Dist. 4, Art. 3, Q. 2
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 4
QUAESTIO II. Utrum Angeli modo habeant cognitionem vespertinam.
Secundo quaeritur circa hoc, utrum in Angelis sit cognitio vespertina post glorificationem. Et quod sic, videtur.
1. Augustinus quarto super Genesim ad litteram1, loquens de superna Ierusalem2: «Ibi semper est dies in contemplatione incommutabilis veritatis; semper vespere in cognitione creaturae in se ipsa; semper mane ex hac cognitione in laude Creatoris».
2. Item, ratione. Eadem lux est, quae faciebat vespere et mane: si ergo lux, quae facit mane, est illuminatio gloriae, ergo in hac illuminatione est vespere: ergo in statu gloriae est cognitio vespertina.
3. Item, cognitio vespertina est cognitio rerum in proprio genere; sed Angelus gloriosus in proprio genere cognoscit res: ergo habet cognitionem vespertinam.
4. Item, Angelus gloriosus amplius laudat Deum quam homo viator; sed homo viator non solum laudat Deum in sua maiestate, sed in operum suorum multiformitate: ergo et Angelus beatus. Sed haec laus praesupponit cognitionem: ergo etc.
Contra: 1. Primae ad Corinthios decimo tertio3: Cum venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est; sed cognitio vespertina ideo dicitur vespertina, quia tenebrae est admixta; Angeli autem vident in luce plena: ergo etc.
2. Item, cognitio fidei, quae est per speculum, evacuatur, adveniente cognitione gloriae, quae consistit in videndo Verbum aeternum. Si ergo cognitio vespertina ideo vespertina est, quia in umbra creaturae, ergo non stat cum cognitione gloriae.
3. Item, mane adveniens expellit vesperam, et similiter vespera expellit mane; sed in Angelis continue est cognitio matutina, qua vident in ipso Verbo sine interpolatione: ergo non habet locum in eis vespertina cognitio.
4. Item, vespera est per declinationem solis ad occasum; sed in Angelis beatis nunquam est approximatio ad occasum, sed continuus fulgor et calor lucis aeternae4: ergo nunquam est in eis cognitio vespertina.
Et propter hoc est quaestio — cum tam mane quam vespere utrumque importet approximationem ad noctem et ad tenebras; et Angeli distent distantia omnimoda tam a frigore peccati quam ab ignorantia veri: videtur, quod nec matutina nec vespertina cognitio sit ponenda, sed potius meridiana — quaeritur igitur pro quanto dicatur cognitio matutina et pro quanto vespertina; et quare non ponatur differentia tertia, scilicet cognitio meridiana. — Et iuxta hoc quaeritur, ad quos pertineant istae cognitiones, et de ipsarum ordine et praerogativa, ut sic elucescat harum cognitionum quidditas et natura.
Conclusio. Angeli beati simul cum cognitione matutina habent etiam vespertinam.
Respondeo: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod, sicut vult Augustinus5, «omnis creatura, quantum est de se, tenebra est»; Deus autem lux est, et tenebrae in eo non sunt ullae, sicut dicitur in prima canonica Ioannis6. Dies dicit illustrationem a luce procedentem super haec tenebrosa; mane autem et vespera dicunt media inter diem et noctem secundum accessum et regressum.
Intelligendum igitur, quod divina lux, illuminans Angelum illuminatione perfecta ad cognitionem sui, facit Angelum lucem; et cognitio ipsius Dei in se dies dicitur, quia pure est lux et cognitio et ratio cognoscendi. Lux ista angelica, illuminata, habet cognoscere creaturam; et sic, quia cognoscit id quod est tenebra, est eius cognitio mane vel vespera appellata; sed vespera, prout cognoscit creaturam in se ipsa, mane, prout ex illa cognitione consurgit ad laudandum7 et refert ad cognitionem ipsius, quam habet in Verbo. Unde Augustinus de Civitate undecimo, septimo capitulo: «Scientia creaturae in comparatione scientiae Creatoris quodam modo advesperascit, itemque lucescit et mane fit, cum ipsa refertur in laudem dilectionemque Creatoris; nec in noctem vertitur8, ubi non Creator amore creaturae relinquitur».
p. 142Unde nota, quod etsi ad similitudinem huius lucis visibilis dicatur ibi mane et vespere, sicut dictum est, tamen duplex est differentia: una, quia ibi vespera non vertitur in noctem, sicut in luce materiali; altera vero, quia mane non succedit meridies, nec diei vespere, sed totum est simul. Unde Augustinus super Genesim quarto9: «Simul, inquit, habent diem et vesperam et mane». Et sic patet, quod in Angelis beatis est nunc cognitio vespertina cum matutina, nec habent successionem vel ordinem temporis, habent tamen ordinem dignitatis, quia dicit Augustinus de Civitate undecimo10: «Cognitio creaturae in se ipsa decoloratior est, quam cum in Dei sapientia cognoscitur».
1. 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod est ex parte; dicendum, quod falsum est, immo bene potest esse perfecta in proprio genere; et si dicatur aliquo modo minus perfecta, hoc est respectu cognitionis in Verbo. Verumtamen non habent oppositionem, quia haec imperfectio non venit ex parte cognoscentis, sed ex parte cognoscibilis vel ipsius medii. — Et per hoc patet sequens de fide, quia ibi est imperfectio ex parte cognoscentis, non cogniti.
3. 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod vespera declinat ad occasum et non compatitur mane; dicendum, quod verum est in his, ubi est vespera et mane propter lucis variationem; non ibi, ubi simul convertit se Angelus ad creaturam et Deum. Nec est ista diversitas nisi solum ratione diversi modi cognoscendi, qui quamvis sint diversi, non sunt tamen oppositi, sed unus famulatur alteri, et unus perficit alterum, non excludit11.
Ex his etiam patere possunt aliae quaestiones incidentes, scilicet, in quibus sunt istae cognitiones; quia proprie in beatis Angelis, nisi nomina extendantur. — Patet etiam, quare non dicitur cognitio creaturae dies sive meridies, sed cognitio Dei12; quia omnis creatura tenebra. — Patet etiam, quod cognitio matutina praecellit propter pleniorem lucem, ob quam clarior est et certior et altior; et sic patet totum13.
QUESTION II. Whether the Angels now have evening knowledge.
Secondly it is asked concerning this, whether in the Angels there is evening knowledge after glorification. And that [there is], it seems.
1. Augustine, fourth [book] On the Literal Meaning of Genesis1, speaking of the heavenly Jerusalem2: «There it is always day in the contemplation of unchangeable truth; always evening in the knowledge of the creature in itself; always morning [when] from this knowledge [it passes] into the praise of the Creator».
2. Likewise, by reason. It is the same light that made evening and morning: if therefore the light which makes morning is the illumination of glory, then in this illumination there is evening: therefore in the state of glory there is evening knowledge.
3. Likewise, evening knowledge is the knowledge of things in their proper kind; but the glorified Angel knows things in their proper kind: therefore he has evening knowledge.
4. Likewise, the glorified Angel praises God more than a man [who is] a wayfarer; but the wayfaring man praises God not only in his majesty, but in the manifoldness of his works: therefore the blessed Angel too. But this praise presupposes knowledge: therefore etc.
On the contrary: 1. First to the Corinthians, chapter 133: When that which is perfect comes, that which is in part will be done away; but evening knowledge is called evening for this [reason], that darkness is mixed with it; but the Angels see in full light: therefore etc.
2. Likewise, the knowledge of faith, which is through a mirror, is done away when the knowledge of glory comes, which consists in seeing the eternal Word. If therefore evening knowledge is evening for this [reason], that [it is] in the shadow of the creature, then it does not stand with the knowledge of glory.
3. Likewise, the coming morning expels the evening, and similarly the evening expels the morning; but in the Angels there is continually morning knowledge, by which they see in the Word itself without interruption: therefore evening knowledge has no place in them.
4. Likewise, evening is through the declination of the sun toward setting; but in the blessed Angels there is never an approach toward setting, but a continuous splendor and warmth of the eternal light4: therefore there is never in them evening knowledge.
And on account of this there is a question — since both morning and evening alike imply an approach to night and to darkness, and the Angels are distant with every distance both from the cold of sin and from the ignorance of the true: it seems that neither morning nor evening knowledge is to be posited, but rather midday [knowledge] — it is asked, then, for how much [reason] knowledge is called morning and for how much evening; and why a third difference is not posited, namely midday knowledge. — And in connection with this it is asked to whom these [kinds of] knowledge pertain, and concerning their order and prerogative, so that thus the quiddity and nature of these [kinds of] knowledge may shine forth.
Conclusion. The blessed Angels, together with morning knowledge, have also the evening.
I respond: For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that, as Augustine wishes5, «every creature, as far as concerns itself, is darkness»; but God is light, and there are no shadows at all in him, as is said in the first canonical [letter] of John6. Day denotes the illumination proceeding from the light upon these dark [things]; morning and evening denote means between day and night according to approach and return.
It must be understood, then, that the divine light, illumining the Angel with a perfect illumination unto the knowledge of itself, makes the Angel light; and the knowledge of God himself in himself is called day, because it is purely light and knowledge and the ground of knowing. This angelic light, illumined, has to know the creature; and so, because it knows that which is darkness, its knowledge is called morning or evening; but evening, insofar as it knows the creature in itself, morning, insofar as from that knowledge it rises up to praising7 and refers [it] to the knowledge of him which it has in the Word. Whence Augustine, On the City of God eleven, chapter seven: «The knowledge of the creature, in comparison with the knowledge of the Creator, in a certain way grows toward evening, and likewise grows light and becomes morning, when it itself is referred to the praise and love of the Creator; nor is it turned into night8, where the Creator is not abandoned out of love of the creature».
p. 142Whence note that, although in likeness of this visible light morning and evening are spoken of there, as has been said, yet there is a twofold difference: one, because there evening is not turned into night, as in material light; the other, because there morning is not succeeded by midday, nor day by evening, but the whole is at once. Whence Augustine On Genesis four9: «At once, he says, they have day and evening and morning». And so it is clear that in the blessed Angels there is now evening knowledge with the morning, nor do they have succession or order of time, yet they have an order of dignity, because Augustine says On the City of God eleven10: «The knowledge of the creature in itself is more discolored than when it is known in the wisdom of God».
1. 2. To that, then, which is objected, that it is in part; it must be said that it is false; rather, it can well be perfect in its proper kind; and if it be said to be in some way less perfect, this is in respect of the knowledge in the Word. Nevertheless they do not have an opposition, because this imperfection does not come from the side of the knower, but from the side of the knowable or of the medium itself. — And by this the following [objection] concerning faith is clear, because there the imperfection is from the side of the knower, not of the known.
3. 4. To that which is objected, that evening declines toward setting and is not compatible with morning; it must be said that this is true in those [cases] where there is evening and morning on account of the variation of light; not there, where the Angel turns himself at once to the creature and to God. Nor is this diversity [anything] except solely by reason of the diverse mode of knowing, which, although they be diverse, are nevertheless not opposed, but one serves the other, and one perfects the other, [it does] not exclude11.
From these also other incidental questions can be made clear, namely, in whom these [kinds of] knowledge are; for [they are] properly in the blessed Angels, unless the names be extended. — It is also clear why the knowledge of the creature is not called day or midday, but the knowledge of God12; because every creature [is] darkness. — It is also clear that morning knowledge excels on account of the fuller light, by reason of which it is clearer and more certain and higher; and thus the whole is clear13.
- Cap. 30. n. 47.C. 30, n. 47.
- Vers. 10.Verse 10.
- Respicitur I. Cor. 13, 12: Videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem.Reference is made to 1 Cor. 13:12: We see now through a mirror in an enigma, but then face to face.
- Cod. cc et ed. 1 candor lucis aeternae, quod respicit ad Sap. 7, 26: Candor est enim lucis aeternae. Infra d. 5. a. 3. q. 1. fundam. 2. legitur: Fulgor cognitionis et calor affectionis.Codex cc and ed. 1 [read] candor lucis aeternae, which looks to Wisd. 7:26: For she is the brightness of eternal light. Below, d. 5, a. 3, q. 1, fundam. 2, is read: Fulgor cognitionis et calor affectionis.
- Cfr. XIII. Confess. c. 2. n. 3, c. 8. n. 9; I. de Gen. ad lit. c. 4. n. 9. seqq. et IV. c. 22. n. 39. et c. 26. n. 43, ubi hoc supponitur pro declaranda cognitione vespertina; Serm. 67. de Verbis Evang. Matth. c. 5. n. 8. seq.Cf. Confessions XIII, c. 2, n. 3, c. 8, n. 9; I On the Literal Meaning of Genesis c. 4, n. 9 ff., and IV, c. 22, n. 39, and c. 26, n. 43, where this is supposed for the explanation of evening knowledge; Sermon 67 On the Words of the Gospel of Matthew c. 5, n. 8 f.
- Cap. 1, 5. — Vat. hic addit ubi Glossa.C. 1, 5. — The Vatican edition here adds ubi Glossa.
- Vat. consurgit, ad laudem Dei sive ad laudandum Deum.The Vatican edition [reads] consurgit, ad laudem Dei sive ad laudandum Deum.
- Vat. cum textu originali vergitur.The Vatican edition, with the original text, [reads] vergitur.
- Cap. 29. n. 46.C. 29, n. 46.
- Cap. 7.C. 7.
- Cod. T ibi. Finis solutionis in cod. F sic sonat: et unus alterum non excludit pro non excludit.Codex T [reads] ibi. The end of the solution in codex F sounds thus: et unus alterum non excludit for non excludit.
- Plurimi codd. cum edd. 2, 3 diei; perperam. Dein post creatura cod. aa interserit est.Very many codices with editions 2, 3 [read] diei; wrongly. Then after creatura codex aa inserts est.
- Vide Schol. praecedentis quaest.See the Scholion of the preceding question.