16. On Angelic Knowledge. Summa theologiae, 1, 54–8 (1268)
16. On Angelic Knowledge. Summa 8 (1268) – theologiae, 1,54
Thomas Aquinas is called the Angelic Doctor not only because of his legendary chastity but also because of his interest in those immaterial beings which are unimaginably more perfect than humans although infinitely inferior to God himself. The doctrine of the angels is both a philosophical and a theological doctrine. The Neoplatonic ontological cascade moved from the One through the realm of Intelligences to that of Souls. In Chapter 18 below will be found Thomas’s ruminations on philosophical speculation about this intermediate rank of beings. Thomas finds a doctrine on angels (though not by that name) in both Plato and Aristotle. Indeed, he wrote a work, On Separated Substances, that recounts the history of philosophical efforts to speak of the angels.
In comparing Plato and Aristotle on this subject, Thomas commends Plato because of the enormous number of separated entities he recognizes,but he adds ruefully that the argument for their existence is fatally flawed. Aristotle, on the other hand, had sound reasons for positing separated substances between the Prime Mover and material entities, but unfortunately he limited their number severely to the cosmic roles they can play.
The theology of the angels is grounded in what Sacred Scripture has to say of them, and Thomas is indefatigable in finding clues to the angelic hierarchy in the books of the Bible. He sees the realm of the angels as, so to speak, exploding into choirs and ranks and roles. There is reason to think that he held that there are more angels than there are, or will be, human persons.
What Thomas can say of the angels is a projection from what he knows of human beings. There is no independent immediate access to such separated substances. But his doctrine on the angels plays an important and indispensable role in what he has to say of human cognition as well as of divine cognition. It was one of Jacques Maritain’s shrewder observations that Descartes’s account of human knowledge bears a strong resemblance to Thomas’s theory of angelic cognition.
The following treatise from the Summa theologiae provides a sense of Thomas’s teaching on the angels.
Summa theologiae, Part 1, Questions 54–8
QUESTION 54
ON THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ANGELS
Having discussed the substance of the angel, we must go on to his knowledge, which is a four-part consideration. First, we must ask about the cognitive power of the angel; second, what pertains to his means of knowing; third, of the things known by him; and fourth, of the mode of his knowledge. The first of these involves five questions: (1) whether the understanding of the angel is identical with his substance; (2) whether his existence and his understanding are the same; (3) whether his substance is his knowing power; (4) whether the angel has an agent and possible intellect; (5) whether in the angel there is any knowing power other than intellect.
Article 1: Is the understanding of the angel identical with his substance?
It seems that it is.
1. The angel is much more sublime and simple than the agent intellect of our soul. But the substance of the agent intellect is its action, as is clear from Aristotle in On the Soul 3.5, as well as the Commentator. Much more so, then, must the substance of the angel be his action, that is, understanding.
2. Moreover, the Philosopher says in Metaphysics 12.11 that the action of the intellect is life. But since for a living thing to exist is for it to live, as is said in On the Soul 2.4, it seems that its essence is life. Therefore, the action of the intellect is the essence of the understanding angel.
3. Moreover, if the extremes are the same, the middle does not differ from them, since there is more distance from extreme to extreme than from extreme to the middle. But in the angel to understand and what is understood are the same, at least insofar as he understands his own essence. Therefore, understanding, which falls between the intellect and the thing understood, is the same as the substance of the understanding angel.
The substance of a thing differs from its action more than it does from its existence. But in no created thing is existence the same as its substance, for this is proper to God alone, as is clear from the foregoing. Therefore, neither angels nor any other creatures are such that their action is their substance.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that it is impossible that the action of the angel, or of any other creature, should be its substance. For action is properly the actuality of a power, as existence is the actuality of substance or essence. It is impossible, however, that something which is not pure act but has something of potentiality in it should be its own actuality, because actuality is opposed to potentiality. Only God is pure act, hence in God alone is his substance both his existence and his acting. Moreover, if the understanding of the angel were its substance, it would be necessary that the understanding of the angel were subsistent. But there can be only one subsistent intellect, just as any subsistent abstraction must be unique. Hence the substance of one angel would not be distinct from the substance of God, who is subsistent understanding, nor from the substance of another angel. Also, if this angel were its understanding, there could not be more and less perfect levels of understanding, since this is a result of different participations in understanding.
Ad 1. It should be responded that when it is said that the agent intellect is its action, this is not a predication by essence, but by concomitance, because when its substance is actual, immediately, taken in itself, action accompanies it. But this cannot be the case with possible intellect, which has actions only after having been actualized.
Ad 2. It should be said that in that sense of it life is not related to living as essence is to existence, but rather as the race is to running, one of which signifies the act abstractly and the other concretely. So it does not follow that if living is existing, then life is essence. Sometimes, however, life is taken for essence, following what Augustine says, in On the Trinity 8.8, that memory and intelligence and will are one essence, one life. But it is not taken in this sense by the Philosopher when he says that the action of intellect is life.
Ad 3. It should be said that the action which passes into something extrinsic, is really a mean between the agent and the subject receiving the action. But the action which remains in the agent is not really a middle between agent and object, save only in the way we speak, but really there results the union of the object with the agent. From the fact that what is understood becomes one with the one understanding, it follows that understanding is, as it were, an effect differing from both.
Article 2: Whether the understanding of the angel is the same as his existence.
It seems that it is.
1. For living things to be is for them to live, as is said in On the Soul 2.4. But understanding is a kind of living, as is said in the same place. Therefore, the understanding of the angel is its existence.
2. Moreover, as cause is to cause, so is effect to effect. But the form by which the angel is is the same as the form by which he understands, at least himself. Therefore, his understanding is the same as his existence.
ON THE CONTRARY:
The understanding of the angel is his motion, as is clear from Dionysius, On the Divine Names 4. But existence is not a motion. Therefore the existence of the angel is not his understanding.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that the action of the angel is not his existence, nor is the action of any creature. For there are two kinds of action, as is said in Metaphysics 8.8. There is an action which passes into something exterior, causing a reception in it, for example sawing and burning. There is another kind of action which is not transitive, but remains in the agent, such as sensing, understanding, willing. Nothing exterior is changed by action of this kind, but everything is done within the agent. Manifestly the first kind of action cannot be the existence of the agent, for its existence is signified as within it, but such action is an outflowing into what is acted upon by the agent.
Action in the second sense carries the note of infinity, either simply or in a certain respect. Simply, as in understanding, whose object is the true, and willing, whose object is the good, both of which are convertible with being, and thus understanding and willing, considered as such, relate to all things, and both are specified by their objects. Sensing is infinite in a certain respect, because it relates to all sensible things, just as sight does to all visible things. The existence of any creature is determined to one kind or species, since God’s existence alone is absolutely infinite, comprehending everything in itself, as Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 4. Hence only the divine existence is his understanding and willing.
Ad 1. It should be said that living sometimes is taken for the very existence of the living thing, and sometimes for the activity of life – that by which it is shown that something is alive. It is in this sense that the Philosopher says that understanding is a kind of living, for he is there distinguishing the different levels of living things according to the different vital activities.
Ad 2. It should be said that the essence itself of the angel is the formal measure [ratio] of its whole existence, but not of its whole understanding, because it cannot understand everything through its own essence. Therefore, according to its proper definition, insofar as it is an essence of a certain kind, it is compared to the very existence of the angel. But it is compared to its understanding according to the universal notion of its object, namely the true or being. Thus it is clear that although it is the same form, it is not the principle of being and the principle of understanding under the same formality [rationem].
Article 3: Is the angel’s intellectual power his essence?
It seems that it is not.
1. Mind and intellect name the intellectual power. But Dionysius in several places in his works calls the angels themselves intellects and minds. Therefore, the angel is its intellectual power.
2. Moreover, if the intellectual power of the angel is something outside its essence, it would have to be an accident, for we call what is outside the essence of a thing its accident. But a simple form cannot be a subject, as Boethius said in On the Trinity 2. Therefore, the angel would not be a simple form, which flies in the face of everything we have said earlier.
3. Moreover, Augustine says in Confessions 12.7 that God made the angelic nature close to himself and prime matter close to nothing, from which it seems that the angel is simpler than prime matter, as closer to God. But prime matter is its potentiality. Much more then should the angel be his intellectual power.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Dionysius says in the Angelic Hierarchy 11 that ‘angels are divided into substance, power and operation’. Therefore in them substance is one thing, power another and operation yet another.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that neither in the angel nor in any other creature is the operative power or potency the same as its essence. Which can be seen in this way. For since potentiality is signified with reference to act, it is necessary that the diversity of potentialities follow on the diversity of acts, because of which it is said that the proper act answers to the proper potency. But in every created thing essence differs from its existence, and is compared to it as potentiality to act, as is clear from what has been said above. Moreover, the act to which the operative power is compared is operation. But in the angel understanding and existence are not the same, nor is any other of its operations or that of any other created thing the same as its existence. Hence the essence of the angel is not its intellectual power, nor is the essence of any created thing its operative power.
Ad 1. It should be said that the angel is called intellect and mind because all his knowledge is intellectual. The knowledge of the soul is partly intellectual and partly through the senses.
Ad 2. It should be said that the simple form which is pure act can be the subject of no accident, because subject is to accident as potentiality to act. But this is God alone, and it is of this form that Boethius speaks. The simple form which is not its existence, but relates to it as potentiality to act, can be the subject of an accident, especially of those consequent upon its species, for such accidents pertain to form (the accident in the individual which does not belong to the whole species follows matter, which is the principle of individuation) and the angel is a simple form of this kind.
Ad 3. It should be said that the potentiality of matter is for substantial existence, but the operative potency is for accidental being. Hence they are not the same.
Article 4: Does the angel have agent and possible intellects?
It seems that he does.
1. The Philosopher says in On the Soul 3.5 that just as in the whole of nature there is something which makes all things, so too is it in the soul.
But the angel is a certain nature. Therefore, in him there is both agent and possible intellect.
2. Moreover, it is proper to possible intellect to receive, as to illumine is proper to agent intellect, as is clear from On the Soul 2.4. But an angel receives illumination from a higher, and illumines a lower, angel. Therefore, in him is both agent and possible intellect.
ON THE CONTRARY:
In us agent and possible intellects are in relation to phantasms, which relate to the possible intellect as colours to sight and to the agent intellect as colours to light, as is clear from On the Soul 3.5. But this is not the case with the angel. Therefore agent and possible intellects are not to be found in the angel.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that the need for recognizing the possible intellect in us arises from finding that sometimes we are potentially understanding and sometimes actually, so there must be some power which is potential with respect to intelligible objects before understanding them, but actually becomes them when it comes to know, and further when it exercises its knowledge. This power is called possible intellect. The need to recognize the agent intellect arises from the fact that the natures of material things, which we understand, do not subsist outside the soul as actually immaterial and intelligible, but are intelligible only potentially as they exist outside the soul, and there must be some power which makes such natures actually intelligible.
In us, this power is called the agent intellect. Neither need arises in the case of the angels. Because neither are they sometimes understanding only potentially with respect to the things they naturally know, nor are their intelligibles intelligible potentially, but actually. For they understand immaterial things first and foremost, as will be clear below. Therefore, there cannot be an agent and possible intellect in them except equivocally.
Ad 1. It should be said that the Philosopher understands these two to be in every nature in which to be generated or to become occurs, as the very words suggest. Science is not generated in the angel but is naturally present. So there is no need to posit agent and possible intellects in the angel.
Ad 2. It should be said that it is not proper to agent intellect to illumine another understander, but things potentially intelligible, insofar as by abstraction it makes them actually intelligible. And the possible intellect is potential with respect to the naturally knowable and sometimes becomes actual. Hence, the fact that an angel illumines an angel is not relevant to the notion of agent intellect; nor is it relevant to the notion of possible intellect that it is illumined concerning supernatural mysteries, towards knowing which it was at one time in potency. If one were to call this agent and possible intellect, he would speak equivocally, nor should our discussion be about words.
Article 5: Whether the intellect is the angel’s only knowing power.
It seems that it is not.
1. Augustine says in the City of God 8.6 that in the angels there is the life which understands and senses. Therefore, the sense power is in them.
2. Moreover, Isadore says that the angels know many things through experience. But experience arises from many memories, as is said in Metaphysics 1.1. Therefore, the power to remember is in them.
3. Moreover, Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 4 that there is an evil fantasy in the demons, but fantasy pertains to the imaginative power. Therefore, in the demons there is an imaginative power. For the same reason, it is in the angels, because they are of the same nature.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Gregory says in his Homily on the Ascension that man senses with the beasts and understands with the angels.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that in our soul there are powers whose operations are exercised through bodily organs, and powers of this kind are the acts of certain parts of the body, as sight is in the eye, and hearing in the ear. But there are powers of our soul whose operations are not exercised through bodily organs, such as intellect and will, and their acts are not the acts of parts of the body. Angels do not have bodies naturally united to them, as is clear from what has been said. Hence only intellect and will of the powers of the soul can belong to them. This is what the Commentator says on Metaphysics 12, that separated substances are divided into intellect and will. And it befits the order of the universe that the supreme intellectual creature should be completely intellectual, and not just in part, like our soul. Because of this, angels are called intellects and minds, as was said above.
To what is said on behalf of the opposite answer a twofold response can be made. First, that those authorities speak according to the opinion of those who held that angels and demons have bodies naturally united to them. Augustine frequently uses this opinion in his books, although he does not intend to assert it, hence he says in the City of God 21 that one ought not to struggle much with this inquiry.
Second, it can be said that those authorities, and others like them, should be understood according to a certain similitude. Because, since sense has a certain grasp of its proper sensible, it becomes a matter of usage for us to say that the certain grasp of intellect is a kind of sensing. Hence it is even called a sense [sententia].
Experience can be attributed to the angels through a likeness of the things known, not by a likeness of the knowing power. Experience occurs in us because we know singulars by our senses; angels know singulars, as will be shown below, but not through senses. But memory can be posited in the angels insofar as Augustine locates it in mind, although it cannot belong to them insofar as it is a part of the sensitive soul. Similarly it should be said that evil phantasy is attributed to the demons because they have a false practical estimate of the true good, and deception in us is properly due to phantasms thanks to which we sometimes adhere to the likenesses of things as if they were the things themselves, as is clear in the sleeping and demented.
QUESTION 55
HOW ANGELS KNOW
We must now discuss the means by which angels know, and this involves three questions: (1) whether they know all things in their own substance or through concepts; (2) if through concepts, whether these are connatural or are drawn from things; (3) whether the higher angels know through more universal concepts than the lower ones.
Article 1: Does an angel know all other things in his own substance?
It seems that he does.
1. Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 7 that the angels know the things of earth in their mind’s own nature. But the nature of the angel is his essence. Therefore the angel knows things through his own essence.
2. Moreover, according to the Philosopher in Metaphysics 11.9 and in On the Soul 3.4, with regard to things which exist apart from matter, intellect and what is understood are the same. But what is understood is the same as the one understanding by reason of that by which it is understood. Therefore, in things which exist apart from matter, like the angels, that by which something is understood is the very substance of the knower.
3. Moreover, whatever is in another is in it according to the mode of the thing in which it is. But the angel has an intellectual nature. Therefore, whatever is in him is in him in an intelligible mode. But all things are in him, because the lower beings are in the higher essentially, and the higher are in the lower by way of participation. Therefore, Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 4 that God gathers the whole in all things, that is, all in all. Therefore the angel knows all things in his own substance.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Dionysius says in the same chapter that angels are illumined by the notions of things. Therefore, they know by means of concepts of things, and not by their own substance.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that that by which the intellect understands is compared to the understanding intellect as its form, because form is that whereby the agent acts. But in order for the potential to be perfectly completed by form, it is necessary that everything be contained in the form to which the potentiality extends. That is why in corruptible things form does not perfectly complete the potentiality of matter, because the potentiality of matter extends to more things than are contained in the form of this or that. But the intellectual potency of the angel is for knowing everything, because universal being and truth are the object of intellect. But the essence of the angel does not include everything in it, since it is an essence determined to a genus and species. It is peculiar to the divine essence, which is infinite, that it perfectly and absolutely includes in itself all things. Therefore God alone knows all things in his own essence. The angel cannot know all things in its essence, and his intellect must be perfected by concepts in order to know things.
Ad 1. It should be said that when the angel is said to know things by his does not indicate the means of knowing, which is ‘by’ nature, the word the likeness of the thing known, but the knowing power, which belongs to the angel because of his nature.
Ad 2. It should be said that just as the actualized sense is the actualized sensible, as is said in On the Soul 3.8, not that the sense power itself is the sensible likeness that is in the sense, but because from the two something one comes to be, as from act and potency. So too the actualized intellect is said to be what is actually understood, not because the intellectual substance is the likeness through which it understands, but because that likeness is its form. It is the same when it is said that in things which exist apart from matter the intellect and what is understood are the same – as if it were said that actualized intellect is what is actually understood, for something is actually understood because it is immaterial.
Ad 3. It should be said that the things that are below the angel and the things that are above him are in a way in his substance, though not perfectly, nor according to their own nature, since the essence of the angel, being finite, is distinct from other things by its proper nature, but according to some common notion. But all things are in the essence of God perfectly and in their proper nature, as in the first and universal acting power from which proceeds whatever in anything is either proper or common. Therefore, God has in his essence proper knowledge of all things, but the angels have only common knowledge of all things.
Article 2: Do angels understand by means of concepts received from things?
It seems that they do.
1. Whatever is understood is understood by means of a likeness of itself in the knower. But the likeness of a thing existing in another is either by way of exemplar such that the likeness is cause of the thing, or by way of image such that it is caused by the thing. Therefore any knowledge of the knower is either cause of the thing understood or caused by the thing. But the knowledge of the angel is not the cause of things existing in nature: only the divine knowledge is that. Therefore, the concepts by which the angelic intellect understands must be received from things.
2. Moreover, the angelic light is stronger than the light of the agent intellect in the soul. But the light of the agent intellect abstracts intelligible species from the phantasms. Therefore, the light of the angelic intellect can also abstract species from sensible things. So nothing prevents our saying that the angel understands by species received from things.
3. Moreover, the species in the intellect relates indifferently to the present and to the far off, except as it is received from sensible things. Therefore if an angel does not understand through concepts received from things, his knowledge would relate indifferently to the near and distant, and thus it would make no sense for him to move with reference to place.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 7 that angels do not gather divine knowledge from divisible or sensible things.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that the species by which the angels understand are not received from things but are connatural to them. The order and distinction of spiritual substances have to be understood as like the distinction and order of bodies. But the potentiality in the nature of the supreme body is totally perfected by its form, but in lower bodies the potentiality of matter is not totally perfected by form, but it receives now one, now another form, from an agent. Similarly the lower intellectual substances, like human souls, have an intellectual potentiality that is not completed naturally, but is completed successively by the reception in them of intelligible species from things. But the intellectual potentiality in the higher spiritual substances, that is, the angels, is naturally completed by intelligible species, insofar as they have connatural intelligible species for understanding everything which they can naturally know.
This is apparent from the mode of existing of such substances. For lower spiritual substances, namely souls, have an affinity with body insofar as they are the forms of bodies, and therefore by their very mode of existing it is fitting that they should attain intelligible perfection by and through bodies. But the higher substances, that is, the angels, are totally apart from bodies, subsisting immaterially and in intelligible existence. Therefore they attain their intelligible perfection from an efflux from God in which they receive the species of things known along with their intellectual nature. Hence Augustine says, in his Literal Commentary on Genesis 2.8, that the other things below the angels are so created that they first come to be in the knowledge of a rational creature and then in their own kind.
Ad 1. It should be said that there are likenesses of creatures in the mind of the angel, not as received from these creatures but rather from God, who is the cause of the creatures in whom the likenesses of things first exist. Hence Augustine says, in the same book, that just as the notion by which the creature is made is first in the Word of God, then in the creature that is made, so knowledge of that same notion is first in an intellectual creature and then in the condition of the creature.
Ad 2. It should be said that one does not get from extreme to extreme except through the middle. The form as it exists in imagination, without matter indeed but not without the conditions of matter, is midway between the existence of the form in matter and the existence of the form in intellect abstracted from matter and material conditions. Hence no matter how powerful the angelic intellect, it could not convert material forms to intelligible existence, since as has been said it lacks imagination. Given that it could abstract intelligible species from material things, it would not abstract them, because it does not need them, since it has connatural intelligible species.
Ad 3. It should be said that the knowledge of the angel is related indifferently to the far and near according to place. But its local motion is not for all that idle, since it does not move locally in order to gain knowledge, but to do something somewhere.
Article 3: Do higher angels understand through more universal concepts than the lower angels?
It seems that they do not.
1. The universal seems to be abstracted from particulars, but the angels do not understand through species abstracted from things. Therefore it cannot be said that the species of the angelic intellect are more or less universal.
2. Moreover, what is known specifically is known more perfectly than what is known universally, because to know something universally is a kind of mean between potentiality and act. Therefore, if the higher angels know by more universal forms than the lower, it would follow that the higher angels have a less perfect knowledge than the lower, which is absurd.
3. Moreover, the same proper notion cannot belong to many things. But if the higher angel knows different things by one universal form which the lower angel knows by many special forms, it follows that the higher angel uses one universal form to know different things. Therefore, he cannot have proper knowledge of both. Which seems absurd.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Dionysius says in The Angelic Hierarchy 12 that the higher angels participate in a more universal knowledge than the lower. And in the Book of Causes 10 it is said that the higher angels have more universal forms.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that there are some higher things which are closer and more similar to the one First who is God. But in God the fullness of intellectual knowledge is had in one, namely in the divine essence by which God knows all things. This intelligible plenitude is found in created intellects in an inferior and less simple way. Hence, what God knows in one, lower intellects know through many, and more and more to the degree that the intellect is inferior. Therefore, to the degree that an angel is superior, to that degree he can understand the whole intelligible universe through fewer species. Therefore, it is necessary that its forms be more universal, each of them extending to many. A sort of example of this can be found in us. There are some who cannot grasp intelligible truth unless things are explained to them in great detail, but there are others who are of keener intellect and they grasp much from little.
Ad 1. It should be said that it is incidental to the universal that it is abstracted from singulars, insofar as the intellect knowing it receives knowledge from things. But if there is an intellect which does not receive knowledge from things, the universal known by it will not be abstracted from things, but in a way pre-exist things, either in the order of causality, as the universal notions of things are in the Word of God, or at least in the order of nature, as the universal notions of things are in the angelic intellect.
Ad 2. It should be said that to know something universally can be understood in two ways. In one way, on the part of the thing known, when only the universal nature of the thing is known: to know something universally in this way is less perfect since he who knows of a man only that he is animal knows him imperfectly. In another way, on the part of the means of knowing, and to know something universally in this way is more perfect for the intellect which can know proper singulars by one universal means is more perfect than one which cannot.
Ad 3. It should be said that there cannot be one adequate proper notion of many things. If it excels, the same thing can be taken as a proper notion and a likeness of different things. In a man prudence is universal with respect to the acts of all the virtues and can be taken as the proper notion and likeness of particular prudence which is in the lion an act of magnanimity and in the wolf an act of caution, and so with others. Similarly the divine essence is taken because of its excellence as the proper notion of singulars, because in it singulars are likened to him according to their proper notions. In the same way it should be said of the universal notion in the mind of the angel that through it, because of its excellence, many things can be known with proper knowledge.
QUESTION 56
ANGELIC KNOWLEDGE OF IMMATERIAL THINGS
We now ask about the knowledge of the angels with respect to what they know, and first of their knowledge of immaterial things, and then of their knowledge of material things. Three things must be asked about the first: (1) whether the angel knows himself; (2) whether one angel knows another; (3) whether the angel by its natural powers knows God.
Article 1: Does the angel know himself ?
It seems that he does not.
1. Dionysius says in The Angelic Hierarchy 6 that angels ignore their own virtues. But to know the substance is to know the virtue. Therefore, the angel does not know its own essence.
2. Moreover, the angel is a singular substance, otherwise he would not act, since acts are of single subsistent things. But no singular is intelligible. Therefore, it cannot be understood. And so, since the angel has only intellectual knowledge, he cannot know himself.
3. Moreover, the intellect is moved by the intelligible, because to understand is a kind of receiving, as is said in On the Soul 3.4. But nothing is moved by or receives from itself, as is apparent in bodily things. Therefore the angel cannot understand himself.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Augustine says in the Literal Commentary on Genesis 2.8 that the angel in his very conformation, that is, illustration of the truth, knows himself.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that, as is evident from what has been said above, the object of immanent action is different from the object of transitive action towards something exterior, for in transitive action towards something exterior the object or the matter into which the action passes is separate from the agent, as the heated from the heater, and what is built from the builder. But in action immanent to the agent, in order for the action to take place, the object must be united to the agent, as the sensible is united to sense, in order that actual sensation take place. The object united to the power is to this kind of action as the form which is the principle of action in other agents; just as heat is the formal principle of heating in fire, so the species of the thing seen is the formal principle of seeing in the eye. But it should be noted that this kind of species of object sometimes is only potential in the cognitive power, and then it is only potentially knowing, and in order that it know actually the knowing power must be transformed into the act of the species. If it always actually had it, then it could know through it without any mutation or preceding reception. From which it is clear that to be moved by the object is not of the definition of the knower as knower, but only insofar as he is a potential knower. In order for the form to be a principle of action it makes no difference whether it is inherent in another or subsistent in itself, for heat would not heat less if it were subsistent in itself, than it does as inherent. Therefore, if something in the genus of intelligible things is a subsistent intelligible form, it will understand itself. But the angel, since it is immaterial, is a subsistent form, and therefore actually intelligible. Hence it follows that the angel understands himself through his form, which is his substance.
Ad 1. It should be said that that text is an old translation which is corrected by the new in which we read, ‘Moreover and the’, that is, the angels, ‘knew their own virtues.’ Although the old translation can be defended in this respect that angels do not perfectly understand their virtue as it proceeds from the order of divine wisdom, which is incomprehensible to the angels.
Ad 2. It should be said that intellect is not of the singulars which are bodily things as far as we are concerned, not because of singularity, but because of matter, which is in them the principle of individuation. So if some singulars are subsistent without matter, as the angels are, nothing prevents them from being actually intelligible.
Ad 3. It should be said that to be moved or to be acted upon belongs to intellect insofar as it is in potency. Hence it has no place in the angelic intellect, especially insofar as they understand themselves. For the action of intellect is not of the same nature as the action found in bodily things, which passes into another matter.
Article 2: Does one angel know another?
It seems that he does not.
1. The Philosopher says in On the Soul 3.4 that if the human intellect should have within it one of the natures of sensible things, that nature existing within would prevent what is outside from appearing, as if the pupil were coloured with some colour it would not be able to see every colour. As the human intellect is to knowing bodily things, so the angelic intellect is to knowing immaterial things. Since therefore the angelic intellect has in itself a nature from among the number of determinate natures, it seems that it cannot know other things.
2. Moreover, in the Book of Causes 8, it is said that every intelligence is what is above it insofar as it is caused by it, and what is below it insofar as it is its cause. But one angel is not the cause of another. Therefore one angel does not know another.
3. Moreover, one angel cannot know another through the essence of the knowing angel, since all knowledge is by way of a likeness, but the essence of the knowing angel is not like the essence of the known angel except generically. Similarly it cannot be said that one angel knows another through the essence of the angel known, because that by which the intellect understands is intrinsic to intellect; only trinity comes into the mind. No more can it be said that one knows the other through a species or concept, because that species would not differ from the angel understood, since both are immaterial. Therefore, it seems that there is no way in which one angel can know another.
4. Moreover, if one angel understood another, either this would be by means of an innate species, and then it would follow that if God now created some new angel, it could not be known by those which now exist, or by means of a species acquired from things, and then it would follow that the higher angels cannot know the lower, from which they receive nothing. Therefore, it seems that there is no way that one angel can know another.
ON THE CONTRARY:
The Book of Causes 11 says that every intelligence knows things which are not corrupted.
RESPONSE:
It should be replied, as Augustine says in his Literal Commentary on Genesis 8, that the things that eternally pre-exist in the Word of God can flow forth in two ways: into the angelic intellect, or in order to subsist in their proper natures. They proceed into the angelic intellect when God impresses the likenesses of things on the angelic mind, which he produced in natural existence. But in the Word of God there existed from all eternity not only the notions of bodily things but also the notions of all spiritual creatures. Therefore, the notions of all things, both corporeal and spiritual, were impressed on every spiritual creature by the Word of God. Thus the notion of its own species in natural and intelligible existence at the same time were impressed on every angel, such that it might subsist in the nature of its species and through it understand itself, but of other natures, both spiritual and corporeal, only notions according to intelligible existence were impressed, in order that, through these impressed species, it might know both corporeal and spiritual creatures.
Ad 1. It should be said that the spiritual natures of the angels are distinguished from one another by a certain ordering, as was said above. Thus the nature of one angel does not prevent it from understanding the natures of other angels, since both the higher and the lower have an affinity with its nature, the difference coming about only according to different levels of perfection.
Ad 2. It should be said that the notions of cause and caused do not bring it about that one angel knows another, except by reason of likeness, insofar as cause and caused are similar. Therefore, if a similarity without causality is posited among angels, there will remain in one the knowledge of the other.
Ad 3. It should be said that one angel knows another through a concept existing in its intellect, which differs from the angel whose likeness it is, not as material and immaterial existence differ, but as natural and intentional existence differ. For the angel itself is a form subsisting in natural existence, but not the concept of it that is in the intellect of another angel: there it has only intelligible existence. Just as the form of colour in the wall has natural existence, but in the medium bearing it it has intentional existence alone.
Ad 4. It should be said that God makes every creature proportionate to the ordered universe he set out to make. Therefore, if God arranged to make more angels or more natures of things, he would have impressed more intelligible species on the angelic minds. Just as if a builder should wish to make a larger house, he would make a larger foundation. Thus it is for the same reason that God would add another creature to the universe and an intelligible species to the angel.
Article 3: Can the angel by his natural powers know God?
It seems not.
1. Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 1 that God is placed above all celestial minds by his incomprehensible power. And afterwards he adds that because he is above every substance, he is set apart from all knowledge.
2. Moreover, God is infinitely distant from the intellect of the angel. But something infinitely distant cannot be reached. Therefore, it seems that the angel through his natural powers cannot know God.
3. Moreover, 1 Corinthians 13.12 says, ‘We see now through a mirror in an obscure manner, but then face to face.’ From which it appears that there are two kinds of knowledge of God, one, whereby he is seen in his essence, insofar as he is said to be seen face to face, and another insofar as he is seen in the mirror of creatures. Angels cannot have the first kind of knowledge of God by their natural powers, as has been shown above. The mirrored knowledge does not belong to the angels, because they do not receive divine knowledge from sensible things, as Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 7. Therefore, the angels cannot know God by their natural powers.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Angels are more powerful in knowing than men. But men can know God by means of their natural capacities, according to Romans 1.19: ‘What may be known of God is made manifest in them.’ Much more so the angel, therefore.
It should be said that angels can have some knowledge of God through their natural powers. In evidence of this, consider that something is known in three ways. In one way, by the presence of its essence in the knower, as if light were seen in the eye, and thus it is said that the angel knows himself. In another way, by the presence of its likeness in the knowing power, as the stone is seen by the eye because a likeness of it occurs in the eye. In a third way, when the likeness of the thing known is not received immediately from the thing known, but from another thing, which it affects, as when we see a man in a mirror. The divine knowledge by which he is seen in his essence is like the first. This knowledge of God cannot be present to any creature by its own natural powers, as has been said. To the third kind belongs the knowledge we have of God in this life, by his likeness resulting in creatures; according to Romans 1.20, ‘His invisible attributes are clearly seen – his everlasting power also and divinity – being understood through the things that are made.’ Thus we are said to see God in a mirror. But the knowledge by which the angel using its natural powers knows God is midway between these two, and is likened to the knowledge whereby a thing is seen in a concept taken from it. Because the likeness of God is in the nature of the angel, impressed in its very essence, the angel knows God insofar as he is a likeness of God. But he does not see the very essence of God, since no created likeness suffices to represent the divine essence. Hence this knowledge is closer to mirrored knowledge, because the very nature of the angel is a kind of mirror representing the divine likeness.
Ad 1. It should be said that Dionysius speaks of the knowledge of comprehension, as his words expressly show, and in that way God is known by no created intellect.
Ad 2. It should be said that because the intellect and essence of the angel are infinitely distant from God, it follows that he cannot comprehend him, nor by his nature see his essence. But it does not follow from this that he can have no knowledge of him, because just as God is infinitely distant from the angel, so is the knowledge that God has of himself infinitely distant from the knowledge that the angel can have of him.
Ad 3. It should be said that the knowledge that the angel naturally has of God is midway between the two, yet has more in common with one extreme, as has been said.
QUESTION 57
ANGELIC KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL THINGS
We now inquire into the material things that are known by angels, and raise five questions in this regard: (1) do the angels know the natures of material things? (2) do they know singulars? (3) do they know the future? (4) do they know the secrets of the heart? (5) do they know all the mysteries of grace?
Article 1: Does the angel know material things?
It seems that he does not.
1. The perfection of the intellect is the thing that is understood. But material things cannot be the perfections of angels, since they are below them. Therefore angels do not know material things.
2. Moreover, intellectual vision is of things which are in the soul by their own essence, as is said in the Gloss on 2 Corinthians 12.2. But material things cannot be in man’s soul or in the mind of the angel, in their essences. Therefore, they cannot be known by intellectual vision, but only imaginative, by which the likenesses of bodies is grasped; and sensible, which is of bodies themselves. But in the angels there is no imaginative or sensible vision, but only intellectual. Therefore, the angels cannot know material things.
3. Moreover, material things are not actually intelligible, but are knowable by the grasp of sense and imagination, which are not found in angels. Therefore, angels do not know material things.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Whatever the lower power can do, the higher power can do. But the intellect of man, which in the order of nature is below the intellect of the angel, can know material things. Therefore, ever so much more so can the intellect of the angel.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that such is the order of things that higher beings are more perfect than the lower, and what is deficiently and partially and multiply found in the lower, is found eminently and with totality and simplicity in the higher. Therefore in God, as in the highest peak of things, all things pre-exist supersubstantially according to his simple existence, as Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 1. But angels are of all creatures closest to and most like God, hence they participate in many aspects of the divine goodness, and more perfectly, as Dionysius says in the Celestial Hierarchy 4. Therefore, all material things pre-exist in the angels more simply and immaterially than in things themselves, but more multiply and imperfectly than in God. Whatever is in another is in it in the mode of that in which it is. But angels are intellectual by their nature. Therefore, just as God knows material things by his essence, so the angels know them because they are in them by their intelligible species.
Ad 1. It should be said that that which is understood is the perfection of the one understanding according to an intelligible species that he has in his intellect. Thus the intelligible species which are in the angel’s intellect are the perfections and actuality of the angelic intellect.
Ad 2. It should be said that sense does not grasp the essences of things, but only exterior accidents. No more does the imagination which only apprehends the likenesses of bodies. The intellect alone grasps the essences of things. Hence in On the Soul 3.7 the object of intellect is said to be the quiddity concerning which it does not err, just as sense does not err with respect to the proper sensible. Therefore the essences of material things are in the intellect of man or angel as the understood is in the one understanding, and not according to its real existence. There are some things which are in the intellect or soul according to both kinds of existence. And of both there is intellectual vision.
Ad 3. It should be said that if the angel should receive knowledge of material things from material things themselves, he would have to make them actually intelligible by abstracting them. But he does not receive knowledge of them from material things, but has knowledge of them through actually intelligible species of things connatural to him, just as our intellect knows according to the species which it makes intelligible by abstracting.
Article 2: Do angels know singulars?
It seems not.
1. The Philosopher says in Physics 1.5 that sense is of singulars but reason (or intellect) of universals. But in the angels the only knowing power is the intellectual, as is clear from the above.1 Therefore they do not know singulars.
2. Moreover, all knowledge is by an assimilation of the knower to the known, but it does not seem that there can be any assimilation of the angel to the singular as singular, since the angel is immaterial, as has been said,2 but the principle of singularity is matter. Therefore the angel cannot know singulars.
3. Moreover, if the angel knows singulars this is either by singular species or universal species. Not by singular, because then he would have to have infinite species, nor universal, because the universal is not a sufficient principle for knowing the singular as singular, since singulars are only potentially known in the universal. Therefore the angel does not know singulars.
ON THE CONTRARY:
No one can guard what he does not know. But the angels guard individual men, according to Psalm 90.11: ‘For to his angels he has given thee in trust, to keep thee in all thy ways.’ Therefore angels know singulars.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that some completely take away from the angels knowledge of singulars. But this is in conflict with the Catholic faith which teaches that these lower things are administered by angels, according to Hebrews 1.14: ‘Are they not all ministering spirits, sent for service, for the sake of those who shall inherit salvation?’ If they did not have knowledge of singulars, they could have no foresight about the things which are done in this world, since acts are of singulars. And that is contrary to Ecclesiastes 5.5: ‘And say not before the angel: There is no providence.’ It is also in conflict with teachings of philosophy according to which angels are made movers of the heavenly orbs, moving them by intellect and will.
Therefore others said that the angels have knowledge of singulars but in their universal causes, to which all particular effects are reduced. Just as if an astronomer judged about future eclipses by the dispositions of the heavenly motions. But this position does not escape the difficulties of the first one, because to know the singular in its universal cause is not to know it as singular, that is, as here and now. The astronomer, knowing the future eclipse by computation of heavenly motions, knows it in universal, and not as it is here and now, unless he receives it by his senses. But the administration and providence and motions are singular, since they are here and now.
Therefore it must be said that just as man knows all the kinds of things with different knowing powers, by intellect the universal and immaterial, by sense singular and corporeal things, so the angel by one intellectual power knows both. It is in the order of things that the higher a thing is the more unified power it has extending to many things, as in man himself it is clear that the common sense, which is higher than the proper sense, although it is a unique power, knows all the things that are known by the five exterior senses, and some other things not known by the exterior senses, namely the difference between white and sweet. And the same can be found in others. Hence, since the angel is in the natural order above man, it is absurd to say that man by any of his powers knows something that the angel does not know by his one cognitive power, his intellect. That is why Aristotle thought it absurd to say that God did not know strife, which we know, as is evident in On the Soul 1.5 and Metaphysics 2.4.
The way in which the intellect of the angel knows singulars can be gathered from this that things flow from God in order that they might subsist in their proper natures but also that they might be in angelic knowledge. But it is manifest that there flows from God into things not only that which pertains to their universal nature, but also those things which are the principles of individuation: for he is the cause of the whole substance of the thing, both with respect to matter and with respect to form. And as he causes, so does he know, because his knowledge is the cause of the thing, as was shown above.1 Therefore, just as God through his essence, by which he causes all things, is the likeness of all things, and through it knows all things, not only with respect to their universal natures but also with respect to their singularity, so the angels, by the species put in them by God, know things not only with respect to universal nature but also according to their singularity, insofar as they are multiplied representations of that unique and simple essence.
Ad 1. It should be said that the Philosopher is speaking of our intellect, which understands things only by abstracting; by that abstraction from material conditions that which is abstracted becomes universal. But this manner of understanding does not belong to the angels, as has been shown,1 and therefore it is not the same argument.
Ad 2. It should be said that according to their nature angels are not assimilated to material things as something is assimilated to another according to agreement in genus or in species, or in accident, but as the higher has likeness to the lower, as sun to fire, and in this way too there is a likeness of all things in God, with respect to both matter and form, insofar as whatever is found in things pre-existed in him as in a cause. For the same reason, the species of the angel’s intellect, which are likenesses derived from the divine essence, are likenesses of things not only with respect to form, but also with respect to matter.
Ad 3. It should be said that angels know singulars through universal forms, which however are likenesses of things both with respect to universal principles and with respect to the principles of individuation. The way in which many things can be known in one species has been explained above.2
Article 3: Do angels know the future?
It seems that they do.
1. Angels are more potent in knowing than men, but some men know many future things. Therefore so much more can the angel.
2. Moreover, present and future are tenses of time, but the intellect of the angel is above time, for the intelligence is made equal to eternity, that is, to the aevum, as is said in the Book of Causes 2. Therefore, for the intellect of the angel, past and future do not differ, but he indifferently knows both.
3. Moreover, the angel does not know by means of concepts taken from things, but by universal innate species. But universal species refer equally to present, past and future. Therefore, it seems that angels know indifferently past, present and future things.
4. Moreover, a thing can be called distant in time as in space, but angels know things in distant places. Therefore they also know things distant as to future time.
What is a proper sign of divinity does not belong to angels, but to know the future is a proper sign of divinity, according to Isaiah 41.23: ‘Shew the things that are to come hereafter, and we shall know that ye are gods.’ Therefore angels do not know the future.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that the future can be known in two ways. In one way, in its cause, and thus things which proceed necessarily from their causes are known with certain knowledge, for example, the sun will rise tomorrow. But things that proceed from their causes only for the most part are not known with certitude but by conjecture, as the physician foreknows the health of the sick person. And this mode of knowing the future is present to the angels, and much more so than in us, insofar as they know the causes of things more universally and perfectly, as the physician who sees the causes more acutely, better prognosticates concerning the future condition of the ill. What proceed only rarely from their causes are wholly unknown, such as chance and fortuitous events.
In another way future things are known in themselves, and thus only God knows them, not only what comes about necessarily, or for the most part, but also chance and fortuitous events, because God sees all things in his eternity. Since he is simple, he is present to the whole of time, and contains it. Therefore the one intuition of God bears on all the things done throughout time as if they were present, and he sees all things in themselves, as was said above1 when we discussed the knowledge of God. But the angelic intellect and every created intellect fall short of the divine eternity. Hence the future cannot be known by any created intellect as it exists.
Ad 1. It should be said that men do not know future events except in their causes, or by the revelation of God. In these ways the angels much more subtly know future events.
Ad 2. It should be said that although the intellect of the angel is above the time by which bodily motions are measured, there is time in the intellect of the angel according to the succession of intelligible concepts, according to what Augustine says in the Literal Commentary on Genesis 8.22, that God moves the spiritual creature through time. Thus, since there is succession in the intellect of the angel, not everything that is done through the whole of time is present to him.
Ad 3. It should be said that although the species which are in the angel’s intellect, as such relate equally to present, past and future, none the less present, past and future are not equally related to the concepts. Because things that are present have a nature by which they are assimilated to the species in the mind of the angel, and thus they can be known through them. But the things that are future, do not yet have a nature through which they might be assimilated to them, hence they cannot be known through them.
Ad 4. It should be said that distance according to place is already in the nature of things, and they participate in some concept whose likeness is in the angel, which is not true of future events, as has been said. So it is not the same.
Article 4: Do angels know the secrets of the heart?
It seems that they do.
1. Gregory says in the Morals with respect to Job 27.17: ‘And the innocent shall divide the silver,’ that then is in the happiness of the risen that one will be known by another as he is by himself, and when the intellect of anyone is heeded, at the same time conscience is penetrated. But the risen are similar to angels, as is said in Matthew 22.30: ‘For at the resurrection they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be as angels of God in heaven.’ Therefore, one angel can see what is in the conscience of another.
2. Moreover, as shapes are to bodies, so are intelligible species to intellect. But when the body is seen, its shape is seen. Therefore the intellectual substance being seen, the intelligible species in it are seen. Therefore, when an angel sees another angel, or the soul, it seems that he can see the thought of both.
3. Moreover, what is in our intellect is more like the angel than what is in memory, since they are actually understood, but those only potentially understood. But the things that are in memory can be known by the angel, just as bodily things can be, since memory is a power of the body. Therefore, it seems that the angel can know the intellect’s thoughts.
ON THE CONTRARY:
What is proper to God, does not belong to the angels. But to know the thoughts of the heart is proper to God, according to Jeremiah 17.9 – 10: ‘The heart is perverse above all things and unsearchable. Who can know it? I am the Lord, who search the heart and prove the reins.’ Therefore angels do not know the secrets of the heart.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that thoughts of the heart can be known in two ways. In one way, in their effects. And thus they can be known not only by the angel but by men as well; and the more subtly insofar as such effects are more hidden. For thought is sometimes known not only by the exterior act but also by expressions of the face, and physicians can know some affections of the soul from the pulse. Much more so can the angels and the demons too, insofar as they examine more subtly the hidden bodily changes. Hence Augustine says in On the Discernment of Demons 5 that sometimes they learn with ease the dispositions of men, not only spoken words, but even what is conceived in thought, when signs are expressed in the body by the soul, although in the Retractions 2.30 he says it should not be asserted how this comes about. Thoughts can be known in another way, insofar as they are in the intellect and affections as they are in the will.
In this way God alone can know the thoughts of hearts and the affections of wills. The reason for this is that the will of the rational creature is subject to God alone, and he alone can act on it, since he is its principal object and ultimate end. This will be made clearer below.1 Therefore, the things that are in the will or which depend on will alone are known only to God. Manifestly it depends on will alone that someone should actually consider something, because when one has the habit of knowledge, or intelligible species existing in himself, he uses them as he wills. Therefore the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 2.11: ‘For who among men knows the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him?’
Ad 1. It should be said that now the thought of one man is not known by another because of a twofold impediment, namely, on account of the grossness of the body and the will concealing its secrets. But the first obstacle is removed in the resurrection, nor does it exist in angels. But the second impediment will remain after the resurrection, and exists now in angels. And yet the brightness of the body will represent the quality of the mind, with respect to the amount of grace and glory. And thus one will be able to see the mind of another.
Ad 2. It should be said that one angel might see the intelligible species of another because the mode of the intelligible species with respect to greater or less universality is proportioned to the nobility of substances. But it does not follow that one knows how the other uses those intelligible species in actually considering them.
Ad 3. It should be said that the brute’s appetite is not master of its acts, but follows the impression of another corporeal or spiritual cause. Therefore, because the angels know bodily things and their dispositions, through these they can know what is in the appetite and imaginative grasp of brute animals, and even of men insofar as in them sense appetite sometimes acts following some bodily impression, as always happens with the brutes. It is not necessary, however, that the angels know the motion of sense appetite and the imaginative grasp of man, insofar as they are moved by will and reason, because the lower part of the soul participates somewhat in reason, as obeying a commander, as is said in Ethics 1.13. Nor does it follow that if the angel knows what is in the sense appetite and memory of man, that he knows what is in thought or will, because intellect or will are not subject to sense appetite and images, but can use them in different ways.
Article 5: Do the angels know all the mysteries of grace?
It seems that they do.
1. The mystery of the incarnation of Christ would seem to be of all mysteries the most excellent. But the angels knew this from the beginning, for Augustine says in the Literal Commentary on Genesis 5.19 that this mystery was hidden from all ages by God, but he made it known to the principalities and powers in heaven. And the Apostle says in 1 Timothy Therefore ‘…was justified in the spirit, appeared to the angels…’ 3.16 : the angels know the mysteries of grace.
2. Moreover, the reasons for all the mysteries of grace are contained in the divine wisdom. But the angels see the very wisdom of God, which is his essence. Therefore the angels know the mysteries of grace.
3. Moreover, the prophets were instructed by the angels, as is clear from Dionysius in the Angelic Hierarchy 4. But the prophets knew the mysteries of grace, for it is said in Amos 3.7: ‘For the Lord God does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets.’ Therefore the angels know the mysteries of grace.
No one learns what he knows. But even the highest angels ask about the divine mysteries of grace, and learn them, for it is said in On the Celestial Hierarchy 7 that Sacred Scripture led the celestial essences to question Jesus and acquire the knowledge of his divine work on our behalf, Jesus teaching them without intermediary. And Isaiah 63.1: ‘Who is this that I’ cometh from Edom?’ Where it is the angels who ask and Jesus replies, that speak justice.’ Therefore the angels do not know the mysteries of grace.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that there is a twofold knowledge in the angels. One natural, according to which they know things both in their own essence and also in innate species; angels cannot know the mysteries of grace by this knowledge. These mysteries depend on the pure will of God. Thus the Apostle argues in 1 Corinthians 2.11: ‘For who among men knows the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God, no one knows but the Spirit of God.’
But there is another knowledge of the angels which makes them happy by which they see the Word and things in the Word. And in this vision they know the mysteries of grace, not all and not all equally but as God chooses to reveal to them; according to the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 2.10, ‘To us God has revealed them through his Spirit.’ With the result that the higher angels, more keenly contemplating the divine wisdom, know many mysteries and deep things in that vision of God, and they manifest them to the lower angels, illumining them. Some of these mysteries they knew from the beginning of creation, some they were taught after a little while as this was needed for their tasks.
Ad 1. It should be said that one can speak of the mystery of the incarnation of Christ in two ways. In one way, in general, and thus it was revealed to all at the beginning of his happiness. The reason is that this is a kind of general principle to which all the offices are ordered. Hebrews 1.14: ‘Are they not all ministering spirits, sent for service, for the sake of those who shall inherit salvation?’ which comes about through the mystery of the incarnation. Hence it was necessary that all be taught this mystery in a general way from the beginning. There is another way in which we can speak of the mystery of the incarnation, as to its special conditions. And thus not all angels were told about it from the beginning, indeed some, even of the higher angels, learned it only later, as is evident from the authority of Dionysius cited in the ‘On the Contrary’.
Ad 2. It should be said that although the blessed angels contemplate the divine wisdom, they do not comprehend it. Therefore it is not necessary that they know everything contained in it.
Ad 3. It should be said that whatever the prophets knew of the mysteries of grace through divine revelation was more excellently revealed to the angels. And although he revealed to the prophets in general terms what he would do with respect to the salvation of the human race, the Apostles knew some special things about it which the prophets did not know, according to Ephesians 3.4 – 5: ‘And so by reading you can perceive how well versed I am in the mystery of Christ, that mystery which in other ages was not known to the sons of men, as now it has been revealed to his holy Apostles.’ Among the prophets, the later knew what the earlier understood more than the ancients.’ I’ did not, according to Psalm 118.100 : And Gregory says in commenting on Ezekiel that as time passes knowledge of the divine increases.
QUESTION 58
ON THE MODE OF ANGELIC KNOWLEDGE
We now take up the mode of angelic knowledge and ask seven questions in its regard: (1) is the intellect of the angel sometimes potential, sometimes actual? (2) can the angels understand many things simultaneously? (3) do they understand discursively? (4) do they understand by composing and dividing? (5) can there be falsehood in the angel’s intellect? (6) can the angel’s knowledge be called morning and evening knowledge? (7) are morning and evening knowledge the same or different?
Article 1: Is the angelic intellect sometimes potential, sometimes actual?
It seems that it is.
1. Motion is the act of a thing existing potentially, as is said in Physics 3.1. But the minds of the angels move when they understand, as Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 4. Therefore the angelic minds are sometimes in potency.
2. Moreover, since desire is for something not had but which can be had, whoever desires to understand something is in potency to it. But on angelic knowledge 1 Peter 1.12: ‘Into these things angels desire to look.’ Therefore the angel’s intellect is sometimes in potency.
3. Moreover, in the Book of Causes 8 it is said that the intelligence understands according to the mode of its substance. But the substance of the angel has something of potency mixed in it. Therefore, he sometimes understands only potentially.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Augustine says in the Literal Commentary on Genesis 2.8 that the angels from the time they were created enjoyed the holy and pious contemplation of the very eternity of the Word. But the contemplating intellect is not in potency, but in act. Therefore the intellect of the angel is not in potency.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that, as the Philosopher says in On the Soul 3.4 and Physics 8.8, the intellect can be potential in two ways, in one way, before it learns or discovers, that is, before it has knowledge, and in another way as when it possesses knowledge but is not using it. The angel’s intellect is never potential in the first way with respect to the things to which his natural knowledge extends, much as the celestial bodies have no potentiality to exist which is not actually fulfilled. So the celestial intellects, the angels, have no potentiality to understand that is not completely fulfilled by the intelligible species connatural to them.
But with respect to things divinely revealed to them, nothing prevents their intellects from being in potency, because thus the heavenly bodies are sometimes potentially illumined by the sun. In the second way, the intellect of the angel can be in potency to the things it knows naturally, for it is not always considering everything that it naturally knows. With respect to knowledge of the Word, it is never in potency in this way, because it always actually intuits the Word and sees what is in the Word. In this vision their happiness consists and happiness consists in acting, not just having, as the Philosopher says in Ethics 1.8.
Ad 1. It should be said that motion is not taken there for the act of the imperfect, that is, of something potentially existing, but as the act of the perfected, that is, of something actually existing. It is thus that understanding and sensing are called motions, as is said in On the Soul 3.7.
Ad 2. It should be said that the desire of the angels does not exclude the thing desired, but its dislike. Or they can be said to desire the vision of God with respect to new revelations which they receive from God in order to fulfil their missions.
Ad 3. It should be said that in the substance of the angel there is no potency denuded of act, and similarly in the intellect of the angel there is no potency that is not actualized.
Article 2: Can the angel know many things simultaneously?
It seems that he cannot.
1. The Philosopher says in Topics 2.10 that one can know many things but understand only one.
2. Moreover, nothing is understood except insofar as the intellect is formed by an intelligible species, as the body is formed by shape. But one body cannot have different shapes. Therefore, one intellect cannot simultaneously understand different intelligible things.
3. Moreover, understanding is a kind of motion. But no motion terminates in different goals. Therefore, it cannot happen that many things are simultaneously understood.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Augustine says in the Literal Commentary on Genesis 4.32 that the spiritual power of the angelic mind most easily comprehends at the same time all that it wants to.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that unity of term is required for the unity of motion, as unity of operation requires unity of object. But it happens sometimes that things are understood as many or as one, like the parts of a continuum. For if each is taken by itself, they are many and they are not simultaneously received by sense and intellect. But they can otherwise be taken as they are in one whole, and then they are known simultaneously by sense as by intellect, when the whole continuum is considered, as is said in On the Soul 3.6. Thus our intellect also simultaneously understands subject and predicate, as they are parts of one proposition; and two things are compared insofar as they agree in some comparison. From which it is clear that many things, insofar as they are distinct, cannot be simultaneously understood, but insofar as they are united in one intelligible object they can be simultaneously understood. A thing is actually intelligible insofar as its likeness is in the intellect. Therefore when things can be known by one intelligible species they are known as one intelligible, and are known simultaneously. But things known by different intelligible species are graded as different intelligible things. Therefore the angels, by the knowledge with which they know things in the Word, know all things by one intelligible species, which is the divine essence. Thus with respect to such knowledge, they know everything simultaneously, just as in heaven our thoughts will not be flighty, going from one thing to another, but we will see the whole of our knowledge simultaneously in one place, as Augustine says in On the Trinity 15.16. But by the knowledge with which they know things by innate species, they can know all those things simultaneously which are known by one species, but not the things that are known by different ones.
Ad 1. It should be said that to understand many as one is sometimes to understand one thing.
Ad 2. It should be said that the intellect is formed by the intelligible species which it has in itself. Therefore many things can be simultaneously intuited by one intelligible species, just as a body with one shape can simultaneously be like many bodies.
Ad 3. The response is the same as to the first objection.
Article 3: Does the angel know discursively?
It seems that he does.
1. Intellectual discourse is had when one thing is known by means of another. But the angels know one thing by another, for they know creatures by the Word. Therefore the intellect of the angel knows discursively.
2. Moreover, whatever a lower power can do, a higher power can do. But the human intellect can syllogize and know causes in their effects, which is to know discursively. Therefore, the intellect of the angel, which is higher in the order of nature, can do this even more.
3. Moreover, Isadore says that the demons know many things from experience. But experimental knowledge is discursive, one experience coming about from many memories, and one universal coming to be from many experiences, as is said at the end of the Posterior Analytics and the beginning of the Metaphysics 1.1. Therefore the knowledge of the angels is discursive.
Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 7 that angels do not gather divine knowledge from diffuse remarks nor are they brought to the specific from something general.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that, as has often been remarked, the angels hold that grade among spiritual substances that celestial bodies do among corporeal, for both are called celestial minds by Dionysius.1 This is the difference between celestial and terrestrial bodies, that the latter achieve their ultimate perfection by change and motion, whereas the former by their very nature have their ultimate perfection immediately. So lower intellects, those of men, by a kind of motion and discourse achieve the perfection of operation in the knowledge of truth, when from one known thing they proceed to another. If at once in the knowledge of known principle they perceived all the conclusions following on it, discourse would have no place with them.
And so it is with the angels, because they immediately see in what they first know naturally all things that can be known in them. That is why they are called intellectual, since even with us the things that are immediately and naturally known are said to be understood [intelligi]: that is why the habit of first principles in the human soul is called intellect [intellectus]. Those that acquire knowledge of the truth by way of discourse are called rational. This arises from the weakness of the light of intellect in the latter. For if they had the fullness of intellectual light, as the angels do, immediately at first blush they would comprehend their whole power, intuiting whatever can be syllogized from them.
Ad 1. It should be said that discourse means a kind of motion. But every motion is from something prior to something posterior. Hence discursive knowledge is had insofar as from a thing previously known knowledge of another, at first unknown, is arrived at later. But if in one glance the other is simultaneously seen, as the image of the thing is seen in a mirror when it too is seen, this is not discursive knowledge. But that is how angels know things in the Word.
Ad 2. It should be said that angels can syllogize, insofar as they know syllogisms and see effects in their causes and causes in their effects, but not in the sense that they acquire knowledge of an unknown truth by syllogizing from causes to effects or from effects to causes.
Ad 3. It should be said that the term experience is used of angels and demons according to a certain similarity, insofar as they know present sensible things, but they do so without discourse.
Article 4: Does the angel know by composing and dividing?
It seems that he does.
1. Where there is a multitude of things understood, there is composition of them, as is said in On the Soul 3.6. But in the intellect of the angel there is a multitude of things understood, since he knows different things by different species, and not all at once. Therefore, there is composition and division in the intellect of the angel.
2. Moreover, negation is more distant from affirmation than any two opposed natures, because the first distinction is by way of affirmation and negation. But some distant natures the angel does not know by one, but by different species, as is clear from what has been said. Therefore he must know affirmation and negation by different species. Therefore the angel seems to understand by composing and dividing.
3. Moreover, speech is a sign of intellect, but in speaking to men, angels express affirmative and negative propositions, which are signs of composition and division in the intellect, as is clear from many places in Sacred Scripture. Therefore, it seems that the angel understands by composing and dividing.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 7 that the intellectual power of the angels which shines forth is a perspicuous simplicity of divine understandings. But simple understanding is without composition and division, as is said in On the Soul 3.6. Therefore, the angel understands without composition and division.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that just as in the reasoning intellect the conclusion is compared to the principle, so in intellect composing and dividing the predicated is compared to the subject. For if the intellect saw the truth of the conclusion immediately in the principle, it would never understand discursively or by way of reasoning. Similarly, if the intellect immediately in its grasp of the quiddity of the subject had knowledge of everything that could be attributed to or denied of the subject, it would understand by composing and dividing, but only by understanding the quiddity.
It is thereby evident that our intellect’s discursiveness and need to compose and divide arise from the same fact, namely that it cannot immediately in the first grasp of what is first known see everything contained virtually in it. Which is a result of the weakness of intellectual light in us, as has been said (a. 3). Hence since in the angel there is perfect intellectual light, since he is a pure and bright mirror, as Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 4, it follows that the angel understands neither by reasoning nor by composing and dividing.
None the less, he understands the composition and division of propositions and the reasoning in syllogism, for he understands composed things simply and mobile things immobilely and material things immaterially.
Ad 1. It should be said that not just any multitude of things understood causes composition, but a multitude in which one thing understood is attributed to another, or removed from it. But the angel, in understanding the quiddity of anything, simultaneously understands whatever can be attributed or removed from it. Hence by understanding the quiddity, he understands in one simple understanding whatever we can understand by composing and dividing.
Ad 2. It should be said that the different quiddities of things differ less with respect to their formality of existing than affirmation and negation. But with respect to the formality of knowing, affirmation and negation agree more, because when the truth of the affirmation is known, immediately the falsity of the negative opposite is known.
Ad 3. It should be said that what the angels say in affirmative and negative propositions shows that angels know composition and division, but not that they know by composing and dividing. Rather they know by simply knowing the quiddity.
Article 5: Can the angelic intellect be false?
It seems that it can.
1. Impudence pertains to falseness. But in demons there is an impudent fantasy, as Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 4. Therefore it seems that there can be falsity in the intellect of angels.
2. Moreover, lack of knowledge can be the cause of a false estimate. But there can be nescience in angels, as Dionysius says in the Celestial Hierarchy 6. Therefore, it seems that there can be falsity in them.
3. Moreover, everyone who falls short of the truth of wisdom, and has a depraved reason, has falsity and error in his intellect. But this is what Dionysius says of the demons in On the Divine Names 7. Therefore, it seems that there can be falsity in the intellect of angels.
ON THE CONTRARY:
The Philosopher says in On the Soul 3.6 that the intellect is always true. Augustine also says, in the Eighty-three Questions, Question 32, that only the true is understood. But angels know only by understanding. Therefore, there cannot be deception and falsity in the knowledge of the angel.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that the truth of this question depends to a degree on the foregoing. For it has been said that the angel does not understand by composing and dividing, but by understanding the quiddity. But the intellect with respect to the what is always true, just as sense is with respect to its proper object, as is said in On the Soul 3.6. In us there can incidentally be deception and falsity in understanding what a thing is, namely by reason of some composition or when we take the definition of one thing to be the definition of another, or when the parts of the definition do not cohere, as if we should take as the definition of something that it is a four-footed flying thing (no animal is such), and this occurs with composites, whose definition is drawn from different things, one of which is material with respect to the other. But there is no falsity in understanding simple quiddities, as the Philosopher says in Metaphysics 9.10, because either they are completely missed and we understand nothing of them, or they are known as they are.
Therefore there can be no falsity or error or deception as such in the intellect of any angel, but it happens incidentally although otherwise than in us, for by composing and dividing we sometimes come to an understanding of quiddity, as when we seek a definition by dividing or demonstrating, and that does not happen with angels, but by means of the quiddity of the thing they know all the assertions pertinent to that thing. But it is manifest that the quiddity of a thing can be a principle of knowing with respect to those things which naturally belong to a thing, or are removed from it, but not of those things which depend on the supernatural ordinance of God. Therefore, the good angels, having a rectified will, through knowledge of a thing’s quiddity judge concerning what naturally pertains to a thing saving only the divine ordinance. Hence there cannot be falsity or error in them. But the demons, because of a perverse will, withdrew intellect from the divine wisdom and sometimes absolutely judge of things according to their natural condition, and are not deceived with respect to what naturally pertains to the thing, but they can be deceived with respect to the things which are supernatural, as when considering a dead man, they judge that he will not be resurrected and seeing the man Christ judge him not to be God.
The response to what was objected on both sides is clear from this. For the perversity of the demons is due to their not being subjected to the divine wisdom. Nescience is in the angels, not with respect to the naturally knowable, but with respect to the supernatural. It is evident that their understanding of the quiddity is always true, save incidentally, insofar as it is unfittingly ordered to some composition or division.
Article 6: Can angelic knowledge be called morning and evening knowledge?
It seems not.
1. Morning and evening contain shadows, but there is no darkness in the knowledge of the angel, since there is no error or falsity there. Therefore the angel’s knowledge ought not to be called morning and evening.
2. Moreover, between evening and morning comes the night and between morning and evening falls noon. Therefore if there were morning and evening knowledge in the angels, by parity of reasoning there ought to be noonday and nocturnal knowledge in them as well.
3. Moreover, knowledge is distinguished on the basis of a difference in the things known. Hence in On the Soul 3.8 the Philosopher says that the sciences are divided in the way that things are. But there is a threefold existence of things, namely in the Word, in their proper nature and in the angelic intelligence, as Augustine says in the Literal Commentary on Genesis 2.8. Therefore, if morning and evening knowledge be posited in the angels, because of the existence of things in the Word and in their proper natures, there ought to be a third knowledge in them as well, because of the existence of things in the angelic intelligence.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Augustine in the Literal Commentary on Genesis 4.22 and in the City of God 11.7 distinguishes the knowledge of the angels into morning and evening.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that what is said of morning and evening knowledge in the angels was introduced by Augustine, who does not want the six days in which God is said to have made all things in Genesis I to be understood as those usual days which are brought about by the circuit of the sun, since we read that the sun was created on the fourth day, but as one day, namely angelic knowledge presented by the six kinds of things. For just as in an ordinary day morning is the beginning of the day, and evening its term, so its primordial knowledge of the existence of things is called morning knowledge, and this is according as things exist in the Word. But the knowledge of the existence of created things, as they exist in their own natures, is called evening knowledge, for the existence of things flows from the Word as from a primordial principle, and this flowing forth is terminated in the existence that things have in their proper nature.
Ad 1. It should be said that evening and morning are not understood in angelic knowledge by similarity with the admixture of darkness but according to a similitude of beginning and term. Or it might be said that nothing prevents something to be called light in comparison to one and shadow in comparison to another, as Augustine says in the Literal Commentary on Genesis 4.23. Just as the life of the faithful and just is called light in comparison with the impious, as in Ephesians 5.8: ‘For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord,’ but the life of the faithful compared to the life of glory is called dark, as in 2 Peter 1.19: ‘And we have the word of prophecy, surer still, to which you do well to attend, as to a lamp shining in a dark place.’ Thus the knowledge of the angel whereby he knows things in their proper nature is day in comparison with ignorance or error, but obscure in comparison with the vision of the Word.
Ad 2. It should be said that morning and evening knowledge pertain to the day, that is, to the illumined angels, which are distinct from the dark, that is, the bad angels. But the good angels, knowing the creature, are not fixed on it, which would be to become dark and night, but refer it to the praise of God, in which as in a principle they know all things. Therefore, after evening is put not night but morning, because morning is the end of the preceding day and the beginning of the next, insofar as the angels refer the knowledge of the preceding work to the praise of God. But noonday is included under day, as the mean between two extremes. Or midday can be referred to the knowledge of God himself, who has neither beginning nor end.
Ad 3. It should be said that the angels too are creatures. Hence the existence of things in the angelic intelligence is comprehended in evening knowledge, along with the existence of things in their proper nature.
Article 7: Are morning and evening knowledge the same or different?
It seems that they are the same.
1. It is said in Genesis 1, ‘And there was evening and morning one day.’ But by day angelic knowledge is understood, as Augustine says. Therefore, one and same knowledge in the angels is called morning and evening.
2. Moreover, it is impossible that the same power simultaneously have two operations. But the angels are always in the act of morning knowledge, because they always see God and things in God, according to Matthew 18.10: ‘Their angels in heaven always behold the face of my Father, etc’ Therefore, if evening knowledge were other than morning knowledge, the angel could in no way actually be in the act of evening knowledge.
3. Moreover, the Apostle says in I Corinthians 13.10: ‘When that which is perfect has come, that which is imperfect will be done away with.’ But if evening knowledge is other than morning, it compares to it as imperfect to perfect. Therefore, evening knowledge cannot be simultaneous with morning.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Augustine says in the Literal Commentary on Genesis 4.23 that there is a great difference between the knowledge of a thing in the Word of God and knowledge of it in its own nature, that the former rightly pertains to day, and the latter to evening.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that, as has been remarked, evening knowledge is said to be that by which angels know things in their proper nature. This cannot be understood as if they receive knowledge from the proper nature of things, such that the preposition ‘in’ indicates the relation of principle, because angels do not receive knowledge from things, as was shown above.1 It follows that by ‘in their proper nature’ is taken the notion of what is known, as they come into knowledge, such that evening knowledge in the angels is said according as they know the existence that things have in their proper nature.
Which they know by two means, by innate species and by the notions of things existing in the Word. For in seeing the Word, they do not know only the existence things have in the Word, but the existence they have in their proper nature, just as God by the fact that he sees himself knows the existence that things have in their proper nature. Therefore, if knowledge is called evening insofar as angle they know the existence things have in their proper nature, in seeing the Word, then evening and morning knowledge are the same in essence, differing only according to what is known. But if knowledge is called evening insofar as angels know the existence that things have in their proper nature, by innate forms, then evening and morning knowledge differ. That is the way Augustine seems to understand them, since he calls one imperfect with respect to the other.
Ad 1. It should be said that just as the number of six days, as Augustine understands it, is taken from the six kinds of things which are known by the angels, so the unity of the day is taken from the unity of the thing known, which, however, can be known by different knowledges.
Ad 2. It should be said that two operations can be simultaneously of the same power if one is referred to the other, as is clear when will simultaneously wills the end and that which is for the sake of the end, and the intellect simultaneously understands principles and conclusions by the principles, when it has once acquired science. Evening knowledge in the angels is referred to morning knowledge, as Augustine says. Hence nothing prevents them being simultaneously in the angels.
Ad 3. It should be said that when the perfect arrives, the imperfect opposed to it is done away with, just as faith, which is of things not seen, is no more when vision comes. But the imperfection of evening knowledge is not opposed to the perfection of morning knowledge. That something is known in itself is not opposed to its being known in its cause. Nor does the fact that something is known by two means, one of which is more perfect than the other, have anything contradictory in it, for we can come to the same conclusion by a demonstrative and dialectical middle. Similarly, the same thing can be known by the angel by the uncreated Word and by an innate species.