Dist. 11, Dubia
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 11
DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.
Dub. I.
In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Hieronymus, quod unaquaeque anima ab ortu nativitatis habeat Angelum delegatum. Videtur enim falsum, quia cum anima parvuli in ortu suae nativitatis non possit mereri nec demereri nec sit capax1 disciplinae, videtur, quod frustra Angelus se occupet circa illum pro illo tempore; sicut si aliquis doctor vellet erudire parvulum vagientem. Quodsi tu dicas, quod Angelus custodit non erudiendo quantum ad spiritum, sed defendendo quantum ad corpus; tunc videtur, quod cum in pari periculo sit puer non natus et natus quantum ad corpus, quod debeat custodiri ante nativitatis ortum.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Hieronymi auctoritas, intelligendum est, quod ad custodiam hominis Angelus deputatur ab ortu nativitatis; Notandum. et non solum intelligit de nativitate ex utero, sed etiam de nativitate in utero. Ex tunc enim, non ante, debet angelica custodia circa eum qui nasciturus est, deputari, quia illa custodia principalius respicit spiritum quam corpus; et ideo non debet specialem Angelum ad sui custodiam habere, antequam spiritus infundatur. Non debet etiam differre, quia ex tunc defendere potest et adiuvare, magis tamen2 secundum tempora diversa. Dum enim est in utero parvulus, potest interimi et damnari; dum est extra uterum ante adultam aetatem, potest a baptismate impediri; dum est in adulta aetate, ad diversa peccata potest pertrahi. Contra haec omnia in his tribus statibus debet sibi angelica custodia deputari, ut per eam ab his malis possit erui et ab adversario defendi. Et hi effectus satis sunt plani, qui sunt per liberationem a malo. — Utrum quaest. incidens. Utrum autem parvulus, quamdiu caret usu rationis, aliquem occultum effectum habeat quantum ad habilitationem et directionem in bonum, assignare est difficile, sed negare non est tutum3.
Dub. II.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Constat, omnes Angelos in cognitionem divinorum mysteriorum secundum processum temporis profecisse. Hoc enim videtur esse contra Gregorium, qui dicit in Dialogo4: « Quid est quod non videant, qui videntem omnia vident »? Si ergo viderunt quasi a principio temporis exemplar divinum, videtur, quod in nullius cognitione defecerunt. Si tu dicas, quod intelligit de omnibus, quae sunt de necessitate salutis, sicut dicit Magister in littera5; obiicitur contra hoc, quia unum solum est illud quod est de essentia salutis: ergo non deberet dicere ratione illius, quod omnia sciant, quasi beatitudo esset in multis. Praeterea, si illud exemplar divinum est ratio omnium, et qui cognoscit rationem rei cognoscit ipsam rem; videtur, quod Angelus omnes res creatas cognoscat, dum illud unum cognoscit. — Et si profecerunt secundum processum temporis, ergo videtur, quod eorum cognitio subiaceat transmutationi temporali; et ita non videntur esse beati.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod cognitio in Angelis quaedam est a natura, quaedam est a gratia. Distinctio. Cognitio vero, quae est a natura, duplex est. Subdistinctio 1. Quaedam enim dicitur esse a natura, quia naturaliter inserta, ut cognitio eorum quae sunt de prima mundi constitutione; et quantum ad hanc Angeli non proficiunt nec deficiunt, quia quantum ad hanc habuerunt plene species omnium. Alio modo cognitio a natura dicitur cognitio, quae est per naturalem potentiam, sive sit innata sive acquisita; et quantum ad hanc profecerunt Angeli secundum processum temporis per multiplicem experientiam et conversionem super his quae de novo fiunt. — Subdistinctio 2. Similiter cognitio a gratia duplex est: quaedam a gratia fixa, quaedam a gratia influente6. Sicut enim in membris corporalibus ponuntur quaedam virtutes influentes, quaedam fixae, sive vita quaedam influens, quaedam fixa; sic intelligendum est et in spiritualibus membris sive spiritibus angelicis. Gratia fixa dicitur esse gratia confirmationis. Cognitio procedens ab hac gratia est visio aeternae lucis, in qua nec proficiunt Angeli nec decrescunt. Cognitio vero, quae est a gratia influente, est cognitio revelationis, quae ideo vocatur influens, quia non semper revelat Deus mysteria, sed pro loco et tempore; et secundum hanc intelligit Magister Angelos profecisse, non quia apertius viderint Verbum, sed quia revelatio aliqua facta est eis a Verbo.
Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod non proficiunt, quia vident omnia, videndo Verbum; dicendum, quod illud dictum est non per proprietatem, sed per aequivalentiam et sufficientiam, quia cognitio solius Verbi adeo sufficit Angelis, sicut si haberent cognitionem omnis rei, etiam in particulari.
Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod vident omnium rationem; dicendum, quod speculum aeternum est speculum voluntarium, et exemplar illud est voluntarie ductivum; ideo quantumcumque quis in eo aspiciat, nihil in eo videt, nisi quantum ipsum vult revelare.
Ad illud vero quod obiicitur de transmutatione temporis, dicendum, quod etsi cognitio beatitudinis tempori non subiaceat, tamen cogitationes et affectiones et etiam cognitiones Angelorum circa haec creata nihil impedit variari per tempora. Dicit enim Augustinus super Genesim ad litteram7, quod « Deus spiritualem creaturam movet per tempora, non per loca ». — Et haec de Angelis dicta sufficiant.
---
DOUBTS TOUCHING THE LETTER OF THE MASTER.
Doubt I.
In this part there are doubts touching the letter [of the Master], and first inquiry is made of this which Jerome says, that each soul, from the rising of its nativity, has an Angel deputed to it. For it seems false: since the soul of an infant at the rising of its nativity cannot merit or demerit, nor is it capable1 of learning, it seems that the Angel busies himself in vain about that one for that time; just as if some teacher should wish to instruct a wailing infant. And if you say that the Angel guards not by teaching as regards the spirit, but by defending as regards the body — then it seems that since the unborn and the born child are in equal danger as regards the body, he ought to be guarded before the rising of nativity.
I respond: It must be said that, as Jerome's authority says, it is to be understood that an Angel is deputed for the custody of a man from the rising of nativity; Note. and he understands [this] not only of nativity out of the womb, but also of nativity in the womb. For from that time, not before, ought angelic custody be deputed about him who is going to be born, because that custody more principally regards the spirit than the body; and therefore he ought not have a special Angel for his custody before the spirit is infused. Nor ought it be deferred, because from that time [the Angel] can defend and assist, yet more2 according to diverse times. For while the infant is in the womb, he can be killed and damned; while he is outside the womb before adult age, he can be impeded from baptism; while he is in adult age, he can be drawn to diverse sins. Against all these things, in these three states, angelic custody ought to be deputed to him, that through it he may be rescued from these evils and defended from the adversary. And these effects are plain enough, which consist in liberation from evil. — Whether — incident question. But whether the infant, so long as he lacks the use of reason, has some hidden effect as to enabling and direction toward the good, is difficult to assign; but to deny is not safe3.
Doubt II.
Likewise inquiry is made of this which he says: It is established that all the Angels advanced in the cognition of divine mysteries according to the process of time. For this seems to be against Gregory, who says in the Dialogue4: « What is it that they do not see, who see the One seeing all things »? If therefore they saw, as from the beginning of time, the divine exemplar, it seems that in cognition of nothing did they fail. If you say that he understands [it] of all those things which are of the necessity of salvation, as the Master says in the text5; it is objected against this, because one only is that which is of the essence of salvation: therefore he ought not to say, on account of that, that they know all things, as though beatitude were in many things. Furthermore, if that divine exemplar is the ground of all things, and he who knows the ground of a thing knows the thing itself; it seems that the Angel knows all created things, while he knows that one. — And if they advanced according to the process of time, therefore it seems that their cognition is subject to temporal change; and so they do not seem to be blessed.
I respond: It must be said that cognition in Angels is partly from nature, partly from grace. Distinction. But cognition which is from nature is twofold. Sub-distinction 1. For one is said to be from nature because naturally implanted, as the cognition of those things which pertain to the first constitution of the world; and as to this, the Angels do not advance nor fail, because as to this they had fully the species of all things. In another way cognition is said to be from nature [as] the cognition which is through natural power, whether innate or acquired; and as to this, the Angels advanced according to the process of time through manifold experience and turning upon those things which come about anew. — Sub-distinction 2. Likewise cognition from grace is twofold: one from fixed grace, another from influent grace6. For just as in the bodily members certain influent powers are placed, and certain fixed ones, or a certain influent life and a certain fixed life; so it is to be understood also in the spiritual members or angelic spirits. Fixed grace is said to be the grace of confirmation. The cognition proceeding from this grace is the vision of the eternal light, in which the Angels neither advance nor decrease. But the cognition which is from influent grace is the cognition of revelation, which therefore is called influent, because God does not always reveal mysteries, but according to place and time; and according to this the Master understands the Angels to have advanced — not because they saw the Word more openly, but because some revelation was made to them from the Word.
To that, then, which is objected, that they do not advance because they see all things by seeing the Word; it must be said that that saying is not by propriety, but by equivalence and sufficiency, because the cognition of the Word alone so suffices the Angels as if they had the cognition of every thing, even in particular.
To that which is objected, that they see the ground of all things; it must be said that the eternal mirror is a voluntary mirror, and that exemplar is voluntarily revealing; therefore however much anyone gazes into it, he sees nothing in it except in so far as itself wills to reveal.
But to that which is objected concerning temporal change, it must be said that, although the cognition of beatitude is not subject to time, nevertheless nothing prevents the thoughts and affections and even the cognitions of the Angels concerning these created things from varying through time. For Augustine says in On Genesis according to the Letter7, that « God moves the spiritual creature through times, not through places ». — And let these things said concerning the Angels suffice.
---
- Antiquiores codd. capabilis.The older codices read capabilis.
- Post tamen excidisse videtur et minus.After tamen the words et minus seem to have dropped out.
- Vide Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 41. m. 4. a. 3; B. Albert., hic a. 3; S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3. et circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Ægid. R., hic dub. I. 2. litt.See Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. II, q. 41, m. 4, a. 3; Bl. Albert, on this [distinction], a. 3; St. Thomas, on this [distinction], q. I, a. 3; Peter of Tarantasia, on this [distinction], q. 1, a. 3, and circa litteram; Richard of Mediavilla, on this [distinction], circa litteram; Giles of Rome, on this [distinction], dub. I, 2, on the letter.
- Libr. IV. c. 33. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. in fine. — Paulo inferius cod. A profecerunt pro defecerunt.Book IV, c. 33. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2, at the end. — A little lower, codex A reads profecerunt for defecerunt.
- Hic c. 2.Here, c. 2.
- Vat. fluente, quod verbum eadem etiam in seqq. semper adhibet.The Vatican edition reads fluente, and uses that same word always in what follows.
- Libr. VIII. c. 20. n. 39. seqq. — Cfr. de hoc dubio S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. seqq.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. seq.; Ægid. R., hic q. 2. a. 1. seqq.Book VIII, c. 20, n. 39 and following. — Cf. on this doubt St. Thomas, on this [distinction], q. 2, a. 1; Peter of Tarantasia, on this [distinction], q. 2, a. 1 and following; Richard of Mediavilla, on this [distinction], a. 2, q. 1 and following; Giles of Rome, on this [distinction], q. 2, a. 1 and following. ---