Quaestio 54 Question 54 De cognitione angelorum The Knowledge of the Angels Consideratis his quae ad substantiam angeli pertinent, procedendum est ad cognitionem ipsius. Haec autem consideratio erit quadripartita, nam primo considerandum est de his quae pertinent ad virtutem cognoscitivam angeli; secundo, de his quae pertinent ad medium cognoscendi ipsius; tertio, de his quae ab eo cognoscuntur; quarto, de modo cognitionis ipsorum. After considering what belongs to the angel’s substance, we now proceed to his knowledge. This investigation will be fourfold. In the first place inquiry must be made into his power of knowledge: second, into his medium of knowledge: third, into the objects known: and fourth, into the manner whereby he knows them. Circa primum quaeruntur quinque. Under the first heading there are five points of inquiry: Primo, utrum intelligere angeli sit sua substantia. (1) Is the angel’s understanding his substance? Secundo, utrum eius esse sit suum intelligere. (2) Is his being his understanding? Tertio, utrum eius substantia sit sua virtus intellectiva. (3) Is his substance his power of intelligence? Quarto, utrum in angelis sit intellectus agens et possibilis. (4) Is there in the angels an agent and a potential intellect? Quinto, utrum in eis sit aliqua alia potentia cognoscitiva quam intellectus. (5) Is there in them any other power of knowledge besides the intellect? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum intelligere angeli sit eius substantia Whether an angel’s act of understanding is his substance? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod intelligere angeli sit eius substantia. Angelus enim est sublimior et simplicior quam intellectus agens animae. Sed substantia intellectus agentis est sua actio; ut patet in III de Anima per Aristotelem, et eius Commentatorem. Ergo, multo fortius, substantia angeli est sua actio, quae est intelligere. Objection 1: It would seem that the angel’s act of understanding is his substance. For the angel is both higher and simpler than the agent intellect of a soul. But the substance of the agent intellect is its own action; as is evident from Aristotle (De Anima iii) and from his Commentator. Therefore much more is the angel’s substance his action—that is, his act of understanding. Praeterea, Philosophus dicit, in XII Metaphys., quod actio intellectus est vita. Sed cum vivere sit esse viventibus, ut dicitur in II de Anima, videtur quod vita sit essentia. Ergo actio intellectus est essentia intelligentis angeli. Obj. 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Metaph. xii, 39) that the action of the intellect is life. But since in living things to live is to be, as he says (De Anima ii, 37), it seems that life is essence. Therefore the action of the intellect is the essence of an angel who understands. Praeterea, si extrema sunt unum, medium non differt ab eis, quia extremum magis distat ab extremo, quam medium. Sed in angelo idem est intellectus et intellectum, ad minus inquantum intelligit essentiam suam. Ergo intelligere, quod cadit medium inter intellectum et rem intellectam, est idem cum substantia angeli intelligentis. Obj. 3: Further, if the extremes be one, then the middle does not differ from them; because extreme is farther from extreme than the middle is. But in an angel the intellect and the object understood are the same, at least in so far as he understands his own essence. Therefore the act of understanding, which is between the intellect and the thing understood, is one with the substance of the angel who understands. Sed contra, plus differt actio rei a substantia eius, quam ipsum esse eius. Sed nullius creati suum esse est sua substantia, hoc enim solius Dei proprium est, ut ex superioribus patet. Ergo neque angeli, neque alterius creaturae, sua actio est eius substantia. On the contrary, The action of anything differs more from its substance than does its existence. But no creature’s existence is its substance, for this belongs to God only, as is evident from what was said above (Q. 3, A. 4). Therefore neither the action of an angel, nor of any other creature, is its substance. Respondeo dicendum quod impossibile est quod actio angeli, vel cuiuscumque alterius creaturae, sit eius substantia. Actio enim est proprie actualitas virtutis; sicut esse est actualitas substantiae vel essentiae. Impossibile est autem quod aliquid quod non est purus actus, sed aliquid habet de potentia admixtum, sit sua actualitas, quia actualitas potentialitati repugnat. Solus autem Deus est actus purus. Unde in solo Deo sua substantia est suum esse et suum agere. I answer that, It is impossible for the action of an angel, or of any creature, to be its own substance. For an action is properly the actuality of a power; just as existence is the actuality of a substance or of an essence. Now it is impossible for anything which is not a pure act, but which has some admixture of potentiality, to be its own actuality: because actuality is opposed to potentiality. But God alone is pure act. Hence only in God is His substance the same as His existence and His action. Praeterea, si intelligere angeli esset sua substantia, oporteret quod intelligere angeli esset subsistens. Intelligere autem subsistens non potest esse nisi unum; sicut nec aliquod abstractum subsistens. Unde unius angeli substantia non distingueretur neque a substantia Dei, quae est ipsum intelligere subsistens; neque a substantia alterius angeli. Besides, if an angel’s act of understanding were his substance, it would be necessary for it to be subsisting. Now a subsisting act of intelligence can be but one; just as an abstract thing that subsists. Consequently an angel’s substance would neither be distinguished from God’s substance, which is His very act of understanding subsisting in itself, nor from the substance of another angel. Si etiam angelus ipse esset suum intelligere, non possent esse gradus in intelligendo perfectius et minus perfecte, cum hoc contingat propter diversam participationem ipsius intelligere. Also, if the angel were his own act of understanding, there could then be no degrees of understanding more or less perfectly; for this comes about through the diverse participation of the act of understanding. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum dicitur quod intellectus agens est sua actio, est praedicatio non per essentiam, sed per concomitantiam, quia cum sit in actu eius substantia, statim quantum est in se, concomitatur ipsam actio. Quod non est de intellectu possibili, qui non habet actiones nisi postquam fuerit factus in actu. Reply Obj. 1: When the agent intellect is said to be its own action, such predication is not essential, but concomitant, because, since its very nature consists in act, instantly, so far as lies in itself, action accompanies it: which cannot be said of the potential intellect, for this has no actions until after it has been reduced to act. Ad secundum dicendum quod vita non hoc modo se habet ad vivere, sicut essentia ad esse; sed sicut cursus ad currere, quorum unum significat actum in abstracto, aliud in concreto. Unde non sequitur si vivere sit esse, quod vita sit essentia. Quamvis etiam quandoque vita pro essentia ponatur; secundum quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de Trin., quod memoria et intelligentia et voluntas sunt una essentia, una vita. Sed sic non accipitur a Philosopho cum dicit quod actio intellectus est vita. Reply Obj. 2: The relation between life and to live is not the same as that between essence and to be; but rather as that between a race and to run, one of which signifies the act in the abstract, and the other in the concrete. Hence it does not follow, if to live is to be, that life is essence. Although life is sometimes put for the essence, as Augustine says (De Trin. x), Memory and understanding and will are one essence, one life: yet it is not taken in this sense by the Philosopher, when he says that the act of the intellect is life. Ad tertium dicendum quod actio quae transit in aliquid extrinsecum, est realiter media inter agens et subiectum recipiens actionem. Sed actio quae manet in agente, non est realiter medium inter agens et obiectum, sed secundum modum significandi tantum, realiter vero consequitur unionem obiecti cum agente. Ex hoc enim quod intellectum fit unum cum intelligente, consequitur intelligere, quasi quidam effectus differens ab utroque. Reply Obj. 3: The action which is transient, passing to some extrinsic object, is really a medium between the agent and the subject receiving the action. The action which remains within the agent, is not really a medium between the agent and the object, but only according to the manner of expression; for it really follows the union of the object with the agent. For the act of understanding is brought about by the union of the object understood with the one who understands it, as an effect which differs from both. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum intelligere angeli sit eius esse Whether in the angel to understand is to exist? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod intelligere angeli sit eius esse. Vivere enim viventibus est esse, ut dicitur in II de Anima. Sed intelligere est quoddam vivere, ut in eodem dicitur. Ergo intelligere angeli est eius esse. Objection 1: It would seem that in the angel to understand is to exist. For in living things to live is to be, as the Philosopher says (De Anima ii, text. 37). But to understand is in a sense to live (De Anima ii, text. 37). Therefore in the angel to understand is to exist. Praeterea, sicut se habet causa ad causam, ita effectus ad effectum. Sed forma per quam angelus est, est eadem cum forma per quam intelligit ad minus seipsum. Ergo eius intelligere est idem cum suo esse. Obj. 2: Further, cause bears the same relation to cause, as effect to effect. But the form whereby the angel exists is the same as the form by which he understands at least himself. Therefore in the angel to understand is to exist. Sed contra, intelligere angeli est motus eius; ut patet per Dionysium, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Sed esse non est motus. Ergo esse angeli non est intelligere eius. On the contrary, The angel’s act of understanding is his movement, as is clear from Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). But to exist is not movement. Therefore in the angel to be is not to understand. Respondeo dicendum quod actio angeli non est eius esse, neque actio alicuius creaturae. Duplex enim est actionis genus, ut dicitur IX Metaphys. Una scilicet actio est quae transit in aliquid exterius, inferens ei passionem, sicut urere et secare. Alia vero actio est quae non transit in rem exteriorem, sed manet in ipso agente, sicut sentire, intelligere et velle, per huiusmodi enim actionem non immutatur aliquid extrinsecum, sed totum in ipso agente agitur. I answer that, The action of the angel, as also the action of any creature, is not his existence. For as it is said (Metaph. ix, text. 16), there is a twofold class of action; one which passes out to something beyond, and causes passion in it, as burning and cutting; and another which does not pass outwards, but which remains within the agent, as to feel, to understand, to will; by such actions nothing outside is changed, but the whole action takes place within the agent. De prima ergo actione manifestum est quod non potest esse ipsum esse agentis, nam esse agentis significatur intra ipsum, actio autem talis est effluxus in actum ab agente. Secunda autem actio de sui ratione habet infinitatem, vel simpliciter, vel secundum quid. Simpliciter quidem, sicut intelligere, cuius obiectum est verum, et velle, cuius obiectum est bonum, quorum utrumque convertitur cum ente; et ita intelligere et velle, quantum est de se, habent se ad omnia; et utrumque recipit speciem ab obiecto. Secundum quid autem infinitum est sentire, quod se habet ad omnia sensibilia, sicut visus ad omnia visibilia. It is quite clear regarding the first kind of action that it cannot be the agent’s very existence: because the agent’s existence is signified as within him, while such an action denotes something as issuing from the agent into the thing done. But the second action of its own nature has infinity, either simple or relative. As an example of simple infinity, we have the act to understand, of which the object is the true; and the act to will, of which the object is the good; each of which is convertible with being; and so, to understand and to will, of themselves, bear relation to all things, and each receives its species from its object. But the act of sensation is relatively infinite, for it bears relation to all sensible things; as sight does to all things visible. Esse autem cuiuslibet creaturae est determinatum ad unum secundum genus et speciem, esse autem solius Dei est simpliciter infinitum, in se omnia comprehendens, ut dicit Dionysius, V cap. de Div. Nom. Unde solum esse divinum est suum intelligere et suum velle. Now the being of every creature is restricted to one in genus and species; God’s being alone is simply infinite, comprehending all things in itself, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. v). Hence the Divine nature alone is its own act of understanding and its own act of will. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod vivere quandoque sumitur pro ipso esse viventis, quandoque vero pro operatione vitae, idest per quam demonstratur aliquid esse vivens. Et hoc modo Philosophus dicit quod intelligere est vivere quoddam, ibi enim distinguit diversos gradus viventium secundum diversa opera vitae. Reply Obj. 1: Life is sometimes taken for the existence of the living subject: sometimes also for a vital operation, that is, for one whereby something is shown to be living. In this way the Philosopher says that to understand is, in a sense, to live: for there he distinguishes the various grades of living things according to the various functions of life. Ad secundum dicendum quod ipsa essentia angeli est ratio totius sui esse, non autem est ratio totius sui intelligere, quia non omnia intelligere potest per suam essentiam. Et ideo secundum propriam rationem, inquantum est talis essentia, comparatur ad ipsum esse angeli. Sed ad eius intelligere comparatur secundum rationem universalioris obiecti, scilicet veri vel entis. Et sic patet quod, licet sit eadem forma, non tamen secundum eandem rationem est principium essendi et intelligendi. Et propter hoc non sequitur quod in angelo sit idem esse et intelligere. Reply Obj. 2: The essence of an angel is the reason of his entire existence, but not the reason of his whole act of understanding, since he cannot understand everything by his essence. Consequently in its own specific nature as such an essence, it is compared to the existence of the angel, whereas to his act of understanding it is compared as included in the idea of a more universal object, namely, truth and being. Thus it is evident, that, although the form is the same, yet it is not the principle of existence and of understanding according to the same formality. On this account it does not follow that in the angel ‘to be’ is the same as ‘to understand.’ Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum virtus intellectiva in angelo sit aliud quam sua essentia Whether an angel’s power of intelligence is different from his essence? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod virtus vel potentia intellectiva in angelo non sit aliud quam sua essentia. Mens enim et intellectus nominant potentiam intellectivam. Sed Dionysius in pluribus locis suorum librorum, nominat ipsos angelos intellectus et mentes. Ergo angelus est sua potentia intellectiva. Objection 1: It would seem that in an angel the power or faculty of understanding is not different from his essence. For, mind and intellect express the power of understanding. But in many passages of his writings, Dionysius styles angels intellects and minds. Therefore the angel is his own power of intelligence. Praeterea, si potentia intellectiva in angelo est aliquid praeter eius essentiam, oportet quod sit accidens, hoc enim dicimus esse accidens alicuius, quod est praeter eius essentiam. Sed forma simplex subiectum esse non potest, ut Boetius dicit, in libro de Trin. Ergo angelus non esset forma simplex, quod est contra praemissa. Obj. 2: Further, if the angel’s power of intelligence be anything besides his essence, then it must needs be an accident; for that which is besides the essence of anything, we call its accident. But a simple form cannot be a subject, as Boethius states (De Trin. 1). Thus an angel would not be a simple form, which is contrary to what has been previously said (Q. 50, A. 2). Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, XII Confess., quod Deus fecit angelicam naturam prope se, materiam autem primam prope nihil, ex quo videtur quod angelus sit simplicior quam materia prima, utpote Deo propinquior. Sed materia prima est sua potentia. Ergo multo magis angelus est sua potentia intellectiva. Obj. 3: Further, Augustine (Confess. xii) says, that God made the angelic nature nigh unto Himself, while He made primary matter nigh unto nothing; from this it would seem that the angel is of a simpler nature than primary matter, as being closer to God. But primary matter is its own power. Therefore much more is an angel his own power of intelligence.