The seventh, and last, manner is: that the third order of this fifth manner be joined with that first, Josephan, manner — namely, [that] God [responded] sometimes through the flashing of the gems; but at other times satisfied the inquiries through the exterior, or the interior, voice; [and] sometimes even, through the same [means], all [these] together. So [says], now often and deservedly praised, the Syzetes. “I judge,” he says, “the manner of responding to have been twofold. For since God ordered these gems to be inserted in the breastplate — so that through stones so shining and perfect, He Himself, the author of all light and perfection, might be interrogated, and, responding, might illumine and perfect the Priests as well as the Prince and the people with His spiritual light, unrolling [things] wrapped-up, explaining ambiguities, and teaching what things should be done and omitted, and prescribing the manners by which [they] should be begun and completed — it appears sufficiently that the responses had to be accommodated to the interrogations. But of the interrogations, some can be dispatched by bare affirmation or negation, [while] some require a longer explanation. I judge, therefore, [that] to that former kind of interrogations [the answer was given] by the bare splendor, or flashing, of the stones; and that from it the Priest was wont to gather whether he should advise for, or advise against, the one consulting: in which sense I take Josephus’s words — whom Tostatus [Abulensis] and Ribera deservedly follow. Nor is there [any reason] that anyone should judge [that] St. Augustine reckoned this a fable: for what he censures, I taught a little before. To the latter kind of interrogations—”
(col. 225)
—[to the latter kind] of interrogations [the response] was not given by that splendor only (for indeed this could not conveniently [be done]), but far otherwise. For there was heard from the Priest a certain internal — or sometimes external — speech, or oracle, which he afterward would manifest to the one interrogating. Although it is not absurd here to opine [that], to the splendor of the stones there then acceded, for the Priest, a prophetic light infused into his mind by GOD. And because that manner is fuller, and agreeable to nearly all [the cases], he who takes it up is worthy [does well]. Nor was that [manner] denied by me, when I was writing those [things]; but only the first manner — as [being] imperfect, when by most it was thought most perfect — was rejected. Nay, I once thought this fuller and more complete manner, compounded of voice and flashing, was handed down by St. Chrysostom (oration 3 Against the Jews). Yet he seems rather to ascribe the voice to that kind of oracles which the Pontiff received once a year, without the Pontifical Ephod, within the holy of holies; but the flashing, to Urim and Thummim themselves. For these are his words: “Whenever something was to be known from the propitiatory [mercy-seat], a certain voice came forth from the midst of the Cherubim, foretelling future things. Again, from the stones which were on the breast of the high Priest (this they called ‘the declaration’) there shone forth a certain flashing, signifying future things.” To whom [Chrysostom] Abulensis assents (Num. 27, quest. 42). Indeed Rabbi Azariah (bk. 3, ch. 50, fol. 157b) also couples the two manners — bolṭot [בולטות] & mitztarfot [מצטרפות] — about which [I spoke] before, quest. 29.