← Back to Distinction 10

Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 2

Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 10

Textus Latinus
p. 264

Quaestio II. Utrum Angeli mittantur ad illuminandum nostrum intellectum.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum Angelus mittatur ad illuminandum nostrum intellectum. Et quod sic, videtur.

Ad oppositum. 1. Ita dicit Dionysius in libro de Angelica Hierarchia1: « Ordinatio congruae dilucidationis claritatem primo apparentem ut in copiosis effusionibus excellentissimis manifestat essentiis, et per eas, quae post sunt essentiae, divinum participant radium ». Ex hac littera manifeste colligitur, quod Deus nos illuminat mediantibus Angelis.

p. 265

2. Item, in libro de Motu cordis2 ita definitur anima: « Anima est substantia incorporea, intellectualis, earum illuminationum, quae sunt a primo, ultima relatione perceptiva ». Ergo inter relationem animae ad Deum, cum percipit illuminationem, cadit alia relatio media; sed haec non est nisi relatio substantiae angelicae: ergo videtur, quod anima illuminetur a Deo, mediante Angelo.

3. Item, Angeli sunt lumina spiritualia3; sed quia intellectus noster agens lumen est, dum se convertit super phantasmata, abstrahit et depurat et hoc modo illuminat: ergo si angelicus intellectus multo magis in actu est quam noster, ergo multo magis intellectum nostrum possibilem illuminare potest.

4. Item, planum est, quod Angeli multa nobis revelant spiritualia, quae non sunt nata cadere et recipi nec in sensu nec in imaginatione: ergo videtur, quod immediate possint intellectui nostro similitudines imprimere; sed talis impressio non potest esse sine illuminatione: ergo etc.

5. Item, Angelus dicitur purgare, illuminare et perficere4: ergo si hoc solum conveniret ei per modum excitantis, cum similiter unus homo excitet alterum, videtur, quod homo diceretur illuminare, purgare et perficere. Quodsi homo non dicitur esse purgator nec illuminator, sicut Angelus, videtur, quod Angelus possit animam a superiori illuminare.

6. Item, multo plus potest Angelus beatus quam diabolus; sed daemon potest in nobis varias cogitationes excitare et ab inferiori suggerere: ergo videtur, quod Angelus illuminatus per gloriam, cum sit anima nostra superior et luminosior, ipsam possit a superiori illuminare.

Ad oppositum: Fundamenta. 1. Augustinus in libro Octoginta trium Quaestionum5: « Mentem dicimus, quae ita ad imaginem Dei facta est, ut immediate a prima veritate formetur »; et in pluribus locis dicit, quod « inter mentem et Deum nihil cadit medium »: ergo si intelligentia nostra attenditur secundum animae supremum, videtur, quod non possit illuminari ab Angelo.

2. Item, super illud Psalmi6: Manus tuae, Domine, fecerunt me et plasmaverunt me etc., dicit Glossa: « Deus per semetipsum irradiat pias mentes »: ergo non videtur, quod per angelicum ministerium.

3. Item, facilius est producere formas corporales, quam sit dare illuminationes spirituales; sed Angelus formam naturalem non potest producere tanquam principale agens, sed solum exterius disponere7: ergo multo fortius nec illuminationem spiritualem potest animae dare.

4. Item, si Angelus illuminat animam, aut illuminat immittendo ei lumen proprium, aut creando novum. Si immittendo lumen proprium, cum lumen suum non sit extra ipsum: ergo Angelus illabitur animae; quod est solius Dei proprium8. Si dando novum, aut producendo ex aliquo, aut de nihilo. Si ex aliquo, quaero, ex quo? Quod cum non sit dare, sequitur, quod Angelus producat ex nihilo, et ita, quod sit creator.

5. Item, si Angelus illuminat animam, aut per medium, aut sine medio. Si per medium, quaero, quid sit illud medium deferens spiritualem illuminationem; et cum deferens spiritualem illuminationem non possit esse nisi spiritus, inter animam illuminatam et Angelum illuminantem est ponere medium9. Et iterum quaeritur de illo, sicut de primo: ergo vel erit abire in infinitum, vel non est ponere medium. Si immediate illuminat ipsam animam, ergo videtur, quod sit in ipsa anima, et ita quod illabatur animae.

6. Item, ita immediate nata est ferri in Deum intelligentia, ut voluntas: ergo si Angelus non potest voluntatem rectificare10, non poterit intelligentiam illuminare.

Quaestio incidens. Iuxta hoc quaeritur, penes quid accipiantur isti tres actus, videlicet illuminare, purgare et perficere.

Conclusio

Angelus inferiorem animae portionem potest illuminare, non lumen infundendo nec tantum offerendo sicut obiectum vel speculum, sed etiam vivaciter excitando.

Respondeo: Conclusio 1. Dicendum, quod animam quoad superiorem portionem rationis illuminare solius Dei est proprium, sicut in pluribus locis ostendit Augustinus; Opinio 1. quamvis aliqui11, non intelligentes totius veritatis principium, posuerint aliud, videlicet intellectum nostrum non pervenire ad lumen primum, sed perfici et illuminari a primo lumine per lumen

p. 266

intelligentiae medium. — Improbatur. Sed hoc est simpliciter tanquam erroneum respuendum, cum in multis locis beatus Augustinus ostendat contrarium, et etiam sacra Scriptura hoc dicat, sicut Ioannis primo12 dicitur: Erat lux vera, quae illuminat etc., quae quidem non est lux creaturae, sed lux divinae sapientiae et veritatis aeternae. In qua haec animadvertenda sunt, quod est, quod intelligit et quod cetera intelligere facit, sicut videmus in isto sole materiali respectu sensibilium13. Et huius potissimum Notandum. signum fuit, quod intellectus noster in aspectu summi luminis natus est beatificari nec unquam aliquo potest esse contentus, quousque perducatur ad illius clarum aspectum.

Animam igitur quoad supremam partem Angelus non potest illuminare, sed quantum ad inferiorem Opinio 2, tripliciter intellecta. partem rationis posuerunt catholici tractatores, animas nostras a beatis Angelis per eorum revelationes illuminari. Hoc autem tripliciter potest intelligi: uno modo, ut intelligatur Angelus inferiorem portionem illuminare per modum luminis irradiantis; alio modo, ut intelligatur illuminare per modum speculi offerentis; tertio modo, ut intelligatur illuminare per modum linguae vivaciter exprimentis14. Omnes hi modi, etsi aliquo modo sint intelligibiles, cum Angelus sit lumen et speculum et habeat etiam spiritualis interpretationis sive locutionis officium, sustineri possunt15; Praefertur tertius modus. tertius tamen modus intelligibilior est. Non enim multum bene apparet, quomodo Angelus irradiet, nec quomodo se offerat aspectui animae; sed hoc satis intelligibile est, quomodo Angelus possit animae quod concepit suggerere. Et sicut doctor, dum exterius loquitur, excitat intellectum et viam parat ad intelligendum, et viva et efficax locutio quadam sua vivacitate ad intellectum nostrum habet ingressum, dum sonat in aure corporis exterius, ratione cuius etiam libentius audit homo bonum clericum, cuius sermo est efficax et vivus, « cum habeat aliquid latentis energiae vivae vocis actus », ut dicit Hieronymus16; Conclusio 2. sic etiam suo modo intelligendum est, quod Angelus hoc possit facere in virtute interiori, quae elevatior est quam sensus exterior, quadam spirituali locutione et phantasmatum exaltatione interius; et sic illuminat, non lumen infundendo nec solum offerendo sicut obiectum vel speculum, sed etiam vivaciter excitando, sicut doctor exterior, et adhuc efficaciori modo.

Ad fundamenta. His visis, patet responsio pro magna parte ad obiecta ad utramque partem. Nam rationes ostendentes, quod Angelus non potest intellectum nostrum illuminare, loquuntur de intellectu quantum ad superiorem portionem, scilicet mentem, et de illuminatione, quae quidem est per luminis infusionem; et hoc solius Dei est proprium, sicut praedictum est; unde rationes illae concedendae sunt.

Solutio oppositorum. 1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur de Dionysio, iam patet responsio. Dico enim, quod loquitur de illuminatione secundo modo, non primo.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de illa definitione animae, dicendum, quod ultima vel secunda relatione dicitur anima illuminationes a Deo percipere, non quia Angelus cadat medium inter Deum et animam per modum influentis, sed quia perfectius et nobilius illuminatur a Deo Angelus quam anima per naturam; et ideo dicitur ista illuminatio secunda, non ordine causalitatis, sed dignitatis17.

3. Quo sensu dicantur lumina. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Angeli sunt lumina; dicendum, quod verum est; sed non ideo dicuntur lumina, quia lumen suum diffundant exterius in alia18, sed quia intra se lucent. Non enim est simile de corporali lumine et spirituali. Differt lumen spirituale et corporale. Lumen enim spirituale propter sui dignitatem a fonte luminis immediate procedit, cum non possit habere medium deferens. Lumen autem corporale per medium recipitur et defertur, et sicut potest deferri et recipi, sic etiam potest reddi; et sic illuminatum potest illuminare, sicut patet in luna.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod multa nobis revelant, quae nobis per sensum non exprimunt; dicendum, quod illud non concludit, quod immediate influant in intellectum; hoc enim potest fieri, si immediate intellectui suggerant. Nec adhuc illud oportet, sed etiam potest fieri mediante virtute phantastica. Sicut enim videmus, quod ego non

p. 267

possum tibi aliquid ostendere, nisi mediantibus sensibus et viribus inferioribus, quia intellectus tuus non est natus a superiori aliquid suscipere nisi a Deo influente; tamen nihil est in me adeo spirituale, quin mediante verbo sensibili possim illud intelligentiae tuae depromere, et ita tecum loqui de spiritualibus, sicut de corporalibus: multo fortius potest hoc Angelus facere in virtute interiori, quae elevatior est quam sensus exterior, quadam spirituali locutione et phantasmatum exaltatione19.

5. 6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si solum posset per modum excitantis, tunc non posset amplius quam homo, vel etiam malus angelus; dicendum, quod etsi hoc20 possit homo vel angelus malus, tamen ex hoc non sequitur, quod adaequantur in potentia et virtute exprimendi, quia per eandem viam contingit bene et melius docere, sicut patet. Per aures enim exteriores addiscimus a sapiente doctore et fatuo, sed multo melius nos docet qui lumen sapientiae habet, quam qui illo caret; sic et in Angelo intelligendum est se habere. — Et per hoc patent illa duo ultima, quia non est simile nec de homine nec de daemone; neuter enim potest instruere21 ita efficaciter, cum non habeant tantum lumen sapientiae.

Ad quaest. incidentem. Ad illud quod ultimo quaerebatur, quomodo fiat distinctio istorum actuum; dicendum, quod unus modus dicendi est, quod illi tres actus respiciunt intellectum, ut purgatio sit in initio, illuminatio in progressu et perfectio in termino. — Aliter. Vel aliter, ut notentur ibi tria, ad quae ordinatur eruditio vel doctrina angelica: primum est ad remotionem impedimentorum; secundum est ad cognitionem verorum; tertium est ad dilectionem bonorum22. Ad haec autem ordinatur per modum excitantis, sicut sermo bene praedicantis; et ideo non irrationabiliter bonus doctor et praedicator dicitur illuminare et purgare et perficere suos auditores, sicut expresse beatus Dionysius in libro de Angelica Hierarchia23 dat intelligere.

---

English Translation

Question II. Whether the Angels are sent to illuminate our intellect.

Secondly it is asked whether an Angel is sent to illuminate our intellect. And that [he is], thus it seems.

To the opposite. 1. Thus Dionysius says in the book On the Angelic Hierarchy1: «The arrangement of fitting elucidation manifests the brightness, first appearing as in copious effusions, to the most excellent essences, and through these, which are essences thereafter, [the lower ones] partake of the divine ray». From this text it is manifestly gathered that God illuminates us through the mediation of the Angels.

p. 265

2. Likewise, in the book On the Motion of the Heart2 the soul is defined thus: «The soul is an incorporeal, intellectual substance, perceptive — by a last relation — of those illuminations which are from the first [principle]». Therefore, between the relation of the soul to God, when it perceives illumination, there falls another, intermediate relation; but this is none other than the relation of the angelic substance: therefore it seems that the soul is illuminated by God, by the mediation of an Angel.

3. Likewise, the Angels are spiritual lights3; but since our agent intellect is a light — when it turns itself upon the phantasms, it abstracts and refines and in this way illuminates: therefore, if the angelic intellect is much more in act than ours, then much more can it illuminate our possible intellect.

4. Likewise, it is plain that the Angels reveal to us many spiritual things which are not fitted by nature to fall under and be received either in sense or in imagination: therefore it seems that they can immediately impress likenesses upon our intellect; but such an impression cannot be without illumination: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, an Angel is said to purge, illuminate, and perfect4: therefore, if this belonged to him only by way of one who stirs up, then — since in like manner one man stirs up another — it would seem that a man would be said to illuminate, purge, and perfect. But if a man is not said to be a purger or an illuminator, as an Angel is, it seems that an Angel can illuminate the soul from a higher [station].

6. Likewise, a blessed Angel can do much more than the devil; but a demon can stir up various thoughts in us and suggest [them] from below: therefore it seems that an Angel, illuminated through glory, since he is higher and more luminous than our soul, can illuminate it from a higher [station].

To the opposite: The grounds. 1. Augustine in the book Of Eighty-Three Questions5: «We call mind that which is so made to the image of God that it is formed immediately by the first Truth»; and in many places he says that «between the mind and God nothing falls as a medium»: therefore, if our intelligence is regarded according to the highest [part] of the soul, it seems that it cannot be illuminated by an Angel.

2. Likewise, upon that [verse] of the Psalm6: Thy hands, O Lord, have made me and formed me etc., the Gloss says: «God by his very self irradiates pious minds»: therefore it does not seem [to be] through angelic ministry.

3. Likewise, it is easier to produce corporeal forms than to give spiritual illuminations; but an Angel cannot produce a natural form as a principal agent, but only dispose [it] exteriorly7: therefore much more strongly can he not give a spiritual illumination to the soul.

4. Likewise, if an Angel illuminates the soul, either he illuminates by sending into it a light of his own, or by creating a new one. If by sending in a light of his own, since his light is not outside himself: then the Angel glides into the soul; which is proper to God alone8. If by giving a new one, [it is] either by producing [it] from something, or from nothing. If from something, I ask, from what? And since that cannot be assigned, it follows that the Angel produces [it] from nothing, and so that he is a creator.

5. Likewise, if an Angel illuminates the soul, [it is] either through a medium, or without a medium. If through a medium, I ask what that medium is that conveys the spiritual illumination; and since what conveys a spiritual illumination cannot be anything but a spirit, between the illuminated soul and the illuminating Angel a medium must be posited9. And again inquiry is made concerning that one, as concerning the first: therefore either there will be a going-on to infinity, or no medium is to be posited. If he illuminates the soul itself immediately, then it seems that he is in the soul itself, and so that he glides into the soul.

6. Likewise, the intelligence is fitted by nature to be borne immediately into God just as the will is: therefore, if an Angel cannot rectify the will10, he will not be able to illuminate the intelligence.

An incidental question. Alongside this it is asked, with respect to what those three acts are taken — namely, to illuminate, to purge, and to perfect.

Conclusion

An Angel can illuminate the lower portion of the soul, not by infusing light nor only by presenting [it] as an object or a mirror does, but also by vividly stirring [it] up.

I respond: Conclusion 1. It must be said that to illuminate the soul as to the higher portion of reason is proper to God alone, as Augustine shows in many places; Opinion 1. although some11, not understanding the principle of the whole truth, posited otherwise — namely, that our intellect does not reach to the first light, but is perfected and illuminated by the first light through the intermediate light

p. 266

of the intelligence. — It is disproved. But this is to be rejected simply as erroneous, since in many places blessed Augustine shows the contrary, and sacred Scripture too says this, as it is said in John, chapter one12: It was the true light, which illuminates etc. — which indeed is not the light of a creature, but the light of the divine wisdom and of the eternal truth. In which these things are to be noticed: that which is, that which understands, and that which makes other things to be understood — as we see in this material sun with respect to sensible things13. And the chief Note. sign of this was that our intellect is fitted by nature to be beatified in the gazing upon the highest light, nor can it ever be content with anything until it be brought through to the clear gazing upon that [light].

Therefore, as to the highest part, an Angel cannot illuminate the soul; but as to the lower Opinion 2, understood in three ways. part of reason, the catholic commentators have held that our souls are illuminated by the blessed Angels through their revelations. And this can be understood in three ways: in one way, that the Angel be understood to illuminate the lower portion by way of an irradiating light; in another way, that he be understood to illuminate by way of a mirror that presents; in a third way, that he be understood to illuminate by way of a tongue vividly expressing14. All these modes, even though they are in some way intelligible — since the Angel is a light and a mirror and has also the office of spiritual interpretation or speech — can be sustained15; The third mode is preferred. the third mode, however, is more intelligible. For it does not appear very well how an Angel irradiates, nor how he presents himself to the gaze of the soul; but this is intelligible enough — how an Angel can suggest to the soul what he has conceived. And just as a teacher, while he speaks exteriorly, stirs up the intellect and prepares the way to understanding, and living and efficacious speech, by a certain liveliness of its own, gains entrance to our intellect while it sounds exteriorly in the ear of the body — by reason of which a man also more gladly hears a good cleric, whose discourse is efficacious and living, «since it has something of the hidden energy of the living voice's act», as Jerome says16; Conclusion 2. so too, in its own way, it is to be understood that an Angel can do this in the interior power, which is more elevated than the exterior sense, by a certain spiritual speech and exaltation of the phantasms interiorly; and so he illuminates — not by infusing light, nor only by presenting [it] as an object or a mirror [does], but also by vividly stirring [it] up, like an exterior teacher, and in a still more efficacious manner.

To the grounds. These things being seen, the reply is for the most part plain to the objections on both sides. For the arguments showing that an Angel cannot illuminate our intellect speak of the intellect as to the higher portion, namely the mind, and of an illumination which indeed is by the infusion of light; and this is proper to God alone, as has been said before; whence those arguments are to be conceded.

The solution of the opposing arguments. 1. But to that which is objected from Dionysius, the reply is already plain. For I say that he speaks of illumination in the second way, not the first.

2. To that which is objected from that definition of the soul, it must be said that the soul is said to perceive illuminations from God by a last or second relation — not because an Angel falls as a medium between God and the soul by way of one that flows in, but because the Angel is illuminated by God more perfectly and more nobly than the soul [is] by nature; and therefore that illumination is called second, not in the order of causality, but of dignity17.

3. In what sense [Angels] are called lights. To that which is objected — that the Angels are lights — it must be said that this is true; but they are not called lights because they diffuse their light outwardly into other things18, but because they shine within themselves. For the case is not alike with corporeal and with spiritual light. Spiritual light differs from corporeal. For spiritual light, on account of its own dignity, proceeds immediately from the fount of light, since it cannot have a conveying medium. But corporeal light is received and conveyed through a medium, and just as it can be conveyed and received, so too it can be given back; and thus the illuminated can illuminate, as is plain in the moon.

4. To that which is objected — that they reveal to us many things which they do not express to us through sense — it must be said that this does not conclude that they flow immediately into the intellect; for this can come about if they suggest immediately to the intellect. Nor even is that necessary, but it can also come about by the mediation of the imaginative power. For just as we see that I

p. 267

cannot show you anything except by the mediation of the senses and the lower powers — because your intellect is not fitted by nature to receive anything from above except from God flowing in — nevertheless there is nothing in me so spiritual that I cannot, by the mediation of a sensible word, bring it forth to your intelligence, and so speak with you of spiritual things as of corporeal: much more strongly can an Angel do this in the interior power, which is more elevated than the exterior sense, by a certain spiritual speech and exaltation of the phantasms19.

5, 6. To that which is objected — that if [the Angel] could [act] only by way of one who stirs up, then he could [do] no more than a man, or even an evil angel — it must be said that, although a man or an evil angel can do this20, nevertheless from this it does not follow that they are made equal in the power and capacity of expressing, because by the same way it happens that [one] teaches well and [another] better, as is plain. For through the exterior ears we learn both from a wise teacher and from a foolish one, but he teaches us far better who has the light of wisdom than he who lacks it; and so it is to be understood that it stands in the Angel [also]. — And by this the last two [arguments] are clear, because the case is not alike either with a man or with a demon; for neither can instruct21 so efficaciously, since they do not have so great a light of wisdom.

To the incidental question. To that which was asked last — in what way the distinction of those acts comes about — it must be said that one manner of speaking is that those three acts regard the intellect, so that purging is at the beginning, illumination in the progress, and perfection at the term. — Otherwise. Or otherwise, so that there be noted in them three things to which angelic erudition or teaching is ordered: the first is the removal of impediments; the second is the knowledge of true things; the third is the love of good things22. And to these [the Angel] is ordered by way of one who stirs up, like the discourse of one preaching well; and therefore not unreasonably is a good teacher and preacher said to illuminate and purge and perfect his hearers, as blessed Dionysius expressly gives to understand in the book On the Angelic Hierarchy23.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Cap. 13. § 3: Iuxta hanc igitur naturalis ordinationis rationem supernaturalis ipsa omnis boni ornatus visibilis et invisibilis taxiarchia (ταξιαρχία) congruae dilucidationis claritatem, primo apparentem ut in copiosissimis effusionibus excellentissimis manifestat essentiis, et per eas quae post sunt essentiae (οὐσίαι) divino participant radio. — In hoc textu codd. cum edd. perperam legunt manifestat essentias, et per eas quae possunt pro manifestat essentiis, et per eas quae post sunt (οὐσίαι ἀναφαίνει, καὶ διὰ τούτων, αἱ μετ' αὐτὰς etc.).
    [On the Celestial Hierarchy] c. 13, § 3: According, then, to this account of the natural ordering, the supernatural taxiarchy (ταξιαρχία) itself of all good adornment, visible and invisible, manifests the brightness of fitting elucidation — first appearing, as in most copious effusions — to the most excellent essences, and through these the essences (οὐσίαι) which are thereafter partake of the divine ray. — In this text the codices with the editions wrongly read manifestat essentias, et per eas quae possunt for manifestat essentiis, et per eas quae post sunt (οὐσίαι ἀναφαίνει, καὶ διὰ τούτων, αἱ μετ' αὐτὰς etc.).
  2. Quem scripsit Alfredus Anglicus et dedicavit magistro magno Alexandro Neckam (abbati Excestriensi sive Cirencestrensi † 1227; cfr. Fabricius, Bibl. lat. mediae et infimae aetatis). Haec animae definitio invenitur in Prologo dicti libri (ed. Sig. Barach, Innsbruck, 1878, pag. 83) et explicatur a Ioan. de Rupella, Sum. de Anima, p. I. c. 3. — Vat. in hoc arg. substituit nomen revelatio pro relatio.
    [The book On the Motion of the Heart,] which Alfred the Englishman wrote and dedicated to the great master Alexander Neckam (abbot of Exeter or Cirencester, † 1227; cf. Fabricius, Library of Medieval and Late Latin). This definition of the soul is found in the Prologue of the said book (ed. Sig. Barach, Innsbruck, 1878, p. 83) and is expounded by John of La Rochelle, Summa on the Soul, part I, c. 3. — The Vatican edition in this argument substitutes the word revelatio for relatio.
  3. Cfr. supra pag. 83, nota 1. — De minori vide Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 18. et 39. (c. 5. et 8.).
    Cf. above, p. 83, note 1. — On the minor [premise] see Aristotle, On the Soul III, text 18 and 39 (c. 5 and 8).
  4. Secundum Dionys., de Caelest. Hierarch. c. 3. § 2.
    According to Dionysius, On the Celestial Hierarchy c. 3, § 2.
  5. Quaest. 51. n. 4. Cfr. ibid. n. 2. ac q. 53. n. 2. et supra pag. 43, nota 3, ubi etiam pro seq. textu diversi allegati sunt loci.
    [Of Eighty-Three Questions,] question 51, n. 4. Cf. the same, n. 2, and q. 53, n. 2, and above, p. 43, note 3, where for the following text also various places are cited.
  6. Psalm. 118, 73. — Glossa est ex Augustini Enarrat. in hunc locum.
    Psalm 118, 73. — The Gloss is from Augustine's Enarration on this place.
  7. Cfr. supra d. 7. p. II. a. 2. q. 2.
    Cf. above, d. 7, part II, a. 2, q. 2.
  8. Ut probatum est supra d. 8. p. II. q. 2.
    As was proved above, d. 8, part II, q. 2.
  9. Vat. supplet spiritum.
    The Vatican edition supplies spiritum.
  10. Sicut ostensum est quaest. praeced.
    As was shown in the preceding question.
  11. Vide supra pag. 29, nota 3.
    See above, p. 29, note 3.
  12. Vers. 9.
    [John ch. 1,] v. 9.
  13. August., I. Soliloq. c. 8. n. 15: « Quomodo in hoc sole [materiali] tria quaedam licet animadvertere, quod est, quod fulget, quod illuminat; ita in illo secretissimo Deo, quem vis intelligere, tria quaedam sunt, quod est, quod intelligitur et quod cetera facit intelligi ». Observamus, quod communissima apud Scholasticos lectio in hoc textu pro verbis quod intelligitur substituit quod intelligit; de quo vide opusculum a nobis editum, cui titulus: De humanae cognitionis ratione, pag. 77, 100, 182. In hoc opusculo multa occurrunt, quae attingunt hanc quaestionem. — Inter opera Avicennae habetur liber de Intelligentiis, in quo (circa finem) legitur: Secundum Augustinum ergo, quoniam in hoc sole tria licet animadvertere, quod est, quod fulget, quod illuminat; ita in illo secretissimo Deo tria sunt, quod est, quod fulget, quod alia facit intelligere. — Mox aliqui codd. signum est, Vat. signum est vel fuit pro signum fuit. De hac ratione cfr. infra d. 16. a. 1. q. 1. et 19. a. 1. q. 1.
    Augustine, Soliloquies I, c. 8, n. 15: «Just as in this [material] sun one may notice three things — that which is, that which shines, that which illuminates — so in that most hidden God, whom you wish to understand, there are three things: that which is, that which is understood, and that which makes other things to be understood». We observe that the most common reading among the Scholastics in this text substitutes, for the words quod intelligitur, quod intelligit; on which see the little work published by us, entitled On the Manner of Human Knowledge, pp. 77, 100, 182. In this little work many things occur which touch on this question. — Among the works of Avicenna there is a book On the Intelligences, in which (near the end) is read: According to Augustine, then, since in this sun one may notice three things — that which is, that which shines, that which illuminates — so in that most hidden God there are three: that which is, that which shines, that which makes other things to be understood. — Soon after, some codices [read] signum est, the Vatican edition signum est vel fuit, for signum fuit. On this account cf. below, d. 16, a. 1, q. 1, and [d.] 19, a. 1, q. 1.
  14. Cfr. August., XII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 22. n. 48. et c. 30. n. 58. seq.; Enarrat. in Ps. 118. sermo 18. n. 4; S. Bonav., Hexaem. serm. 3.
    Cf. Augustine, On Genesis according to the Letter XII, c. 22, n. 48, and c. 30, n. 58 ff.; Enarration on Psalm 118, sermon 18, n. 4; S. Bonaventure, Hexaemeron, sermon 3.
  15. Ita codd. et edd. Sed lege: et sustineri possint.
    So the codices and editions. But read: et sustineri possint [«and can be sustained»].
  16. Epist. 33. ad Paulinam, n. 2: Habet nescio quid latentis energiae viva vox. Cfr. Epist. ad Gal. 4, 20. — Alluditur ad illud Hebr. 4, 12: Vivus est enim sermo Dei et efficax etc.
    [Jerome,] Letter 33, to Paulina, n. 2: The living voice has some hidden energy, I know not what. Cf. [the commentary on the] Epistle to the Galatians 4, 20. — Allusion is made to that [verse], Hebrews 4, 12: For the word of God is living and efficacious etc.
  17. Ioan. a Rupella, pag. 265, nota 1. cit., proponit duplicem huius definitionis explicationem, scil. quod Angeli in primo suo esse (in sua creatione) illuminati sunt et intellexerunt, anima autem non in primo suo esse, sed in secundo, quia ipsa non statim cum est, intelligit; dein quod Angeli recipiunt illuminationem a Deo ut a suo principio, in quantum nempe in instanti suae creationis illuminantur, anima vero recipit illuminationem a Deo ut a suo fine, in quantum ipsa ad Deum accedit decursu temporis. Hinc Angelus prima relatione, anima autem ultima vel secunda relatione recipit illuminationem a primo. — Ed. 1 et ideo dicitur prima illuminatio pro et ideo dicitur ista illuminatio secunda.
    John of La Rochelle, cited [in] p. 265, note 1, proposes a twofold explanation of this definition: namely, that the Angels in their first being (in their creation) were illuminated and understood, but the soul not in its first being, but in its second, because it does not understand at once when it exists; then, that the Angels receive illumination from God as from their principle — inasmuch, that is, as they are illuminated in the instant of their creation — but the soul receives illumination from God as from its end, inasmuch as it itself approaches God in the course of time. Hence the Angel receives illumination from the first [principle] by a first relation, but the soul by a last or second relation. — Edition 1 [reads] et ideo dicitur prima illuminatio for et ideo dicitur ista illuminatio secunda.
  18. Codd. A L V aa animam.
    Codices A, L, V, aa [read] animam [for alia].
  19. Vat. excitatione.
    The Vatican edition [reads] excitatione [for exaltatione].
  20. Nempe per modum excitantis illuminare et docere. — Cod. ee cum Vat. quod etsi non posset alia via nos instruere et nobis loqui, quam possit homo etc.
    Namely, to illuminate and to teach by way of one who stirs up. — Codex ee, with the Vatican edition, [reads] quod etsi non posset alia via nos instruere et nobis loqui, quam possit homo etc.
  21. Cod. cc et ed. 1 neuter enim potest excitare nec instruere.
    Codex cc and edition 1 [read] neuter enim potest excitare nec instruere.
  22. Duplex hic modus hos actus distinguendi insinuatur ab Hugone de S. Vict., IV. Expos. in Hierarch. caelest. S. Dionysii, c. 3: « Primum purgantur, postea illuminantur, deinde perficiuntur. Nisi enim praecederet purgatio, non sequeretur illuminatio; et nisi esset illuminatio, non veniret consummatio. Sicut enim illuminari non potest qui non est purgatus, sic consummari non potest qui non est illuminatus, quia cognitio veritatis non nisi mundos illuminat, et perfectio virtutis non nisi illuminatis veritate appropinquat ». Similem expositionem, teste Mara (hic q. 4.), dat Robertus episc. Lincolniensis (Grosseteste, † 1253) his verbis: Lumen divinum, quando recipitur in anima, tria facit: aufert nescientiam, et sic dicitur purgatio; manifestat veritatem, et sic dicitur illuminatio; tertio receptum reducit animam in Deum, et sic dicitur perfectio. — Subinde post Ad haec autem in cod. Q a secunda manu additur eruditio angelica.
    A twofold manner of distinguishing these acts is intimated by Hugh of St. Victor, IV Exposition on the Celestial Hierarchy of S. Dionysius, c. 3: «First they are purged, afterwards illuminated, then perfected. For unless purgation preceded, illumination would not follow; and unless there were illumination, consummation would not come. For just as he cannot be illuminated who is not purged, so he cannot be consummated who is not illuminated, because the knowledge of truth illuminates none but the clean, and the perfection of virtue draws near to none but those illuminated by the truth». A similar exposition, on the testimony of Mara (here, q. 4), Robert bishop of Lincoln (Grosseteste, † 1253) gives in these words: When the divine light is received in the soul, it does three things: it takes away unknowing, and so is called purgation; it manifests the truth, and so is called illumination; thirdly, once received, it leads the soul back into God, and so is called perfection. — Soon after, following Ad haec autem, in codex Q by a second hand is added eruditio angelica.
  23. Cfr. cap. 3. § 2. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    Cf. [On the Celestial Hierarchy] c. 3, § 2. — See the scholion on the preceding question. ---
← Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 1Dist. 10, Art. 3, Q. 1→