuisse stultos, qui crederent se vidisse quae non viderant, et inde se subiicerent legi durissimae.
2° In memory of the deeds and prodigies which Moses narrates, feasts and sacrifices were then instituted which are still scrupulously observed by the Jews. But who would believe that a whole nation instituted feasts and sacrifices for events not certainly known to it, or fabulous, and observed them so religiously through so many centuries.
2° In memoriam factorum et prodigiorum quae narrat Moyses, instituta fuerunt tunc festa et sacrificia quae etiam nunc scrupulose servantur a Iudaeis. Quis autem credat gentem integram instituisse festa et sacrificia pro eventibus sibi non certo notis, aut fabulosis, et ea per tot saecula tam religiose observare.
3° Moses not only narrates deeds and prodigies, but foretells many future things that depend solely on the will of God, and which were fulfilled: likewise the other Prophets. But it is not for an impostor, nor for any other man whatsoever, to predict future things that depend solely on the will of God.
3° Moyses non solum facta et prodigia narrat, sed multa praenuntiat futura quae ex sola Dei voluntate pendent, et quae fuerunt adimpleta : similiter alii Prophetae. Non est autem impostoris, neque cuiusvis alterius hominis, praedicere futura quae ex sola Dei voluntate pendent.
Perhaps he will reply that neither Moses nor the prophets ever existed; or, if they existed, that the books attributed to them are not their own, but were fabricated after the birth of Christianity by some impostor.
Reponet forte, neque Moysen, neque prophetas unquam exstitisse; aut, si exstiterint, libros qui ipsis tribuuntur non esse ipsis proprios, sed post natum Christianismum ab aliquo impostore fuisse fabricatos.
Sed contra : 1° It is as certain that Moses and the prophets existed and wrote the things that are attributed to them, as it is certain that Cyrus, Alexander, Caesar, Cicero, Virgil existed, and that the writings attributed to them are their own. Of these latter no one doubts, on account of the constant tradition, against which nothing can be opposed. Therefore neither may one doubt about the former.
Sed contra : 1° Tam certum est exstitisse Moysen et prophetas, et scripsisse ea quae ipsis tribuuntur, quam certum est exstitisse Cyrum, Alexandrum, Caesarem, Ciceronem, Virgilium, et scripta quae eis tribuuntur esse ipsis propria. De his autem nullus dubitat, propter constantem traditionem, cui nihil opponi potest. Ergo nec de illis dubitare licet.
Likewise, it is as certain that Moses and the Prophets existed, and that the works inscribed with their names were written by them, as it is certain that the Jewish nation existed and now exists, which always venerated and venerates them as Prophets and saints, and has always kept their writings, as divine, with the greatest diligence, and keeps them. But that the Jewish nation existed before the rise of Christianity is known to the whole world.
Item, tam certum est Moysen et Prophetas exstitisse, et opera quae eorum nominibus inscribuntur esse ab illis scripta, quam certum est exstitisse et nunc existere gentem Iudaicam, quae illos ut Prophetas et sanctos semper coluit et colit, et eorum scripta, ut divina, summa diligentia semper custodivit et custodit. Existere autem et exstitisse gentem Iudaicam ante ortum Christianismum, universo orbi notum est.
2° Aristeus, one of the legates of Ptolemy to Eleazar, high priest of the Jews, whose book exists in the Bibliotheca Patrum, tom. VII, Josephus and Philo, both Jews, relate that the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew into Greek by the 70 Interpreters, under Ptolemy king of Egypt, two hundred years before Christ was born. Likewise profane historians, Cicero, Phlegon, Tacitus, Suetonius, Sallustius, Quintus Curtius, make mention of the law, the temple and the wars of the Jews.
2° Aristeus, unus ex legatis Ptolemaei ad Eleazarum, summum Iudaeorum pontificem, cuius liber exstat in Bibliotheca Patrum, tom. VII, Ioseph et Philo, uterque Iudaeus, referunt vetus Testamentum ex hebraeo in graecum fuisse translatum a 70 Interpretibus, sub Ptolomaeo rege Egypti, ducentis annis ante Christum natum. Item historici profani, Cicero, Phlegon, Tacitus, Suetonius, Sallustius, Quintus Curtius, mentionem faciunt de lege, templo et bellis Iudaeorum.
3° By what art could this impostor have persuaded the Jews that this was the history and law of their nation handed down by God, of which they had never heard anything, and which contains many things disgraceful to them and commands most harsh things, and could he have obtained from them so scrupulous an observance of this most harsh law, such as they profess even now? Whoever had attempted this would without doubt have been regarded by the Jews as a fanatic.
3° Qua arte iste impostor potuisset persuadere Iudaeis hanc esse historiam et legem suae gentis divinitus traditam, de qua nihil unquam audivissent, quaeque multa illis probrosa continet et durissima praecipit, atque ab eis obtinere tam scrupulosam huius legis durissima observantiam, qualem nunc etiam profitentur? Quisquis sane id tentasset, dubio procul ceu fanaticus a Iudaeis habitus fuisset.
4° If the Old Testament is the work of a recent impostor, the same must be said of the New, since the latter is nothing but an explanation and fulfillment of the former, and Christ often appeals the Jews to Moses and to the prophets of the Old Testament.
4° Si vetus Testamentum sit opus recentis impostoris, idem dicendum erit de novo, cum istud non sit nisi explicatio et adimpletio veteris, Christusque saepe provocat Iudaeos ad Moysen et ad prophetas veteris Testamenti.
5° Let the deists say who this impostor was, of what condition, stock and religion: whether a Jew, a Samaritan, or a Christian? If a Jew, he would have obtained nothing from the Samaritans, the bitterest enemies of the Jews. Likewise, if a Samaritan, with respect to the Jews. Moreover, neither would have inserted in these books things so ignominious to the Jewish and Samaritan nation, namely their crimes, ingratitudes, idolatries and punishments. If a Christian, how would he have been acceptable to the Jews and Samaritans, alike the bitterest enemies of the Christians?
5° Dicant deistae, quis fuerit iste impostor, cuius conditionis, generis et religionis : an Iudaeus, an Samaritanus, an Christianus? Si Iudaeus, nihil obtinuisset a Samaritanis, Iudaeorum hostibus infensissimis. Similiter, si Samaritanus, respectu Iudaeorum. Insuper neuter inseruisset in his libris quae nationi Iudaica et Samaritanae adeo sunt ignominiosa, eorum scilicet crimina, ingratitudines, idololatriam et punitiones. Si Christianus, quomodo a Iudaeis et Samaritanis, hostibus pariter Christianorum infensissimis, acceptus fuisset?
6° Likewise, let them say at what time, in what year, in what part of the world this impostor appeared; whom he first deceived; how the Jews, Samaritans, and Christians dispersed through the whole world were at once and together furnished with copies of all these books, in every language, Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldaic, Greek, as they were at the birth of Christianity. To these things the deists fall silent. Let them acknowledge therefore their fictions, and that they betray themselves as impostors, while they plead the cause of a fictitious impostor.
6° Item, dicant quo tempore, quo anno, in qua parte mundi apparuit iste impostor; quos primo decepit; quomodo Iudaei, Samaritani, Christiani toto orbe dispersi, statim et simul fuerunt instructi exemplaribus omnium istorum librorum, in omni lingua, hebraica, syriaca, chaldaica, graeca, prout erant nascente Christianismo. Ad haec obmutescunt deistae. Agnoscant ergo sua figmenta, et seipsos prodere impostores, dum ficti impostoris causam agunt.
Let there remain unmoved, therefore, that the books of Moses and the prophets are their genuine works, that the prophecies which they contain concerning the Christian religion and its author are divine and revealed, and consequently that the Christian religion is true, divine and revealed; for there is no more efficacious argument for the truth of any doctrine than prophecies concerning its author and its truth, since no one but God, or one inspired by the divine Spirit, can long beforehand predict future things, which depend solely on the will of God, with all their circumstances, according to that of Isa., XLI, 23 : Announce the things that are to come hereafter, and we shall know that you are gods.
Maneat itaque inconcussum, libros Moysis et prophetarum esse genuina ipsorum opera, vaticinia quae continent de religione Christiana et eius authore esse divina et revelata, consequenter religionem Christianam esse veram, divinam et revelatam; nullum quippe est efficacius argumentum veritatis alicuius doctrinae, quam vaticinia de illius authore et veritate, siquidem nullus, nisi Deus, aut divino Spiritu afflatus, possit diu ante futura contingentia, qua ex sola Dei voluntate pendent, cum omnibus suis circumstantiis, praedicere, iuxta illud Isa., XLI, 23 : Annuntiate quae ventura sunt in futurum, et sciemus quia dii estis vos.
I answer. 1° No oracles ever, whether from the priests of idols, or from pythonesses, or from demons through idols, issued forth concerning a future event that depended solely on the will of God, like the oracles of Christianity; but they were either concerning recent events already accomplished elsewhere, or which they themselves were about to do, or concerning natural futures which they predicted conjecturally from circumstances; and therefore concerning these Cicero himself, book II de Divinat., says that they were « partly false, partly true by chance. »
Resp. 1° nulla unquam oracula, sive a sacerdotibus idolorum, sive a pythonibus, sive a daemonibus per idola, prodisse de eventu futuro qui ex sola Dei voluntate penderet, sicut oracula Christianismi, sed fuisse vel de eventibus recentibus alibi iam peractis, aut quae ipsi facturi erant, vel de futuris naturalibus quae ex circumstantiis coniecturaliter praenuntiabant, et ideo de illis ipse Cicero, lib. II de Divinat., dicit quod erant « partim falsa, partim casu vera. »
2° The oracles that looked to the future were ambiguous, such that whatever had happened, they were verified. Such was the oracle of Apollo of Delphi given to Croesus, king of Lydia, that « if he crossed the river Halys, he would destroy a great kingdom. » Whether his own, or another’s? this remained to be divined. Likewise this one of the same Apollo given to Pyrrhus consulting about the outcome of the war against the Romans : « I say that you, descendant of Aeacus, can conquer the Romans, » which signifies both that the Greeks can be conquered by the Romans and that the Romans can be conquered by the Greeks.
2° Oracula quae futurum spectabant, erant ambigua, ita ut quidquid evenisset, verificarentur. Tale fuit oraculum Apollinis Delphici datum Craeso, regi Lydi, quod, « si transiret flumen Halys, magna regna perdet. » An sua, an aliena? hoc restabat divinandum. Item istud eiusdem Apollinis datum Pyrrho consulenti de eventu belli contra Romanos : « Aio te, Aeacida, Romanos vincere posse, » quodque significat Graecos posse vinci a Romanis, ac Romanos posse vinci a Graecis.
3° These oracles of paganism ceased at the birth of Christ and the advance of Christianity. Suidas, s.v. Augustus, Suetonius, in the Octavius, Nicephorus, lib. I, c. 17, relate that Apollo of Delphi, after having long remained mute, was finally compelled to answer Caesar Augustus consulting him thus :
3° Haec paganismi oracula cesserunt nascente Christo et proficiente Christianismo. Suidas, verbo Augustus, Suetonius, in Octavio, Nicephorus, lib. I, c. 17, referunt Apollinem Delphicum, postquam diu mutus mansisset, tandem Caesari Augusto ipsum consulenti coactum fuisse respondere sic :
« Me a Hebrew boy, God himself ruling the gods, commands to yield my seat, and to return sad beneath the earth. Depart therefore henceforth in silence from our altars. »
« Me puer Hebraeus, divos Deus ipse gubernans, Cedere sede iubet, tristemque redire sub oraeum. Aris ergo dehinc tacitus abscedito nostris. »
It is known that Apollo of Daphne in the suburb of Antioch long fell silent in like manner, notwithstanding the repeated sacrifices of Julian the Apostate, and finally answered him that the cause of his silence was certain dead men buried in a nearby place. These however were the holy martyrs, among whom St. Babylas.
Notum est Apollinem Daphniticum in suburbio Antiochiae diu pariter obmutuisse, non obstantibus sacrificiis iteratis Iuliani Apostatae, ac tandem illi respondisse, causam sui silentii esse quosdam mortuos in vicino loco sepultos. Hi autem erant SS. martyres, inter quos S. Babylas.
Tertullian in the Apolog. affirms that any Christian meeting one first can render the demons mute and cast them out of bodies; and he challenges the Romans to make the experiment, consenting that this Christian be condemned to death if he should fail. Likewise Lactantius, lib. de vera Sapientia, relates that every Christian by the sign of the cross renders the demons mute and expels them from bodies.
Tertullianus in Apolog. affirmat quemlibet Christianum primo occurrentem posse reddere daemones mutos et eos e corporibus eiicere, provocatque Romanos ut experimentum faciant, et consentit hunc Christianum morti addici, si deficiat. Pariter Lactantius, lib. de vera Sapientia, refert omnem Christianum signo crucis daemones mutos efficere et e corporibus expellere.
I insist. The sibylline verses have always been most celebrated, not only among the Gentiles, but also among the ancient Fathers of the Church, in which many future things are predicted. Moreover the pagans had their oracles. Therefore there were true prophecies also among them.
Inst. Celeberrima semper fuerunt, non solum apud gentiles, sed etiam apud antiquos Ecclesiae Patres, sybillina carmina, quibus multa futura praedicuntur. Habebant insuper pagani sua oracula. Ergo erant etiam apud ipsos vera vaticinia.
I answer. that the sibylline oracles have long been held in low esteem by the learned. Even if, however, the authenticity of those verses be admitted, and that the virginity of the Sibyls was rewarded with the gift of prophecy by God, as St. Jerome says, contra Iovin., unbelief finds in them no support, since many monuments of ancient tradition are contained in them, many prophecies concerning Christ and his religion, as can be seen in digr. 2 at the end of dissert. II in tract. de incarnat., in our greater Work. Therefore the holy Fathers cited the verses of the Sibyls with praise, because they saw in them religion rather confirmed than weakened. As to the other prophecies and oracles of the pagans, although there are not lacking those who attribute all of them to the frauds of priests, whose very many arts of deceiving Herodotus himself reports, lib. 5, 6, 7 and 8, yet theologians commonly judge that not all those are to be ascribed to human arts, but that many also were produced by demons. Whence St. Cyprian, lib. de Idol. vanit., has thus : « These spirits therefore lurk beneath statues and images; these inspire the breasts of seers with their breath, and work oracles. » Although true prophecy is proper to God alone, nevertheless, considering the intelligence and nature of demons, they can know and foretell many things which can strongly excite the admiration of men. Thus they can predict evils of which they themselves will be the authors, manifest at almost the same moment what is done in a distant region, conjecture from present things certain ones soon to come, as has already been said. Since, however, the event even of things soon to come often depends on the free determination of men, and on the concourse of other things, which cannot certainly be foreseen from natural causes, hence the oracles of demons concerning these events were partly false, partly true by chance, commonly ambiguous and turning every way, so that they could be drawn even into contrary senses. The falsity of the oracles was attested, in Theodoret, by Porphyry himself, saying : « Asked about many things, they are found liars oftentimes. » They cannot therefore, except by the greatest folly and audacity, be compared to our prophecies by the oracles of the heathen, which Celsus did, whom Spinoza and other unbelievers followed. Let them show themselves any falsity, however small, in our prophecies : which they will in no way be able to accomplish; for it is evidently demonstrated that all oracles were fulfilled in Christ and in the Church. Hence augurs and soothsayers have existed indeed among all nations, but prophets nowhere, except in the people of God.
Resp. quod oracula sybillina iamdiu viluerunt eruditis. Etiamsi tamen admittatur carminum illorum authenticitas, et Sybillarum virginitatem prophetiae dono a Deo muneratam fuisse, ut ait s. Hieronymus, contra Iovin., nihil in illis praesidii reperit incredulitas, cum in illis multa contineantur antiquae traditionis monumenta, multa de Christo eiusque religione vaticinia, ut videri potest in digr. 2 ad calcem dissert. II in tract. de incarnat., in Opere nostro maiori. Ideo cum laude carmina Sybillarum citarunt SS. Patres, quod in iis magis confirmari viderent religionem, quam infirmari. Quoad caetera vero vaticinia et oracula paganorum, quamvis non desint qui omnia fraudibus sacerdotum attribuant, quorum plurimas decipiendi artes ipse Herodotus refert, lib. 5, 6, 7 et 8, theologi tamen communiter censent, non illa omnia humanis artibus esse adscribenda, sed plura etiam a daemonibus edita fuisse. Unde S. Cyprianus, lib. de Idol. vanit., sic habet : « Hi ergo spiritus sub statuis atque imaginibus delitescunt, hi altiatu suo vatum pectora inspirant, oracula efficiunt. » Quamvis enim verae prophetiae soli Deo sint propriae, spectata tamen daemonum intelligentia et natura, multa scire possunt et vaticinari, quae hominum admirationem valent excitare. Sic possunt praedicere mala quorum ipsi futuri sunt authores, eodem quasi momento manifestare quae in remota regione fiunt, ex praesentibus quaedam proxime futura coniicere, ut iam est dictum. Quia tamen eventus etiam proxime futuri non raro a libera hominum determinatione, aliarumque rerum concursu dependent, quae ex causis naturalibus certo praevideri non possunt, hinc daemonum oracula de his eventibus, partim falsa erant, partim casu vera, communiter ambigua et flexiloqua, ut in sensus etiam contrarios trahi possent. Oraculorum falsitatem testatus fuit, apud Theodoretum, ipse Porphyrius inquiens : « Multis de rebus interrogati, mendaces saepenumero inveniuntur. » Non possunt itaque, nisi per summam fatuitatem et audaciam, ethnicorum oracula nostris prophetiis comparari, quod fecit Celsus, quem Spinosa aliique increduli secuti sunt. Ostendant ipsi falsitatem aliquam vel minimam in prophetiis nostris : quod nullo modo poterunt perficere; omnia enim oracula in Christo et in Ecclesia fuisse completa evidenter demonstratur. Hinc augures et fatidici apud omnes nationes quidem exstiterunt, prophetae vero nullibi, nisi in populo Dei.
Obi. 2° with Rousseau : That prophecy may be a certain argument of truth, it would be required 1° that he who heard the prophecy be also witness of the event, 2° that it be certain that what was predicted did not happen by chance. But these do not concur in the same prophecy. Therefore.
Obi. 2° cum Rousseau : Ut prophetia certum veritatis argumentum esse possit, requireretur 1° ut idem qui audivit prophetiam, testis quoque esset eventus, 2° ut certum esset non casu evenisse quod praedictum est. Atqui haec in eadem prophetia non concurrunt. Ergo.
I answer to the 1st: on this way of philosophizing nothing done by others can be believed, nothing said, unless it be heard with one’s own ears. Therefore there will no longer be any historical faith, no certainty. Moreover, although the things Rousseau requires are not found joined in every prophecy, yet it happens in many cases. Thus the resurrection of Christ had been foretold to the Apostles, who afterwards saw him alive with their own eyes.
Resp. ad 1um hac philosophandi ratione nihil credi posse ab aliis factum, nihil dictum, nisi quod propriis auribus audiatur. Nulla ergo erit amplius fides historica, nulla certitudo. Insuper, quamvis quae Rousseau exigit, non reperiantur coniuncta in omni prophetia, in multis tamen casibus evenit. Sic resurrectio Christi praedicta fuerat Apostolis, qui eum postea vivum propriis oculis viderunt.
I answer to the 2nd: there is not here question of one or another deed predicted through ambiguous words, or of one or another prophecy announced through conjectures or natural causes, but of the prophets, who succeeded one another through many centuries, who although far apart among themselves in age, regions and manners, wonderfully agreed in predicting events, not only free and contingent, but depending uniquely on God, whose places, times, and even the smallest individual circumstances they foretold, as we saw above. But who would be so senseless as to say that everything responded by chance to oracles so manifest?
Resp. ad 2um non hic agi de uno aut altero facto per verba ambigua praedicto, vel de uno aut altero vaticinio per coniecturas causasve naturales praenuntiato, sed de prophetis, quorum alii aliis per plura saecula successere, qui quamvis inter se aetate, regionibus et moribus dissiti, mirifice convenerunt in praenuntiandis eventibus, non modo liberis et contingentibus, sed a Deo unice pendentibus, quorum praedixere loca, tempora, singularisque etiam minimas circumstantias, ut superius iam vidimus. Quis autem adeo insipiens omnia dixerit fortuito respondisse oraculis adeo manifestis?
Obi. 3° : Prophecies are not the work of God alone, if a natural faculty of prophesying be granted. But distinguished philosophers taught that this faculty is granted, as Aristotle, Plutarch, etc. Therefore.
Obi. 3° : Vaticinia non sunt solius Dei opus, si detur naturalis vaticinandi facultas. Atqui dari hanc facultatem insignes philosophi docuerunt, ut Aristoteles, Plutarchus, etc. Ergo.
I answer. I deny the minor. Those testimonies of the Gentiles prove nothing else than the common persuasion of all that divination exists; since they did not know its true origin, they took refuge in uncertain suppositions of this kind. For neither from reason nor from experience can any argument be brought forward by which this opinion is proved. We speak of prophecies properly so called, not of certain presensions arising from natural causes, whose sufficient reasons are already contained in things present or past.
Resp. Nego min. Illa gentilium testimonia nihil aliud probant, quam communem omnium persuasionem, divinationem existere, cuius cum veram originem non cognoscerent, ad incertas huiusmodi suppositiones confugerunt. Neque enim potest, aut ex ratione, aut ab experientia aliquod afferri argumentum quo haec opinio probetur. Loquimur de prophetiis proprie dictis, non de praesensionibus quibusdam ex causis naturalibus ortis, quarum rationes sufficientes in praesentibus aut praeteritis iam continentur.
Obi. 4° : A prophecy cannot be judged from the event, 1° if it can be fulfilled by the event without being true, as is said Deut., XIII, 1-3 : If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet... and foretell a sign and a wonder, and it come to pass that which he spoke, and he say to thee : Let us go and follow strange gods..., thou shalt not hear the words of this prophet; 2° if the event does not always follow a prophecy made in the name of God, as Isaias foretold to Ezechias death for the morrow, Jonas the overthrow of Nineve. 3° An event, announced only after a long time, cannot be an argument of truth; which happens in countless prophecies. Therefore.
Obi. 4° : Ex eventu non potest diiudicari prophetia, 1° si eventu compleri potest, quin sit vera, ut Deut., XIII, 1-3, dicitur : Si surrexerit in medio tui propheta... et praedixerit signum atque portentum, et evenerit quod locutus est, et dixerit tibi : Eamus et sequamur deos alienos..., non audies verba prophetae huius; 2° si eventus non semper sequatur prophetiam Dei nomine factam, ut Isaias praedixit Ezechiae mortem in crastinum futuram, Ionas Ninivae subversionem. 3° Eventus, nonnisi post longum tempus praenuntiatum, non potest esse veritatis argumentum; quod in innumeris prophetiis contigit. Ergo.
I answer to the 1st. Since a prophecy that contradicts certain truth is necessarily false, it follows that the one treated of in Deuteronomy cannot be held a true and proper prophecy. Other interpreters think those words contain an impossible hypothesis, to express the matter more forcibly, which hypotheses are not rarely used in common speech, as the Apostle, to the Galatians, I, 8 : Though an angel from heaven evangelize to you otherwise than we have evangelized to you, let him be anathema.
Resp. ad 1um. Cum prophetia quae certae veritati repugnat, necessario sit falsa, sequitur illam de qua agitur in Deuteronomio non posse haberi veram et propriam prophetiam. Alii interpretes putant, ea verba hypothesin impossibilem continere, ad rem fortius exprimendam, quae hypotheses in vulgari sermone non raro adhibentur, ut Apost., ad Gal., I, 8 : Licet angelus de coelo evangelizet vobis praeterquam evangelizavimus vobis, anathema sit.
Finally nothing prevents understanding those words of a prophet who, after he had uttered true prophecies, afterwards fallen into idolatry, abused his authority to corrupt the faith of the people.
Demum nihil impedit verba illa intelligere de propheta qui, cum veras edidisset prophetias, postmodum in idololatriam lapsus, authoritate sua abuteretur ad fidem populi corrumpendam.
I answer to the 2nd. Those predictions were not prophecies uttered in confirmation of any doctrine, but threats made, which were for the most part conditional.
Resp. ad 2um. Illae predictiones non erant vaticinia in confirmationem alicuius doctrinae edita, sed comminationes factae, quae ut plurimum erant conditionatae.
I answer to the 3rd. A prophecy to be fulfilled long after could not be an argument of truth to those living at the time of the prophet, but to those who saw the event. Thus the prophecies concerning the Messiah proved nothing to the Jews living in the time of Isaias and Jeremias, but to those who were to be convinced from the prophecies in the time of the Messiah. Moreover the prophets always predicted even things soon to be, that by the events of the earlier prophecies they might win faith for the later ones.
Resp. ad 3um. Prophetia longo post tempore complenda, non poterat esse veritatis argumentum his qui tempore prophetae vivebant, sed iis qui eventum viderunt. Sic prophetiae de Messia nihil probabant Iudaeis viventibus tempore Isaiae et Ieremiae, sed iis qui tempore Messiae ex prophetiis convincendi erant. Insuper prophetae semper res etiam proxime futuras praedicebant, ut priorum prophetiarum eventibus fidem conciliarent posterioribus.
Obi. 5° : The prophecies that foretell the last calamity of the Jews contain many things that were not fulfilled in the destruction of the city of Jerusalem. Therefore they prove nothing.
Obi. 5° : Vaticinia quae extremam Iudaeorum cladem praenuntiant, multa continent quae in urbis Hierosolymitanae excidio impleta non sunt. Ergo nihil probant.
I answer. the objection speaks of the prophecy read in Matth., XXIV, Marc., XIII and Luc., XXI, in which, according to the common opinion of interpreters, Christ spoke at once of the consummation of the world, of which the extreme calamities of the Jewish nation exhibit the prelude. Yet it is not difficult to distinguish between the two, especially in the series of the narration related by St. Mark. 1° The destruction of the city of Jerusalem is treated from v. 1 up to 24. 2° The overthrow of the whole world from v. 24 to 27. Both events having been foretold, Christ answers this question of the disciples : Tell us when these things shall be. And indeed returning at v. 28 to the first event, he announces it as near at v. 30 : This generation shall not pass, until all these things be done. But as to the time of the final consummation of the world, he says at v. 32 that it pertains to the hidden judgments of God : But of that day or hour no man knoweth.]
Resp. sermonem esse in obiectione de vaticinio quod Matth., XXIV, Marc., XIII et Luc., XXI legitur, in quo, iuxta communem interpretum sententiam, Christus simul de mundi consummatione locutus est, cuius praeludium exhibent extremae gentis Iudaicae calamitates. Difficile tamen non est inter utramque distinguere, praesertim in serie narrationis quae a S. Marco refertur. 1° De urbis Hierosolyma destructione agitur a v. 1 usque ad 24. 2° De totius orbis subversione a v. 24 ad 27. Utroque eventu praenuntiato, Christus respondet ad hanc discipulorum interrogationem : Dic nobis quando ista fient. Et quidem v. 28 ad primum eventum rediens, eum tamquam proximum annuntiat v. 30 : Non transibit generatio haec, donec omnia fiant. Quod autem tempus attinet extrema mundi consummationis, ait v. 32, illud ad occulta Dei iudicia pertinere : De die autem illo vel hora nemo scit.]