Difference between revisions of "Directory:Logic Museum/Aquinas Summa-I-61-64"

MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Sunday November 24, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search
(New page: ----------------- SUMMA THEOLOGIAE – QUESTIONS LXI - LXIV ----------------- Index *Question 61a1 *[[#q61a2|Question 61a2...)
(No difference)

Revision as of 16:57, 25 October 2009

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE – QUESTIONS LXI - LXIV

Index

Latin English
Iª q. 61 pr. Post ea quae praemissa sunt de natura Angelorum, et cognitione et voluntate eorum, restat considerandum de eorum creatione, sive universaliter de eorum exordio. Et haec consideratio est tripartita. Nam primo considerabimus quomodo producti sunt in esse naturae; secundo, quomodo perfecti sunt in gratia vel gloria; tertio, quomodo aliqui ex eis facti sunt mali. Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum Angelus habeat causam sui esse. Secundo, utrum Angelus sit ab aeterno. Tertio, utrum Angelus sit creatus ante corporalem creaturam. Quarto, utrum Angeli fuerint creati in caelo Empyreo.
Iª q. 61 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli non habeant causam sui esse. De his enim quae sunt a Deo creata, agitur Genesis I. Sed nulla mentio fit ibi de Angelis. Ergo Angeli non sunt creati a Deo.
 Objection 1. It would seem that the angels have no cause of their existence. For the first chapter of Genesis treats of things created by God. But there is no mention of angels. Therefore the angels were not created by God.
Iª q. 61 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in VIII Metaphys., quod si aliqua substantia sit forma sine materia, statim per seipsam est ens et unum, et non habet causam quae faciat eam ens et unum. Sed Angeli sunt formae immateriales, ut supra ostensum est. Ergo non habent causam sui esse. Objection 2. Further, the Philosopher says (Metaph. viii, text. 16) that if any substance be a form without matter, "straightway it has being and unity of itself, and has no cause of its being and unity." But the angels are immaterial forms, as was shown above (50, 2). Therefore they have no cause of their being.
Iª q. 61 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, omne quod fit ab aliquo agente, per hoc quod fit, accipit formam ab eo. Sed Angeli, cum sint formae, non accipiunt formam ab aliquo agente. Ergo Angeli non habent causam agentem. Objection 3. Further, whatever is produced by any agent, from the very fact of its being produced, receives form from it. But since the angels are forms, they do not derive their form from any agent. Therefore the angels have no active cause.
Iª q. 61 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalmo CXLVIII, laudate eum, omnes Angeli eius. Et postea subdit, quoniam ipse dixit, et facta sunt. On the contrary, It is said (Psalm 148:2): "Praise ye Him, all His angels"; and further on, verse 5: "For He spoke and they were made."
Iª q. 61 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod necesse est dicere et Angelos, et omne id quod praeter Deum est, a Deo factum esse. Solus enim Deus est suum esse, in omnibus autem aliis differt essentia rei et esse eius, ut ex superioribus patet. Et ex hoc manifestum est quod solus Deus est ens per suam essentiam, omnia vero alia sunt entia per participationem. Omne autem quod est per participationem causatur ab eo quod est per essentiam, sicut omne ignitum causatur ab igne. Unde necesse est Angelos a Deo creatos esse. I answer that, It must be affirmed that angels and everything existing, except God, were made by God. God alone is His own existence; while in everything else the essence differs from the existence, as was shown above (3, 4). From this it is clear that God alone exists of His own essence: while all other things have their existence by participation. Now whatever exists by participation is caused by what exists essentially; as everything ignited is caused by fire. Consequently the angels, of necessity, were made by God.
Iª q. 61 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Augustinus dicit, in XI de Civ. Dei, quod Angeli non sunt praetermissi in illa prima rerum creatione, sed significantur nomine caeli, aut etiam lucis. Ideo autem vel praetermissi sunt, vel nominibus rerum corporalium significati, quia Moyses rudi populo loquebatur, qui nondum capere poterat incorpoream naturam; et si eis fuisset expressum aliquas res esse super omnem naturam corpoream, fuisset eis occasio idololatriae, ad quam proni erant, et a qua Moyses eos praecipue revocare intendebat. Reply to Objection 1. Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 50) that the angels were not passed over in that account of the first creation of things, but are designated by the name "heavens" or of "light." And they were either passed over, or else designated by the names of corporeal things, because Moses was addressing an uncultured people, as yet incapable of understanding an incorporeal nature; and if it had been divulged that there were creatures existing beyond corporeal nature, it would have proved to them an occasion of idolatry, to which they were inclined, and from which Moses especially meant to safeguard them.
Iª q. 61 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod substantiae quae sunt formae subsistentes, non habent causam aliquam formalem sui esse et suae unitatis, nec causam agentem per transmutationem materiae de potentia in actum, sed habent causam producentem totam substantiam. Reply to Objection 2. Substances that are subsisting forms have no 'formal' cause of their existence and unity, nor such active cause as produces its effect by changing the matter from a state of potentiality to actuality; but they have a cause productive of their entire substance.
Iª q. 61 a. 1 ad 3 Et per hoc patet solutio ad tertium. From this the solution of the third difficulty is manifest.
Iª q. 61 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus sit productus a Deo ab aeterno. Deus enim est causa Angeli per suum esse, non enim agit per aliquid additum suae essentiae. Sed esse eius est aeternum. Ergo ab aeterno Angelos produxit.
 Objection 1. It would seem that the angel was produced by God from eternity. For God is the cause of the angel by His being: for He does not act through something besides His essence. But His being is eternal. Therefore He produced the angels from eternity.
Iª q. 61 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, omne quod quandoque est et quandoque non est, subiacet tempori. Sed Angelus est supra tempus, ut dicitur in libro de causis. Ergo Angelus non quandoque est, et quandoque non est, sed semper. Objection 2. Further, everything which exists at one period and not at another, is subject to time. But the angel is above time, as is laid down in the book De Causis. Therefore the angel is not at one time existing and at another non-existing, but exists always.
Iª q. 61 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, Augustinus probat incorruptibilitatem animae per hoc, quod per intellectum est capax veritatis. Sed sicut veritas est incorruptibilis, ita est aeterna. Ergo natura intellectualis et animae et Angeli, non solum est incorruptibilis, sed etiam aeterna. Objection 3. Further, Augustine (De Trin. xiii) proves the soul's incorruptibility by the fact that the mind is capable of truth. But as truth is incorruptible, so is it eternal. Therefore the intellectual nature of the soul and of the angel is not only incorruptible, but likewise eternal.
Iª q. 61 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Prov. VIII, ex persona sapientiae genitae, dominus possedit me ab initio viarum suarum, antequam quidquam faceret a principio. Sed Angeli sunt facti a Deo, ut ostensum est. Ergo Angeli aliquando non fuerunt. On the contrary, It is said (Proverbs 8:22), in the person of begotten Wisdom: "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His ways, before He made anything from the beginning." But, as was shown above (1), the angels were made by God. Therefore at one time the angels were not.
Iª q. 61 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod solus Deus, pater et filius et spiritus sanctus, est ab aeterno. Hoc enim fides Catholica indubitanter tenet; et omne contrarium est sicut haereticum refutandum. Sic enim Deus creaturas produxit, quod eas ex nihilo fecit, idest postquam nihil fuerat. I answer that, God alone, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, is from eternity. Catholic Faith holds this without doubt; and everything to the contrary must be rejected as heretical. For God so produced creatures that He made them "from nothing"; that is, after they had not been.
Iª q. 61 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod esse Dei est ipsum eius velle. Per hoc ergo quod Deus produxit Angelos et alias creaturas per suum esse, non excluditur quin eas produxerit per suam voluntatem. Voluntas autem Dei non de necessitate se habet ad productionem creaturarum, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo produxit et quae voluit, et quando voluit. Reply to Objection 1. God's being is His will. So the fact that God produced the angels and other creatures by His being does not exclude that He made them also by His will. But, as was shown above (19, 3; 46, 1). God's will does not act by necessity in producing creatures. Therefore He produced such as He willed, and when He willed.
Iª q. 61 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Angelus est supra tempus quod est numerus motus caeli, quia est supra omnem motum corporalis naturae. Non tamen est supra tempus quod est numerus successionis esse eius post non esse, et etiam quod est numerus successionis quae est in operationibus eius. Unde Augustinus dicit, VIII super Gen. ad Litt., quod Deus movet creaturam spiritualem per tempus. Reply to Objection 2. An angel is above that time which is the measure of the movement of the heavens; because he is above every movement of a corporeal nature. Nevertheless he is not above time which is the measure of the succession of his existence after his non-existence, and which is also the measure of the succession which is in his operations. Hence Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. viii, 20,21) that "God moves the spiritual creature according to time."
Iª q. 61 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Angeli et animae intellectivae, ex hoc ipso quod habent naturam per quam sunt capaces veritatis, sunt incorruptibiles. Sed hanc naturam non habuerunt ab aeterno; sed data fuit eis a Deo quando ipse voluit. Unde non sequitur quod Angeli sint ab aeterno. Reply to Objection 3. Angels and intelligent souls are incorruptible by the very fact of their having a nature whereby they are capable of truth. But they did not possess this nature from eternity; it was bestowed upon them when God Himself willed it. Consequently it does not follow that the angels existed from eternity.
Iª q. 61 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli fuerint creati ante mundum corporeum. Dicit enim Hieronymus, super epistolam ad Titum, sex millia nondum nostri temporis complentur annorum; et quanta tempora, quantasque saeculorum origines fuisse arbitrandum est, in quibus Angeli, throni, dominationes, ceterique ordines Deo servierunt? Damascenus etiam dicit, in II libro, quidam dicunt quod ante omnem creationem geniti sunt Angeli; ut theologus dicit Gregorius, primum quidem excogitavit angelicas virtutes et caelestes, et excogitatio opus eius fuit.
 Objection 1. It would seem that the angels were created before the corporeal world. For Jerome says (In Ep. ad Tit. i, 2): "Six thousand years of our time have not yet elapsed; yet how shall we measure the time, how shall we count the ages, in which the Angels, Thrones, Dominations, and the other orders served God?" Damascene also says (De Fide Orth. ii): "Some say that the angels were begotten before all creation; as Gregory the Theologian declares, He first of all devised the angelic and heavenly powers, and the devising was the making thereof."
Iª q. 61 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, angelica natura est media inter naturam divinam et naturam corpoream. Sed natura divina est ab aeterno, natura autem corporea ex tempore. Ergo natura angelica facta est ante creationem temporis, et post aeternitatem. Objection 2. Further, the angelic nature stands midway between the Divine and the corporeal natures. But the Divine nature is from eternity; while corporeal nature is from time. Therefore the angelic nature was produced ere time was made, and after eternity.
Iª q. 61 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, plus distat natura angelica a natura corporali, quam una natura corporalis ab alia. Sed una natura corporalis fuit facta ante aliam, unde et sex dies productionis rerum in principio Genesis describuntur. Ergo multo magis natura angelica facta est ante omnem naturam corporalem. Objection 3. Further, the angelic nature is more remote from the corporeal nature than one corporeal nature is from another. But one corporeal nature was made before another; hence the six days of the production of things are set forth in the opening of Genesis. Much more, therefore, was the angelic nature made before every corporeal nature.
Iª q. 61 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Gen. I, in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram. Non autem hoc esset verum, si aliquid creasset antea. Ergo Angeli non sunt ante naturam corpoream creati. On the contrary, It is said (Genesis 1:1): "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." Now, this would not be true if anything had been created previously. Consequently the angels were not created before corporeal nature.
Iª q. 61 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod circa hoc invenitur duplex sanctorum doctorum sententia, illa tamen probabilior videtur, quod Angeli simul cum creatura corporea sunt creati. Angeli enim sunt quaedam pars universi, non enim constituunt per se unum universum, sed tam ipsi quam creatura corporea in constitutionem unius universi conveniunt. Quod apparet ex ordine unius creaturae ad aliam, ordo enim rerum ad invicem est bonum universi. Nulla autem pars perfecta est a suo toto separata. Non est igitur probabile ut Deus, cuius perfecta sunt opera, ut dicitur Deut. XXXII, creaturam angelicam seorsum ante alias creaturas creaverit. Quamvis contrarium non sit reputandum erroneum; praecipue propter sententiam Gregorii Nazianzeni, cuius tanta est in doctrina Christiana auctoritas, ut nullus unquam eius dictis calumniam inferre praesumpserit, sicut nec Athanasii documentis, ut Hieronymus dicit. I answer that, There is a twofold opinion on this point to be found in the writings of the Fathers. The more probable one holds that the angels were created at the same time as corporeal creatures. For the angels are part of the universe: they do not constitute a universe of themselves; but both they and corporeal natures unite in constituting one universe. This stands in evidence from the relationship of creature to creature; because the mutual relationship of creatures makes up the good of the universe. But no part is perfect if separate from the whole. Consequently it is improbable that God, Whose "works are perfect," as it is said Dt. 32:4, should have created the angelic creature before other creatures. At the same time the contrary is not to be deemed erroneous; especially on account of the opinion of Gregory Nazianzen, "whose authority in Christian doctrine is of such weight that no one has ever raised objection to his teaching, as is also the case with the doctrine of Athanasius," as Jerome says.
Iª q. 61 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Hieronymus loquitur secundum sententiam doctorum Graecorum, qui omnes hoc concorditer sentiunt, quod Angeli sunt ante mundum corporeum creati. Reply to Objection 1. Jerome is speaking according to the teaching of the Greek Fathers; all of whom hold the creation of the angels to have taken place previously to that of the corporeal world.
Iª q. 61 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Deus non est aliqua pars universi, sed est supra totum universum, praehabens in se eminentiori modo totam universi perfectionem. Angelus autem est pars universi. Unde non est eadem ratio. Reply to Objection 2. God is not a part of, but far above, the whole universe, possessing within Himself the entire perfection of the universe in a more eminent way. But an angel is a part of the universe. Hence the comparison does not hold.
Iª q. 61 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod creaturae corporeae omnes sunt unum in materia, sed Angeli non conveniunt in materia cum creatura corporea. Unde, creata materia corporalis creaturae, omnia quodammodo sunt creata, non autem, creatis Angelis, esset ipsum universum creatum. Si vero contrarium teneatur, quod dicitur Gen. I, in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram exponendum est, in principio, idest in filio, vel in principio temporis, non autem in principio, idest ante quod nihil, nisi dicatur, ante quod nihil in genere corporalium creaturarum. Reply to Objection 3. All corporeal creatures are one in matter; while the angels do not agree with them in matter. Consequently the creation of the matter of the corporeal creature involves in a manner the creation of all things; but the creation of the angels does not involve creation of the universe. If the contrary view be held, then in the text of Gn. 1, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," the words, "In the beginning," must be interpreted, "In the Son," or "In the beginning of time": but not, "In the beginning, before which there was nothing," unless we say "Before which there was nothing of the nature of corporeal creatures."
Iª q. 61 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli non sint creati in caelo Empyreo. Angeli enim sunt substantiae incorporeae. Sed substantia incorporea non dependet a corpore secundum suum esse, et per consequens neque secundum suum fieri. Ergo Angeli non sunt creati in loco corporeo.
 Objection 1. It would seem that the angels were not created in the empyrean heaven. For the angels are incorporeal substances. Now a substance which is incorporeal is not dependent upon a body for its existence; and as a consequence, neither is it for its creation. Therefore the angels were not created in any corporeal place.
Iª q. 61 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, III super Gen. ad Litt., quod Angeli fuerunt creati in superiori parte aeris. Non ergo in caelo Empyreo. Objection 2. Further, Augustine remarks (Gen. ad lit. iii, 10), that the angels were created in the upper atmosphere: therefore not in the empyrean heaven.
Iª q. 61 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, caelum Empyreum dicitur esse caelum supremum. Si igitur Angeli creati fuissent in caelo Empyreo, non convenisset eis in superius caelum ascendere. Quod est contra id quod ex persona Angeli peccantis dicitur Isaiae XIV, ascendam in caelum. Objection 3. Further, the empyrean heaven is said to be the highest heaven. If therefore the angels were created in the empyrean heaven, it would not beseem them to mount up to a still higher heaven. And this is contrary to what is said in Isaias, speaking in the person of the sinning angel: "I will ascend into heaven" (Isaiah 14:13).
Iª q. 61 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Strabus dicit, super illud, in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram, caelum non visibile firmamentum hic appellat, sed Empyreum, idest igneum vel intellectuale, quod non ab ardore, sed a splendore dicitur, quod statim factum, Angelis est repletum. On the contrary, Strabus, commenting on the text "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," says: "By heaven he does not mean the visible firmament, but the empyrean, that is, the fiery or intellectual firmament, which is not so styled from its heat, but from its splendor; and which was filled with angels directly it was made."
Iª q. 61 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, ex creaturis corporalibus et spiritualibus unum universum constituitur. Unde sic creatae sunt spirituales creaturae, quod ad creaturam corporalem aliquem ordinem habent, et toti creaturae corporali praesident. Unde conveniens fuit quod Angeli in supremo corpore crearentur, tanquam toti naturae corporeae praesidentes; sive id dicatur caelum Empyreum, sive qualitercumque nominetur. Unde Isidorus dicit quod supremum caelum est caelum Angelorum, super illud Deut. X, domini Dei tui est caelum, et caelum caeli. I answer that, As was observed (3), the universe is made up of corporeal and spiritual creatures. Consequently spiritual creatures were so created as to bear some relationship to the corporeal creature, and to rule over every corporeal creature. Hence it was fitting for the angels to be created in the highest corporeal place, as presiding over all corporeal nature; whether it be styled the empyrean heaven, or whatever else it be called. So Isidore says that the highest heaven is the heaven of the angels, explaining the passage of Dt. 10:14: "Behold heaven is the Lord's thy God, and the heaven of heaven."
Iª q. 61 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Angeli non sunt creati in loco corporeo, quasi dependentes a corpore secundum suum esse vel secundum suum fieri, potuisset enim Deus Angelos ante totam creaturam corporalem creasse, ut multi sancti doctores tenent. Sed facti sunt in loco corporeo, ad ostendendum ordinem eorum ad naturam corpoream, et quod sua virtute corpora contingunt. Reply to Objection 1. The angels were created in a corporeal place, not as if depending upon a body either as to their existence or as to their being made; because God could have created them before all corporeal creation, as many holy Doctors hold. They were made in a corporeal place in order to show their relationship to corporeal nature, and that they are by their power in touch with bodies.
Iª q. 61 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Augustinus forte per supremam partem aeris intelligit supremam partem caeli, cum quo aer quandam convenientiam habet propter suam subtilitatem et diaphaneitatem. Vel loquitur non de omnibus Angelis, sed de illis qui peccaverunt, qui secundum quosdam fuerunt de inferioribus ordinibus. Nihil autem prohibet dicere quod superiores Angeli, habentes virtutem elevatam et universalem supra omnia corpora, sint in supremo creaturae corporeae creati; alii vero, habentes virtutes magis particulares, sint creati in inferioribus corporibus. Reply to Objection 2. By the uppermost atmosphere Augustine possibly means the highest part of heaven, to which the atmosphere has a kind of affinity owing to its subtlety and transparency. Or else he is not speaking of all the angels; but only of such as sinned, who, in the opinion of some, belonged to the inferior orders. But there is nothing to hinder us from saying that the higher angels, as having an exalted and universal power over all corporeal things, were created in the highest place of the corporeal creature; while the other angels, as having more restricted powers, were created among the inferior bodies.
Iª q. 61 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod loquitur ibi non de caelo aliquo corporeo, sed de caelo sanctae Trinitatis, in quod Angelus peccans ascendere voluit, dum voluit aliquo modo Deo aequiparari, ut infra patebit. Reply to Objection 3. Isaias is not speaking there of any corporeal heaven, but of the heaven of the Blessed Trinity; unto which the sinning angel wished to ascend, when he desired to be equal in some manner to God, as will appear later on (63, 3).
Iª q. 62 pr. Consequenter investigandum est quomodo Angeli facti sunt in esse gratiae vel gloriae. Et circa hoc quaeruntur novem. Primo, utrum Angeli fuerint in sua creatione beati. Secundo, utrum indiguerint gratia ad hoc quod ad Deum converterentur. Tertio, utrum fuerint creati in gratia. Quarto, utrum suam beatitudinem meruerint. Quinto, utrum statim post meritum beatitudinem adepti fuerint. Sexto, utrum gratiam et gloriam secundum capacitatem suorum naturalium receperint. Septimo, utrum post consecutionem gloriae remanserit in eis dilectio et cognitio naturalis. Octavo, utrum postmodum potuerint peccare. Nono, utrum post adeptionem gloriae potuerint proficere.
Iª q. 62 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli fuerint creati beati. Dicitur enim in libro de ecclesiasticis dogmatibus, quod Angeli qui in illa in qua creati sunt beatitudine perseverant, non natura possident bonum quod habent. Sunt ergo Angeli creati in beatitudine.
 Objection 1. It would seem that the angels were created in beatitude. For it is stated (De Eccl. Dogm. xxix) that "the angels who continue in the beatitude wherein they were created, do not of their nature possess the excellence they have." Therefore the angels were created in beatitude.
Iª q. 62 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, natura angelica est nobilior quam creatura corporalis. Sed creatura corporalis statim in principio suae creationis fuit creata formata et perfecta; nec informitas praecessit in ea formationem tempore, sed natura tantum, ut Augustinus dicit, I super Gen. ad Litt. Ergo nec naturam angelicam creavit Deus informem et imperfectam. Sed eius formatio et perfectio est per beatitudinem, secundum quod fruitur Deo. Ergo fuit creata beata. Objection 2. Further, the angelic nature is nobler than the corporeal creature. But the corporeal creature straightway from its creation was made perfect and complete; nor did its lack of form take precedence in time, but only in nature, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. i, 15). Therefore neither did God create the angelic nature imperfect and incomplete. But its formation and perfection are derived from its beatitude, whereby it enjoys God. Therefore it was created in beatitude.
Iª q. 62 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, secundum Augustinum, super Gen. ad Litt., ea quae leguntur facta in operibus sex dierum, simul facta fuerunt, et sic oportet quod statim a principio creationis rerum fuerint omnes illi sex dies. Sed in illis sex diebus, secundum eius expositionem, mane fuit cognitio angelica secundum quam cognoverunt verbum et res in verbo. Ergo statim a principio creationis cognoverunt verbum et res in verbo. Sed Angeli beati sunt per hoc quod verbum vident. Ergo statim a principio suae creationis Angeli fuerunt beati. Objection 3. Further, according to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. iv, 34; v, 5), the things which we read of as being made in the works of the six days, were made together at one time; and so all the six days must have existed instantly from the beginning of creation. But, according to his exposition, in those six days, "the morning" was the angelic knowledge, according to which they knew the Word and things in the Word. Therefore straightway from their creation they knew the Word, and things in the Word. But the bliss of the angels comes of seeing the Word. Consequently the angels were in beatitude straightway from the very beginning of their creation.
Iª q. 62 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra, de ratione beatitudinis est stabilitas sive confirmatio in bono. Sed Angeli non statim ut creati sunt, fuerunt confirmati in bono, quod casus quorundam ostendit. Non ergo Angeli in sua creatione fuerunt beati. On the contrary, To be established or confirmed in good is of the nature of beatitude. But the angels were not confirmed in good as soon as they were created; the fall of some of them shows this. Therefore the angels were not in beatitude from their creation.
Iª q. 62 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod nomine beatitudinis intelligitur ultima perfectio rationalis seu intellectualis naturae, et inde est quod naturaliter desideratur, quia unumquodque naturaliter desiderat suam ultimam perfectionem. Ultima autem perfectio rationalis seu intellectualis naturae est duplex. Una quidem, quam potest assequi virtute suae naturae, et haec quodammodo beatitudo vel felicitas dicitur. Unde et Aristoteles perfectissimam hominis contemplationem, qua optimum intelligibile, quod est Deus, contemplari potest in hac vita, dicit esse ultimam hominis felicitatem. Sed super hanc felicitatem est alia felicitas, quam in futuro expectamus, qua videbimus Deum sicuti est. Quod quidem est supra cuiuslibet intellectus creati naturam, ut supra ostensum est. Sic igitur dicendum est quod, quantum ad primam beatitudinem, quam Angelus assequi virtute suae naturae potuit, fuit creatus beatus. Quia perfectionem huiusmodi Angelus non acquirit per aliquem motum discursivum, sicut homo, sed statim ei adest propter suae naturae dignitatem, ut supra dictum est. Sed ultimam beatitudinem, quae facultatem naturae excedit, Angeli non statim in principio suae creationis habuerunt, quia haec beatitudo non est aliquid naturae, sed naturae finis; et ideo non statim eam a principio debuerunt habere. I answer that, By the name of beatitude is understood the ultimate perfection of rational or of intellectual nature; and hence it is that it is naturally desired, since everything naturally desires its ultimate perfection. Now there is a twofold ultimate perfection of rational or of intellectual nature. The first is one which it can procure of its own natural power; and this is in a measure called beatitude or happiness. Hence Aristotle (Ethic. x) says that man's ultimate happiness consists in his most perfect contemplation, whereby in this life he can behold the best intelligible object; and that is God. Above this happiness there is still another, which we look forward to in the future, whereby "we shall see God as He is." This is beyond the nature of every created intellect, as was shown above (12, 4). So, then, it remains to be said, that, as regards this first beatitude, which the angel could procure by his natural power, he was created already blessed. Because the angel does not acquire such beatitude by any progressive action, as man does, but, as was observed above (58, 3 ,4), is straightway in possession thereof, owing to his natural dignity. But the angels did not have from the beginning of their creation that ultimate beatitude which is beyond the power of nature; because such beatitude is no part of their nature, but its end; and consequently they ought not to have it immediately from the beginning.
Iª q. 62 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod beatitudo ibi accipitur pro illa perfectione naturali quam Angelus habuit in statu innocentiae. Reply to Objection 1. Beatitude is there taken for that natural perfection which the angel had in the state of innocence.
Iª q. 62 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod creatura corporalis statim in principio suae creationis habere non potuit perfectionem ad quam per suam operationem perducitur, unde, secundum Augustinum, germinatio plantarum ex terra non statim fuit in primis operibus, in quibus virtus sola germinativa plantarum data est terrae. Et similiter creatura angelica in principio suae creationis habuit perfectionem suae naturae; non autem perfectionem ad quam per suam operationem pervenire debebat. Reply to Objection 2. The corporeal creature instantly in the beginning of its creation could not have the perfection to which it is brought by its operation; consequently, according to Augustine (Gen. ad. lit. v, 4,23; viii, 3), the growing of plants from the earth did not take place at once among the first works, in which only the germinating power of the plants was bestowed upon the earth. In the same way, the angelic creature in the beginning of its existence had the perfection of its nature; but it did not have the perfection to which it had to come by its operation.
Iª q. 62 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Angelus duplicem habet verbi cognitionem, unam naturalem, et aliam gloriae, naturalem quidem, qua cognoscit verbum per eius similitudinem in sua natura relucentem; cognitionem vero gloriae, qua cognoscit verbum per suam essentiam. Et utraque cognoscit Angelus res in verbo, sed naturali quidem cognitione imperfecte, cognitione vero gloriae perfecte. Prima ergo cognitio rerum in verbo affuit Angelo a principio suae creationis, secunda vero non, sed quando facti sunt beati per conversionem ad bonum. Et haec proprie dicitur cognitio matutina. Reply to Objection 3. The angel has a twofold knowledge of the Word; the one which is natural, and the other according to glory. He has a natural knowledge whereby he knows the Word through a similitude thereof shining in his nature; and he has a knowledge of glory whereby he knows the Word through His essence. By both kinds of knowledge the angel knows things in the Word; imperfectly by his natural knowledge, and perfectly by his knowledge of glory. Therefore the first knowledge of things in the Word was present to the angel from the outset of his creation; while the second was not, but only when the angels became blessed by turning to the good. And this is properly termed their morning knowledge.
Iª q. 62 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus non indiguerit gratia ad hoc quod converteretur in Deum. Ad ea enim quae naturaliter possumus, gratia non indigemus. Sed naturaliter Angelus convertitur in Deum, quia naturaliter Deum diligit, ut ex supra dictis patet. Ergo Angelus non indiguit gratia ad hoc quod converteretur in Deum.
 Objection 1. It would seem that the angel had no need of grace in order to turn to God. For, we have no need of grace for what we can accomplish naturally. But the angel naturally turns to God: because he loves God naturally, as is clear from what has been said (60, 5). Therefore an angel did not need grace in order to turn to God.
Iª q. 62 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, ad ea tantum videmur indigere auxilio, quae sunt difficilia. Sed converti ad Deum non erat difficile Angelo; cum nihil esset in eo quod huic conversioni repugnaret. Ergo Angelus non indiguit auxilio gratiae ad hoc quod converteretur in Deum. Objection 2. Further, seemingly we need help only for difficult tasks. Now it was not a difficult task for the angel to turn to God; because there was no obstacle in him to such turning. Therefore the angel had no need of grace in order to turn to God.
Iª q. 62 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, converti ad Deum est se ad gratiam praeparare, unde Zach. I, dicitur, convertimini ad me, et ego convertar ad vos. Sed nos non indigemus gratia ad hoc quod nos ad gratiam praeparemus, quia sic esset abire in infinitum. Ergo non indiguit gratia Angelus ad hoc quod converteretur in Deum. Objection 3. Further, to turn oneself to God is to dispose oneself for grace; hence it is said (Zechariah 1:3): "Turn ye to Me, and I will turn to you." But we do not stand in need of grace in order to prepare ourselves for grace: for thus we should go on to infinity. Therefore the angel did not need grace to turn to God.
Iª q. 62 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra, per conversionem ad Deum Angelus pervenit ad beatitudinem. Si igitur non indiguisset gratia ad hoc quod converteretur in Deum, sequeretur quod non indigeret gratia ad habendam vitam aeternam. Quod est contra illud apostoli, Rom. VI, gratia Dei vita aeterna. On the contrary, It was by turning to God that the angel reached to beatitude. If, then, he had needed no grace in order to turn to God, it would follow that he did not require grace in order to possess everlasting life. But this is contrary to the saying of the Apostle (Romans 6:23): "The grace of God is life everlasting."
Iª q. 62 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Angeli indiguerunt gratia ad hoc quod converterentur in Deum, prout est obiectum beatitudinis. Sicut enim superius dictum est, naturalis motus voluntatis est principium omnium eorum quae volumus. Naturalis autem inclinatio voluntatis est ad id quod est conveniens secundum naturam. Et ideo, si aliquid sit supra naturam, voluntas in id ferri non potest, nisi ab aliquo alio supernaturali principio adiuta. Sicut patet quod ignis habet naturalem inclinationem ad calefaciendum, et ad generandum ignem, sed generare carnem est supra naturalem virtutem ignis, unde ignis ad hoc nullam inclinationem habet, nisi secundum quod movetur ut instrumentum ab anima nutritiva. Ostensum est autem supra, cum de Dei cognitione ageretur, quod videre Deum per essentiam, in quo ultima beatitudo rationalis creaturae consistit, est supra naturam cuiuslibet intellectus creati. Unde nulla creatura rationalis potest habere motum voluntatis ordinatum ad illam beatitudinem, nisi mota a supernaturali agente. Et hoc dicimus auxilium gratiae. Et ideo dicendum est quod Angelus in illam beatitudinem voluntate converti non potuit, nisi per auxilium gratiae. I answer that, The angels stood in need of grace in order to turn to God, as the object of beatitude. For, as was observed above (60, 2) the natural movement of the will is the principle of all things that we will. But the will's natural inclination is directed towards what is in keeping with its nature. Therefore, if there is anything which is above nature, the will cannot be inclined towards it, unless helped by some other supernatural principle. Thus it is clear that fire has a natural tendency to give forth heat, and to generate fire; whereas to generate flesh is beyond the natural power of fire; consequently, fire has no tendency thereto, except in so far as it is moved instrumentally by the nutritive soul. Now it was shown above (12, 4,5), when we were treating of God's knowledge, that to see God in His essence, wherein the ultimate beatitude of the rational creature consists, is beyond the nature of every created intellect. Consequently no rational creature can have the movement of the will directed towards such beatitude, except it be moved thereto by a supernatural agent. This is what we call the help of grace. Therefore it must be said that an angel could not of his own will be turned to such beatitude, except by the help of grace.
Iª q. 62 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Angelus naturaliter diligit Deum, inquantum est principium naturalis esse. Hic autem loquimur de conversione ad Deum, inquantum est beatificans per suae essentiae visionem. Reply to Objection 1. The angel loves God naturally, so far as God is the author of his natural being. But here we are speaking of turning to God, so far as God bestows beatitude by the vision of His essence.
Iª q. 62 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod difficile est quod transcendit potentiam. Sed hoc contingit esse dupliciter. Uno modo, quia transcendit potentiam secundum suum naturalem ordinem. Et tunc, si ad hoc possit pervenire aliquo auxilio, dicitur difficile; si autem nullo modo, dicitur impossibile, sicut impossibile est hominem volare. Alio modo transcendit aliquid potentiam, non secundum ordinem naturalem potentiae, sed propter aliquod impedimentum potentiae adiunctum. Sicut ascendere non est contra naturalem ordinem potentiae animae motivae, quia anima, quantum est de se, nata est movere in quamlibet partem, sed impeditur ab hoc propter corporis gravitatem; unde difficile est homini ascendere. Converti autem ad beatitudinem ultimam, homini quidem est difficile et quia est supra naturam, et quia habet impedimentum ex corruptione corporis et infectione peccati. Sed Angelo est difficile propter hoc solum quod est supernaturale. Reply to Objection 2. A thing is "difficult" which is beyond a power; and this happens in two ways. First of all, because it is beyond the natural capacity of the power. Thus, if it can be attained by some help, it is said to be "difficult"; but if it can in no way be attained, then it is "impossible"; thus it is impossible for a man to fly. In another way a thing may be beyond the power, not according to the natural order of such power, but owing to some intervening hindrance; as to mount upwards is not contrary to the natural order of the motive power of the soul; because the soul, considered in itself, can be moved in any direction; but is hindered from so doing by the weight of the body; consequently it is difficult for a man to mount upwards. To be turned to his ultimate beatitude is difficult for man, both because it is beyond his nature, and because he has a hindrance from the corruption of the body and infection of sin. But it is difficult for an angel, only because it is supernatural.
Iª q. 62 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod quilibet motus voluntatis in Deum, potest dici conversio in ipsum. Et ideo triplex est conversio in Deum. Una quidem per dilectionem perfectam, quae est creaturae iam Deo fruentis. Et ad hanc conversionem requiritur gratia consummata. Alia conversio est, quae est meritum beatitudinis. Et ad hanc requiritur habitualis gratia, quae est merendi principium. Tertia conversio est, per quam aliquis praeparat se ad gratiam habendam. Et ad hanc non exigitur aliqua habitualis gratia, sed operatio Dei ad se animam convertentis, secundum illud Thren. ult., converte nos, domine, ad te, et convertemur. Unde patet quod non est procedere in infinitum. Reply to Objection 3. Every movement of the will towards God can be termed a conversion to God. And so there is a threefold turning to God. The first is by the perfect love of God; this belongs to the creature enjoying the possession of God; and for such conversion, consummae grace is required. The next turning to God is that which merits beatitude; and for this there is required habitual grace, which is the principle of merit. The third conversion is that whereby a man disposes himself so that he may have grace; for this no habitual grace is required; but the operation of God, Who draws the soul towards Himself, according to Lam 5:21: "Convert us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted." Hence it is clear that there is no need to go on to infinity.
Iª q. 62 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli non sint creati in gratia. Dicit enim Augustinus, II super Gen. ad Litt., quod angelica natura primo erat informiter creata, et caelum dicta, postmodum vero formata est, et lux appellata. Sed haec formatio est per gratiam. Ergo non sunt creati in gratia.
 Objection 1. It would seem that the angels were not created in grace. For Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ii, 8) that the angelic nature was first made without form, and was called "heaven": but afterwards it received its form, and was then called "light." But such formation comes from grace. Therefore they were not created in grace.
Iª q. 62 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, gratia inclinat creaturam rationalem in Deum. Si igitur Angelus in gratia creatus fuisset nullus Angelus fuisset a Deo aversus. Objection 2. Further, grace turns the rational creature towards God. If, therefore, the angel had been created in grace, no angel would ever have turned away from God.
Iª q. 62 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, gratia medium est inter naturam et gloriam. Sed Angeli non fuerunt beati in sua creatione. Ergo videtur quod nec etiam creati sint in gratia, sed primo in natura tantum; postea autem adepti sunt gratiam; et ultimo facti sunt beati. Objection 3. Further, grace comes midway between nature and glory. But the angels were not beatified in their creation. Therefore it seems that they were not created in grace; but that they were first created in nature only, and then received grace, and that last of all they were beatified.
Iª q. 62 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, XII de Civ. Dei, bonam voluntatem quis fecit in Angelis, nisi ille qui eos cum sua voluntate, idest cum amore casto quo illi adhaerent, creavit, simul in eis condens naturam et largiens gratiam? On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xii, 9), "Who wrought the good will of the angels? Who, save Him Who created them with His will, that is, with the pure love wherewith they cling to Him; at the same time building up their nature and bestowing grace on them?"
Iª q. 62 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, quamvis super hoc sint diversae opiniones, quibusdam dicentibus quod creati sunt Angeli in naturalibus tantum, aliis vero quod sunt creati in gratia; hoc tamen probabilius videtur tenendum, et magis dictis sanctorum consonum est, quod fuerunt creati in gratia gratum faciente. Sic enim videmus quod omnia quae processu temporis per opus divinae providentiae, creatura sub Deo operante, sunt producta, in prima rerum conditione producta sunt secundum quasdam seminales rationes, ut Augustinus dicit, super Gen. ad Litt.; sicut arbores et animalia et alia huiusmodi. Manifestum est autem quod gratia gratum faciens hoc modo comparatur ad beatitudinem, sicut ratio seminalis in natura ad effectum naturalem, unde I Ioan. III, gratia semen Dei nominatur. Sicut igitur, secundum opinionem Augustini, ponitur quod statim in prima creatione corporalis creaturae inditae sunt ei seminales rationes omnium naturalium effectuum, ita statim a principio sunt Angeli creati in gratia. I answer that, Although there are conflicting opinions on this point, some holding that the angels were created only in a natural state, while others maintain that they were created in grace; yet it seems more probable, and more in keeping with the sayings of holy men, that they were created in sanctifying grace. For we see that all things which, in the process of time, being created by the work of Divine Providence, were produced by the operation of God, were created in the first fashioning of things according to seedlike forms, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. viii, 3), such as trees, animals, and the rest. Now it is evident that sanctifying grace bears the same relation to beatitude as the seedlike form in nature does to the natural effect; hence (1 John 3:9) grace is called the "seed" of God. As, then, in Augustine's opinion it is contended that the seedlike forms of all natural effects were implanted in the creature when corporeally created, so straightway from the beginning the angels were created in grace.
Iª q. 62 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod informitas illa Angeli potest intelligi vel per comparationem ad formationem gloriae, et sic praecessit tempore informitas formationem. Vel per comparationem ad formationem gratiae, et sic non praecessit ordine temporis, sed ordine naturae; sicut etiam de formatione corporali Augustinus ponit. Reply to Objection 1. Such absence of form in the angels can be understood either by comparison with their formation in glory; and so the absence of formation preceded formation by priority of time. Or else it can be understood of the formation according to grace: and so it did not precede in the order of time, but in the order of nature; as Augustine holds with regard to the formation of corporeal things (Gen. ad lit. i, 15).
Iª q. 62 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod omnis forma inclinat suum subiectum secundum modum naturae eius. Modus autem naturalis intellectualis naturae est, ut libere feratur in ea quae vult. Et ideo inclinatio gratiae non imponit necessitatem, sed habens gratiam potest ea non uti, et peccare. Reply to Objection 2. Every form inclines the subject after the mode of the subject's nature. Now it is the mode of an intellectual nature to be inclined freely towards the objects it desires. Consequently the movement of grace does not impose necessity; but he who has grace can fail to make use of it, and can sin.
Iª q. 62 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, quamvis gratia sit medium inter naturam et gloriam ordine naturae tamen ordine temporis in natura creata non debuit simul esse gloria cum natura, quia est finis operationis ipsius naturae per gratiam adiutae. Gratia autem non se habet ut finis operationis, quia non est ex operibus; sed ut principium bene operandi. Et ideo statim cum natura gratiam dare conveniens fuit. Reply to Objection 3. Although in the order of nature grace comes midway between nature and glory, nevertheless, in the order of time, in created nature, glory is not simultaneous with nature; because glory is the end of the operation of nature helped by grace. But grace stands not as the end of operation, because it is not of works, but as the principle of right operation. Therefore it was fitting for grace to be given straightway with nature.
Iª q. 62 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus beatus suam beatitudinem non meruerit. Meritum enim est ex difficultate actus meritorii. Sed nullam difficultatem Angelus habuit ad bene operandum. Ergo bona operatio non fuit ei meritoria.
 Objection 1. It would seem that the angel did not merit his beatitude. For merit arises from the difficulty of the meritorious act. But the angel experienced no difficulty in acting rightly. Therefore righteous action was not meritorious for him.
Iª q. 62 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, naturalibus non meremur. Sed naturale fuit Angelo quod converteretur ad Deum. Ergo per hoc non meruit beatitudinem. Objection 2. Further, we do not merit by merely natural operations. But it was quite natural for the angel to turn to God. Therefore he did not thereby merit beatitude.
Iª q. 62 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, si Angelus beatus beatitudinem suam meruit, aut ergo antequam eam haberet, aut post. Sed non ante, quia, ut multis videtur, ante non habuit gratiam, sine qua nullum est meritum. Nec etiam post, quia sic etiam modo mereretur, quod videtur esse falsum, quia sic minor Angelus merendo ad superioris Angeli gradum posset pertingere, et non essent stabiles distinctiones graduum gratiae; quod est inconveniens. Non ergo Angelus beatus suam beatitudinem meruit. Objection 3. Further, if a beatified angel merited his beatitude, he did so either before he had it, or else afterwards. But it was not before; because, in the opinion of many, he had no grace before whereby to merit it. Nor did he merit it afterwards, because thus he would be meriting it now; which is clearly false, because in that case a lower angel could by meriting rise up to the rank of a higher, and the distinct degrees of grace would not be permanent; which is not admissible. Consequently the angel did not merit his beatitude.
Iª q. 62 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra, Apoc. XXI, dicitur quod mensura Angeli, in illa caelesti Ierusalem, est mensura hominis. Sed homo ad beatitudinem pertingere non potest nisi per meritum. Ergo neque Angelus. On the contrary, It is stated (Apocalypse 21:17) that the "measure of the angel" in that heavenly Jerusalem is "the measure of a man." Therefore the same is the case with the angel.
Iª q. 62 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod soli Deo beatitudo perfecta est naturalis quia idem est sibi esse et beatum esse. Cuiuslibet autem creaturae esse beatum non est natura, sed ultimus finis. Quaelibet autem res ad ultimum finem per suam operationem pertingit. Quae quidem operatio in finem ducens, vel est factiva finis, quando finis non excedit virtutem eius quod operatur propter finem, sicut medicatio est factiva sanitatis, vel est meritoria finis, quando finis excedit virtutem operantis propter finem, unde expectatur finis ex dono alterius. Beatitudo autem ultima excedit et naturam angelicam et humanam, ut ex dictis patet. Unde relinquitur quod tam homo quam Angelus suam beatitudinem meruerit. Et si quidem Angelus in gratia creatus fuit, sine qua nullum est meritum, absque difficultate dicere possumus quod suam beatitudinem meruerit. Et similiter si quis diceret quod qualitercumque gratiam habuerit antequam gloriam. Si vero gratiam non habuit antequam esset beatus, sic oportet dicere quod beatitudinem absque merito habuit, sicut nos gratiam. Quod tamen est contra rationem beatitudinis, quae habet rationem finis, et est praemium virtutis, ut etiam philosophus dicit, in I Ethic. Vel oportet dicere quod Angeli merentur beatitudinem per ea quae iam beati operantur in divinis ministeriis, ut alii dixerunt. Quod tamen est contra rationem meriti, nam meritum habet rationem viae ad finem, ei autem qui iam est in termino, non convenit moveri ad terminum; et sic nullus meretur quod iam habet. Vel oportet dicere quod unus et idem actus conversionis in Deum, inquantum est ex libero arbitrio, est meritorius; et inquantum pertingit ad finem, est fruitio beata. Sed nec hoc etiam videtur esse conveniens, quia liberum arbitrium non est sufficiens causa meriti unde actus non potest esse meritorius secundum quod est ex libero arbitrio, nisi inquantum est gratia informatus; non autem simul potest informari gratia imperfecta, quae est principium merendi, et gratia perfecta, quae est principium fruendi. Unde non videtur esse possibile quod simul fruatur, et suam fruitionem mereatur. Et ideo melius dicendum est quod gratiam habuit Angelus antequam esset beatus, per quam beatitudinem meruit. I answer that, Perfect beatitude is natural only to God, because existence and beatitude are one and the same thing in Him. Beatitude, however, is not of the nature of the creature, but is its end. Now everything attains its last end by its operation. Such operation leading to the end is either productive of the end, when such end is not beyond the power of the agent working for the end, as the healing art is productive of health; or else it is deserving of the end, when such end is beyond the capacity of the agent striving to attain it; wherefore it is looked for from another's bestowing. Now it is evident from what has gone before (1,2; 12, 4,5), ultimate beatitude exceeds both the angelic and the human nature. It remains, then, that both man and angel merited their beatitude. And if the angel was created in grace, without which there is no merit, there would be no difficulty in saying that he merited beatitude: as also, if one were to say that he had grace in any way before he had glory. But if he had no grace before entering upon beatitude, it would then have to be said that he had beatitude without merit, even as we have grace. This, however, is quite foreign to the idea of beatitude; which conveys the notion of an end, and is the reward of virtue, as even the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 9). Or else it will have to be said, as some others have maintained, that the angels merit beatitude by their present ministrations, while in beatitude. This is quite contrary, again, to the notion of merit: since merit conveys the idea of a means to an end; while what is already in its end cannot, properly speaking, be moved towards such end; and so no one merits to produce what he already enjoys. Or else it will have to be said that one and the same act of turning to God, so far as it comes of free-will, is meritorious; and so far as it attains the end, is the fruition of beatitude. Even this view will not stand, because free-will is not the sufficient cause of merit; and, consequently, an act cannot be meritorious as coming from free-will, except in so far as it is informed by grace; but it cannot at the same time be informed by imperfect grace, which is the principle of meriting, and by perfect grace, which is the principle of enjoying. Hence it does not appear to be possible for anyone to enjoy beatitude, and at the same time to merit it. Consequently it is better to say that the angel had grace ere he was admitted to beatitude, and that by such grace he merited beatitude.
Iª q. 62 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod difficultas bene operandi non est in Angelis ex aliqua contrarietate, vel impedimento naturalis virtutis; sed ex hoc quod opus aliquod bonum est supra virtutem naturae. Reply to Objection 1. The angel's difficulty of working righteously does not come from any contrariety or hindrance of natural powers; but from the fact that the good work is beyond his natural capacity.
Iª q. 62 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod conversione naturali Angelus non meruit beatitudinem, sed conversione caritatis, quae est per gratiam. Reply to Objection 2. An angel did not merit beatitude by natural movement towards God; but by the movement of charity, which comes of grace.
Iª q. 62 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium patet responsio ex dictis. The answer to the Third Objection is evident from what we have said.
Iª q. 62 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus non statim post unum actum meritorium beatitudinem habuerit. Difficilius enim est homini bene operari quam Angelo. Sed homo non praemiatur statim post unum actum. Ergo neque Angelus.
 Objection 1. It would seem that the angel did not possess beatitude instantly after one act of merit. For it is more difficult for a man to do well than for an angel. But man is not rewarded at once after one act of merit. Therefore neither was the angel.
Iª q. 62 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, Angelus statim in principio suae creationis, et in instanti, actum aliquem habere potuit, cum etiam corpora naturalia in ipso instanti suae creationis moveri incipiant, et si motus corporis in instanti esse posset, sicut opera intellectus et voluntatis, in primo instanti suae generationis motum haberent. Si ergo Angelus per unum motum suae voluntatis beatitudinem meruit, in primo instanti suae creationis meruit beatitudinem. Si ergo eorum beatitudo non retardatur, statim in primo instanti fuerunt beati. Objection 2. Further, an angel could act at once, and in an instant, from the very outset of his creation, for even natural bodies begin to be moved in the very instant of their creation; and if the movement of a body could be instantaneous, like operations of mind and will, it would have movement in the first instant of its generation. Consequently, if the angel merited beatitude by one act of his will, he merited it in the first instant of his creation; and so, if their beatitude was not retarded, then the angels were in beatitude in the first instant.
Iª q. 62 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, inter multum distantia oportet esse multa media. Sed status beatitudinis Angelorum multum distat a statu naturae eorum, medium autem inter utrumque est meritum. Oportuit igitur quod per multa media Angelus ad beatitudinem perveniret. Objection 3. Further, there must be many intervals between things which are far apart. But the beatific state of the angels is very far remote from their natural condition: while merit comes midway between. Therefore the angel would have to pass through many stages of merit in order to reach beatitude.
Iª q. 62 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra, anima hominis et Angelus similiter ad beatitudinem ordinantur, unde sanctis promittitur aequalitas Angelorum Luc. XX. Sed anima a corpore separata, si habeat meritum beatitudinis, statim beatitudinem consequitur, nisi aliud sit impedimentum. Ergo pari ratione et Angelus. Sed statim in primo actu caritatis habuit meritum beatitudinis. Ergo, cum in eo non esset aliquod impedimentum, statim ad beatitudinem pervenit per solum unum actum meritorium. On the contrary, Man's soul and an angel are ordained alike for beatitude: consequently equality with angels is promised to the saints. Now the soul separated from the body, if it has merit deserving beatitude, enters at once into beatitude, unless there be some obstacle. Therefore so does an angel. Now an angel instantly, in his first act of charity, had the merit of beatitude. Therefore, since there was no obstacle within him, he passed at once into beatitude by only one meritorious act.
Iª q. 62 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Angelus post primum actum caritatis quo beatitudinem meruit, statim beatus fuit. Cuius ratio est, quia gratia perficit naturam secundum modum naturae, sicut et omnis perfectio recipitur in perfectibili secundum modum eius. Est autem hoc proprium naturae angelicae, quod naturalem perfectionem non per discursum acquirat, sed statim per naturam habeat, sicut supra ostensum est. Sicut autem ex sua natura Angelus habet ordinem ad perfectionem naturalem, ita ex merito habet ordinem ad gloriam. Et ita statim post meritum in Angelo fuit beatitudo consecuta. Meritum autem beatitudinis, non solum in Angelo, sed etiam in homine esse potest per unicum actum, quia quolibet actu caritate informato homo beatitudinem meretur. Unde relinquitur quod statim post unum actum caritate informatum, Angelus beatus fuit. I answer that, The angel was beatified instantly after the first act of charity, whereby he merited beatitude. The reason whereof is because grace perfects nature according to the manner of the nature; as every perfection is received in the subject capable of perfection, according to its mode. Now it is proper to the angelic nature to receive its natural perfection not by passing from one stage to another; but to have it at once naturally, as was shown above (1; 58, 3,4). But as the angel is of his nature inclined to natural perfection, so is he by merit inclined to glory. Hence instantly after merit the angel secured beatitude. Now the merit of beatitude in angel and man alike can be from merely one act; because man merits beatitude by every act informed by charity. Hence it remains that an angel was beatified straightway after one act of charity.
Iª q. 62 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod homo secundum suam naturam non statim natus est ultimam perfectionem adipisci, sicut Angelus. Et ideo homini longior via data est ad merendum beatitudinem, quam Angelo. Reply to Objection 1. Man was not intended to secure his ultimate perfection at once, like the angel. Hence a longer way was assigned to man than to the angel for securing beatitude.
Iª q. 62 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Angelus est supra tempus rerum corporalium, unde instantia diversa in his quae ad Angelos pertinent, non accipiuntur nisi secundum successionem in ipsorum actibus. Non autem potuit simul in eis esse actus meritorius beatitudinis, et actus beatitudinis, qui est fruitio; cum unus sit gratiae imperfectae, et alius gratiae consummatae. Unde relinquitur quod oportet diversa instantia accipi, in quorum uno meruerit beatitudinem, et in alio fuerit beatus. Reply to Objection 2. The angel is above the time of corporeal things; hence the various instants regarding the angels are not to be taken except as reckoning the succession of their acts. Now their act which merited beatitude could not be in them simultaneously with the act of beatitude, which is fruition; since the one belongs to imperfect grace, and the other to consummate grace. Consequently, it remains for different instants to be conceived, in one of which the angel merited beatitude, and in another was beatified.
Iª q. 62 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod de natura Angeli est, quod statim suam perfectionem consequatur ad quam ordinatur. Et ideo non requiritur nisi unus actus meritorius; qui ea ratione medium dici potest, quia secundum ipsum Angelus ad beatitudinem ordinatur. Reply to Objection 3. It is of the nature of an angel instantly to attain the perfection unto which he is ordained. Consequently, only one meritorious act is required; which act can so far be called an interval as through it the angel is brought to beatitude.
Iª q. 62 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli non sint consecuti gratiam et gloriam secundum quantitatem suorum naturalium. Gratia enim ex mera Dei voluntate datur. Ergo et quantitas gratiae dependet ex voluntate Dei, et non ex quantitate naturalium.
 Objection 1. It would seem that the angels did not receive grace and glory according to the degree of their natural gifts. For grace is bestowed of God's absolute will. Therefore the degree of grace depends on God's will, and not on the degree of their natural gifts.
Iª q. 62 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, magis propinquum videtur ad gratiam actus humanus quam natura, quia actus humanus praeparatorius est ad gratiam. Sed gratia non est ex operibus, ut dicitur Rom. XI. Multo igitur minus quantitas gratiae in Angelis est secundum quantitatem naturalium. Objection 2. Further, a moral act seems to be more closely allied with grace than nature is; because a moral act is preparatory to grace. But grace does not come "of works," as is said Rm. 11:6. Therefore much less does the degree of grace depend upon the degree of their natural gifts.
Iª q. 62 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, homo et Angelus pariter ordinantur ad beatitudinem vel gratiam. Sed homini non datur plus de gratia secundum gradum naturalium. Ergo nec Angelo. Objection 3. Further, man and angel are alike ordained for beatitude or grace. But man does not receive more grace according to the degree of his natural gifts. Therefore neither does the angel.
Iª q. 62 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra est quod Magister dicit, III dist. II Sent., quod Angeli qui natura magis subtiles, et sapientia amplius perspicaces creati sunt, hi etiam maioribus gratiae muneribus praediti sunt. On the contrary, Is the saying of the Master of the Sentences (Sent. ii, D, 3) that "those angels who were created with more subtle natures and of keener intelligence in wisdom, were likewise endowed with greater gifts of grace."
Iª q. 62 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod rationabile est quod secundum gradum naturalium Angelis data sint dona gratiarum et perfectio beatitudinis. Cuius quidem ratio ex duobus accipi potest. Primo quidem ex parte ipsius Dei, qui per ordinem suae sapientiae diversos gradus in angelica natura constituit. Sicut autem natura angelica facta est a Deo ad gratiam et beatitudinem consequendam, ita etiam gradus naturae angelicae ad diversos gradus gratiae et gloriae ordinari videntur, ut puta, si aedificator lapides polit ad construendam domum, ex hoc ipso quod aliquos pulchrius et decentius aptat, videtur eos ad honoratiorem partem domus ordinare. Sic igitur videtur quod Deus Angelos quos altioris naturae fecit, ad maiora gratiarum dona et ampliorem beatitudinem ordinaverit. Secundo apparet idem ex parte ipsius Angeli. Non enim Angelus est compositus ex diversis naturis, ut inclinatio unius naturae impetum alterius impediat aut retardet; sicut in homine accidit, in quo motus intellectivae partis aut retardatur aut impeditur ex inclinatione partis sensitivae. Quando autem non est aliquid quod retardet aut impediat, natura secundum totam suam virtutem movetur. Et ideo rationabile est quod Angeli qui meliorem naturam habuerunt, etiam fortius et efficacius ad Deum sint conversi. Hoc autem etiam in hominibus contingit, quod secundum intensionem conversionis in Deum datur maior gratia et gloria. Unde videtur quod Angeli qui habuerunt meliora naturalia, habuerunt plus de gratia et gloria. I answer that, It is reasonable to suppose that gifts of graces and perfection of beatitude were bestowed on the angels according to the degree of their natural gifts. The reason for this can be drawn from two sources. First of all, on the part of God, Who, in the order of His wisdom, established various degrees in the angelic nature. Now as the angelic nature was made by God for attaining grace and beatitude, so likewise the grades of the angelic nature seem to be ordained for the various degrees of grace and glory; just as when, for example, the builder chisels the stones for building a house, from the fact that he prepares some more artistically and more fittingly than others, it is clear that he is setting them apart for the more ornate part of the house. So it seems that God destined those angels for greater gifts of grace and fuller beatitude, whom He made of a higher nature. Secondly, the same is evident on the part of the angel. The angel is not a compound of different natures, so that the inclination of the one thwarts or retards the tendency of the other; as happens in man, in whom the movement of his intellective part is either retarded or thwarted by the inclination of his sensitive part. But when there is nothing to retard or thwart it, nature is moved with its whole energy. So it is reasonable to suppose that the angels who had a higher nature, were turned to God more mightily and efficaciously. The same thing happens in men, since greater grace and glory are bestowed according to the greater earnestness of their turning to God. Hence it appears that the angels who had the greater natural powers, had the more grace and glory.
Iª q. 62 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut gratia est ex mera Dei voluntate, ita etiam et natura Angeli. Et sicut naturam Dei voluntas ordinavit ad gratiam ita et gradus naturae ad gradus gratiae. Reply to Objection 1. As grace comes of God's will alone, so likewise does the nature of the angel: and as God's will ordained nature for grace, so did it ordain the various degrees of nature to the various degrees of grace.
Iª q. 62 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod actus rationalis creaturae sunt ab ipsa; sed natura est immediate a Deo. Unde magis videtur quod gratia detur secundum gradum naturae, quam ex operibus. Reply to Objection 2. The acts of the rational creature are from the creature itself; whereas nature is immediately from God. Accordingly it seems rather that grace is bestowed according to degree of nature than according to works.
Iª q. 62 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod diversitas naturalium aliter est in Angelis, qui differunt specie; et aliter in hominibus, qui differunt solo numero. Differentia enim secundum speciem est propter finem, sed differentia secundum numerum est propter materiam. In homine etiam est aliquid quod potest impedire vel retardare motum intellectivae naturae, non autem in Angelis. Unde non est eadem ratio de utroque. Reply to Objection 3. Diversity of natural gifts is in one way in the angels, who are themselves different specifically; and in quite another way in men, who differ only numerically. For specific difference is on account of the end; while numerical difference is because of the matter. Furthermore, there is something in man which can thwart or impede the movement of his intellective nature; but not in the angels. Consequently the argument is not the same for both.
Iª q. 62 a. 7 arg. 1 Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Angelis beatis non remaneat cognitio et dilectio naturalis. Quia, ut dicitur I Cor. XIII, cum venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est. Sed dilectio et cognitio naturalis est imperfecta respectu cognitionis et dilectionis beatae. Ergo adveniente beatitudine, naturalis cognitio et dilectio cessat.
 Objection 1. It would seem that natural knowledge and love do not remain in the beatified angels. For it is said (1 Corinthians 13:10): "When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." But natural love and knowledge are imperfect in comparison with beatified knowledge and love. Therefore, in beatitude, natural knowledge and love cease.
Iª q. 62 a. 7 arg. 2 Praeterea, ubi unum sufficit, aliud superflue existit. Sed sufficit in Angelis beatis cognitio et dilectio gloriae. Superfluum ergo esset quod remaneret in eis cognitio et dilectio naturalis. Objection 2. Further, where one suffices, another is superfluous. But the knowledge and love of glory suffice for the beatified angels. Therefore it would be superfluous for their natural knowledge and love to remain.
Iª q. 62 a. 7 arg. 3 Praeterea, eadem potentia non habet simul duos actus; sicut nec una linea terminatur ex eadem parte ad duo puncta. Sed Angeli beati sunt semper in actu cognitionis et dilectionis beatae, felicitas enim non est secundum habitum, sed secundum actum, ut dicitur in I Ethic. Ergo nunquam in Angelis potest esse cognitio et dilectio naturalis. Objection 3. Further, the same faculty has not two simultaneous acts, as the same line cannot, at the same end, be terminated in two points. But the beatified angels are always exercising their beatified knowledge and love; for, as is said Ethic. i, 8, happiness consists not in habit, but in act. Therefore there can never be natural knowledge and love in the angels.
Iª q. 62 a. 7 s. c. Sed contra, quandiu manet natura aliqua, manet operatio eius. Sed beatitudo non tollit naturam; cum sit perfectio eius. Ergo non tollit naturalem cognitionem et dilectionem. On the contrary, So long as a nature endures, its operation remains. But beatitude does not destroy nature, since it is its perfection. Therefore it does not take away natural knowledge and love.
Iª q. 62 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in Angelis beatis remanet cognitio et dilectio naturalis. Sicut enim se habent principia operationum ad invicem, ita se habent et operationes ipsae. Manifestum est autem quod natura ad beatitudinem comparatur sicut primum ad secundum, quia beatitudo naturae additur. Semper autem oportet salvari primum in secundo. Unde oportet quod natura salvetur in beatitudine. Et similiter oportet quod in actu beatitudinis salvetur actus naturae. I answer that, Natural knowledge and love remain in the angels. For as principles of operations are mutually related, so are the operations themselves. Now it is manifest that nature is to beatitude as first to second; because beatitude is superadded to nature. But the first must ever be preserved in the second. Consequently nature must be preserved in beatitude: and in like manner the act of nature must be preserved in the act of beatitude.
Iª q. 62 a. 7 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod perfectio adveniens tollit imperfectionem sibi oppositam. Imperfectio autem naturae non opponitur perfectioni beatitudinis, sed substernitur ei, sicut imperfectio potentiae substernitur perfectioni formae, et non tollitur potentia per formam, sed tollitur privatio, quae opponitur formae. Et similiter etiam imperfectio cognitionis naturalis non opponitur perfectioni cognitionis gloriae, nihil enim prohibet simul aliquid cognoscere per diversa media, sicut simul potest aliquid cognosci per medium probabile, et demonstrativum. Et similiter potest Angelus simul Deum cognoscere per essentiam Dei, quod pertinet ad cognitionem gloriae, et per essentiam propriam, quod pertinet ad cognitionem naturae. Reply to Objection 1. The advent of a perfection removes the opposite imperfection. Now the imperfection of nature is not opposed to the perfection of beatitude, but underlies it; as the imperfection of the power underlies the perfection of the form, and the power is not taken away by the form, but the privation which is opposed to the form. In the same way, the imperfection of natural knowledge is not opposed to the perfection of the knowledge in glory; for nothing hinders us from knowing a thing through various mediums, as a thing may be known at the one time through a probable medium and through a demonstrative one. In like manner, an angel can know God by His essence, and this appertains to his knowledge of glory; and at the same time he can know God by his own essence, which belongs to his natural knowledge.
Iª q. 62 a. 7 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ea quae sunt beatitudinis, per se sufficiunt. Sed ad hoc quod sint, praeexigunt ea quae sunt naturae, quia nulla beatitudo est per se subsistens, nisi beatitudo increata. Reply to Objection 2. All things which make up beatitude are sufficient of themselves. But in order for them to exist, they presuppose the natural gifts; because no beatitude is self-subsisting, except the uncreated beatitude.
Iª q. 62 a. 7 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod duae operationes non possunt esse simul unius potentiae, nisi una ad aliam ordinetur. Cognitio autem et dilectio naturalis ordinantur ad cognitionem et dilectionem gloriae. Unde nihil prohibet in Angelo simul esse et cognitionem et dilectionem naturalem, et cognitionem et dilectionem gloriae. Reply to Objection 3. There cannot be two operations of the one faculty at the one time, except the one be ordained to the other. But natural knowledge and love are ordained to the knowledge and love of glory. Accordingly there is nothing to hinder natural knowledge and love from existing in the angel conjointly with those of glory.
Iª q. 62 a. 8 arg. 1 Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus beatus peccare possit. Beatitudo enim non tollit naturam, ut dictum est. Sed de ratione naturae creatae est quod possit deficere. Ergo Angelus beatus potest peccare.
 Objection 1. It would seem that a beatified angel can sin. For, as was said above (7), beatitude does not do away with nature. But it is of the very notion of created nature, that it can fail. Therefore a beatified angel can sin.
Iª q. 62 a. 8 arg. 2 Praeterea, potestates rationales sunt ad opposita, ut philosophus dicit. Sed voluntas Angeli beati non desinit esse rationalis. Ergo se habet ad bonum et malum. Objection 2. Further, the rational powers are referred to opposites, as the Philosopher observes (Metaph. iv, text. 3). But the will of the angel in beatitude does not cease to be rational. Therefore it is inclined towards good and evil.
Iª q. 62 a. 8 arg. 3 Praeterea, ad libertatem arbitrii pertinet quod homo possit eligere bonum et malum. Sed libertas arbitrii non minuitur in Angelis beatis. Ergo possunt peccare. Objection 3. Further, it belongs to the liberty of free-will for man to be able to choose good or evil. But the freedom of will is not lessened in the beatified angels. Therefore they can sin.
Iª q. 62 a. 8 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, XI super Gen. ad Litt., quod illa natura quae peccare non potest in sanctis Angelis est. Ergo sancti Angeli peccare non possunt. On the contrary, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi) that "there is in the holy angels that nature which cannot sin." Therefore the holy angels cannot sin.
Iª q. 62 a. 8 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Angeli beati peccare non possunt. Cuius ratio est, quia eorum beatitudo in hoc consistit, quod per essentiam Deum vident. Essentia autem Dei est ipsa essentia bonitatis. Unde hoc modo se habet Angelus videns Deum ad ipsum Deum, sicut se habet quicumque non videns Deum ad communem rationem boni. Impossibile est autem quod aliquis quidquam velit vel operetur, nisi attendens ad bonum; vel quod velit divertere a bono, inquantum huiusmodi. Angelus igitur beatus non potest velle vel agere, nisi attendens ad Deum. Sic autem volens vel agens non potest peccare. Unde Angelus beatus nullo modo peccare potest. I answer that, The beatified angels cannot sin. The reason for this is, because their beatitude consists in seeing God through His essence. Now, God's essence is the very essence of goodness. Consequently the angel beholding God is disposed towards God in the same way as anyone else not seeing God is to the common form of goodness. Now it is impossible for any man either to will or to do anything except aiming at what is good; or for him to wish to turn away from good precisely as such. Therefore the beatified angel can neither will nor act, except as aiming towards God. Now whoever wills or acts in this manner cannot sin. Consequently the beatified angel cannot sin.
Iª q. 62 a. 8 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod bonum creatum, in se consideratum, deficere potest. Sed ex coniunctione perfecta ad bonum increatum, qualis est coniunctio beatitudinis, adipiscitur quod peccare non possit, ratione iam dicta. Reply to Objection 1. Created good, considered in itself, can fail. But from its perfect union with the uncreated good, such as is the union of beatitude, it is rendered unable to sin, for the reason already alleged.
Iª q. 62 a. 8 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod virtutes rationales se habent ad opposita in illis ad quae non ordinantur naturaliter, sed quantum ad illa ad quae naturaliter ordinantur, non se habent ad opposita. Intellectus enim non potest non assentire principiis naturaliter notis, et similiter voluntas non potest non adhaerere bono inquantum est bonum, quia in bonum naturaliter ordinatur sicut in suum obiectum. Voluntas igitur Angeli se habet ad opposita, quantum ad multa facienda vel non facienda. Sed quantum ad ipsum Deum, quem vident esse ipsam essentiam bonitatis, non se habent ad opposita; sed secundum ipsum ad omnia diriguntur, quodcumque oppositorum eligant. Quod sine peccato est. Reply to Objection 2. The rational powers are referred to opposites in the things to which they are not inclined naturally; but as to the things whereunto they have a natural tendency, they are not referred to opposites. For the intellect cannot but assent to naturally known principles; in the same way, the will cannot help clinging to good, formally as good; because the will is naturally ordained to good as to its proper object. Consequently the will of the angels is referred to opposites, as to doing many things, or not doing them. But they have no tendency to opposites with regard to God Himself, Whom they see to be the very nature of goodness; but in all things their aim is towards God, which ever alternative they choose, that is not sinful.
Iª q. 62 a. 8 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod liberum arbitrium sic se habet ad eligendum ea quae sunt ad finem, sicut se habet intellectus ad conclusiones. Manifestum est autem quod ad virtutem intellectus pertinet, ut in diversas conclusiones procedere possit secundum principia data, sed quod in aliquam conclusionem procedat praetermittendo ordinem principiorum, hoc est ex defectu ipsius. Unde quod liberum arbitrium diversa eligere possit servato ordine finis, hoc pertinet ad perfectionem libertatis eius, sed quod eligat aliquid divertendo ab ordine finis, quod est peccare, hoc pertinet ad defectum libertatis. Unde maior libertas arbitrii est in Angelis, qui peccare non possunt, quam in nobis, qui peccare possumus. Reply to Objection 3. Free-will in its choice of means to an end is disposed just as the intellect is to conclusions. Now it is evident that it belongs to the power of the intellect to be able to proceed to different conclusions, according to given principles; but for it to proceed to some conclusion by passing out of the order of the principles, comes of its own defect. Hence it belongs to the perfection of its liberty for the free-will to be able to choose between opposite things, keeping the order of the end in view; but it comes of the defect of liberty for it to choose anything by turning away from the order of the end; and this is to sin. Hence there is greater liberty of will in the angels, who cannot sin, than there is in ourselves, who can sin.
Iª q. 62 a. 9 arg. 1 Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli beati in beatitudine proficere possint. Caritas enim est principium merendi. Sed in Angelis est perfecta caritas. Ergo Angeli beati possunt mereri. Crescente autem merito, et praemium beatitudinis crescit. Ergo Angeli beati in beatitudine proficere possunt.
 Objection 1. It would seem that the beatified angels can advance in beatitude. For charity is the principle of merit. But there is perfect charity in the angels. Therefore the beatified angels can merit. Now, as merit increases, the reward of beatitude increases. Therefore the beatified angels can progress in beatitude.
Iª q. 62 a. 9 arg. 2 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro de Doctr. Christ., quod Deus utitur nobis ad nostram utilitatem, et ad suam bonitatem. Et similiter Angelis, quibus utitur in ministeriis spiritualibus; cum sint administratorii spiritus, in ministerium missi propter eos qui haereditatem capiunt salutis, ut dicitur Heb. I. Non autem hoc esset ad eorum utilitatem, si per hoc non mererentur nec in beatitudine proficerent. Relinquitur ergo quod Angeli beati et mereri, et in beatitudine proficere possunt. Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i) that "God makes use of us for our own gain, and for His own goodness. The same thing happens to the angels, whom He uses for spiritual ministrations"; since "they are all [Vulg.: 'Are they not all . . . ?'] ministering spirits, sent to minister for them who shall receive the inheritance of salvation" (Hebrews 1:14). This would not be for their profit were they not to merit thereby, nor to advance to beatitude. It remains, then, that the beatified angels can merit, and can advance in beatitude.
Iª q. 62 a. 9 arg. 3 Praeterea, ad imperfectionem pertinet quod ille qui non est in summo, non possit proficere. Sed Angeli non sunt in summo. Si ergo ad maius proficere non possunt, videtur quod in eis sit imperfectio et defectus. Quod est inconveniens. Objection 3. Further, it argues imperfection for anyone not occupying the foremost place not to be able to advance. But the angels are not in the highest degree of beatitude. Therefore if unable to ascend higher, it would appear that there is imperfection and defect in them; which is not admissible.
Iª q. 62 a. 9 s. c. Sed contra est quod mereri et proficere pertinent ad statum viae. Sed Angeli non sunt viatores, sed comprehensores. Ergo Angeli beati non possunt mereri, nec in beatitudine proficere. On the contrary, Merit and progress belong to this present condition of life. But angels are not wayfarers travelling towards beatitude, they are already in possession of beatitude. Consequently the beatified angels can neither merit nor advance in beatitude.
Iª q. 62 a. 9 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in unoquoque motu motoris intentio fertur in aliquid determinatum, ad quod mobile perducere intendit, intentio enim est de fine cui repugnat infinitum. Manifestum est autem quod, cum creatura rationalis per suam virtutem consequi non possit suam beatitudinem, quae in visione Dei consistit, ut ex superioribus patet; indiget ut ad beatitudinem a Deo moveatur. Oportet igitur quod sit aliquid determinatum, ad quod quaelibet creatura rationalis dirigatur sicut in ultimum finem. Et hoc quidem determinatum non potest esse, in divina visione, quantum ad ipsum quod videtur, quia summa veritas ab omnibus beatis secundum diversos gradus conspicitur. Sed quantum ad modum visionis, praefigitur diversimode terminus ex intentione dirigentis in finem. Non enim possibile est quod, sicut rationalis creatura producitur ad videndum summam essentiam, ita producatur ad summum modum visionis, qui est comprehensio, hic enim modus soli Deo competere potest, ut ex supra dictis patet. Sed cum infinita efficacia requiratur ad Deum comprehendendum, creaturae vero efficacia in videndo non possit esse nisi finita; ab infinito autem finitum quodlibet infinitis gradibus distet; infinitis modis contingit creaturam rationalem intelligere Deum vel clarius vel minus clare. Et sicut beatitudo consistit in ipsa visione, ita gradus beatitudinis in certo modo visionis. Sic igitur unaquaeque creatura rationalis a Deo perducitur ad finem beatitudinis, ut etiam ad determinatum gradum beatitudinis perducatur ex praedestinatione Dei. Unde consecuto illo gradu, ad altiorem transire non potest. I answer that, In every movement the mover's intention is centered upon one determined end, to which he intends to lead the movable subject; because intention looks to the end, to which infinite progress is repugnant. Now it is evident, since the rational creature cannot of its own power attain to its beatitude, which consists in the vision of God, as is clear from what has gone before (12, 4), that it needs to be moved by God towards its beatitude. Therefore there must be some one determined thing to which every rational creature is directed as to its last end. Now this one determinate object cannot, in the vision of God, consist precisely in that which is seen; for the Supreme Truth is seen by all the blessed in various degrees: but it is on the part of the mode of vision, that diverse terms are fixed beforehand by the intention of Him Who directs towards the end. For it is impossible that as the rational creature is led on to the vision of the Supreme Essence, it should be led on in the same way to the supreme mode of vision, which is comprehension, for this belongs to God only; as is evident from what was said above (12, 7; 14, 3). But since infinite efficacy is required for comprehending God, while the creature's efficacy in beholding is only finite; and since every finite being is in infinite degrees removed from the infinite; it comes to pass that the rational creature understands God more or less clearly according to infinite degrees. And as beatitude consists in vision, so the degree of vision lies in a determinate mode of the vision. Therefore every rational creature is so led by God to the end of its beatitude, that from God's predestination it is brought even to a determinate degree of beatitude. Consequently, when that degree is once secured, it cannot pass to a higher degree.
Iª q. 62 a. 9 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod mereri est eius quod movetur ad finem. Movetur autem ad finem creatura rationalis, non solum patiendo, sed etiam operando. Et si quidem finis ille subsit virtuti rationalis creaturae, operatio illa dicetur acquisitiva illius finis, sicut homo meditando acquirit scientiam, si vero finis non sit in potestate eius, sed ab alio expectetur, operatio, erit meritoria finis. Ei autem quod est in ultimo termino, non convenit moveri, sed mutatum esse. Unde caritatis imperfectae, quae est viae, est mereri, caritatis autem perfectae non est mereri, sed potius praemio frui. Sicut et in habitibus acquisitis, operatio praecedens habitum est acquisitiva habitus, quae vero est ex habitu iam acquisito, est operatio iam perfecta cum delectatione. Et similiter actus caritatis perfectae non habet rationem meriti, sed magis est de perfectione praemii. Reply to Objection 1. Merit belongs to a subject which is moving towards its end. Now the rational creature is moved towards its end, not merely passively, but also by working actively. If the end is within the power of the rational creature, then its action is said to procure the end; as man acquires knowledge by reflection: but if the end be beyond its power, and is looked for from another, then the action will be meritorious of such end. But what is already in the ultimate term is not said to be moved, but to have been moved. Consequently, to merit belongs to the imperfect charity of this life; whereas perfect charity does not merit but rather enjoys the reward. Even as in acquired habits, the operation preceding the habit is productive of the habit; but the operation from an acquired habit is both perfect and enjoyable. In the same way the act of perfect charity has no quality of merit, but belongs rather to the perfection of the reward.
Iª q. 62 a. 9 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod aliquid dicitur utile dupliciter. Uno modo, sicut quod est in via ad finem, et sic utile est meritum beatitudinis. Alio modo, sicut pars est utilis ad totum, ut paries ad domum. Et hoc modo ministeria Angelorum sunt utilia Angelis beatis, inquantum sunt quaedam pars beatitudinis ipsorum, diffundere enim perfectionem habitam in alia, hoc est de ratione perfecti inquantum est perfectum. Reply to Objection 2. A thing can be termed useful in two ways. First of all, as being on the way to an end; and so the merit of beatitude is useful. Secondly, as the part is useful for the whole; as the wall for a house. In this way the angelic ministerings are useful for the beatified angels, inasmuch as they are a part of their beatitude; for to pour out acquired perfection upon others is of the nature of what is perfect, considered as perfect.
Iª q. 62 a. 9 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet Angelus beatus non sit in summo gradu beatitudinis simpliciter, est tamen in ultimo quantum ad seipsum, secundum praedestinationem divinam. Potest tamen augeri Angelorum gaudium de salute eorum qui per ipsorum ministerium salvantur; secundum illud Luc. XV, gaudium est Angelis Dei super uno peccatore poenitentiam agente. Sed hoc gaudium ad praemium accidentale pertinet, quod quidem augeri potest usque ad diem iudicii. Unde quidam dicunt quod, quantum ad praemium accidentale, etiam mereri possunt. Sed melius est ut dicatur quod nullo modo aliquis beatus mereri potest, nisi sit simul viator et comprehensor, ut Christus, qui solus fuit viator et comprehensor. Praedictum enim gaudium magis acquirunt ex virtute beatitudinis, quam illud mereantur. Reply to Objection 3. Although a beatified angel is not absolutely in the highest degree of beatitude, yet, in his own regard he is in the highest degree, according to Divine predestination. Nevertheless the joy of the angels can be increased with regard to the salvation of such as are saved by their ministrations, according to Lk. 15:10: "There is [Vulg.'shall be'] joy before the angels of God upon one sinner doing penance." Such joy belongs to their accidental reward, which can be increased unto judgment day. Hence some writers say that they can merit as to their accidental reward. But it is better to say that the Blessed can in no wise merit without being at the same time a wayfarer and a comprehensor; like Christ, Who alone was such. For the Blessed acquire such joy from the virtue of their beatitude, rather than merit it.
Iª q. 63 pr. Deinde considerandum est quomodo Angeli facti sunt mali. Et primo, quantum ad malum culpae; secundo, quantum ad malum poenae. Circa primum quaeruntur novem. Primo, utrum malum culpae in Angelo esse possit. Secundo, cuiusmodi peccata in eis esse possunt. Tertio, quid appetendo Angelus peccavit. Quarto, supposito quod aliqui peccato propriae voluntatis facti sunt mali, utrum aliqui naturaliter sint mali. Quinto, supposito quod non, utrum aliquis eorum in primo instanti suae creationis potuerit esse malus per actum propriae voluntatis. Sexto, supposito quod non, utrum aliqua mora fuerit inter creationem et lapsum. Septimo, utrum supremus inter cadentes, fuerit simpliciter inter omnes Angelos summus. Octavo, utrum peccatum primi Angeli fuerit aliis aliqua causa peccandi. Nono, utrum tot ceciderint, quot remanserunt.
Iª q. 63 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod malum culpae in Angelis esse non possit. Quia malum non potest esse nisi in his quae sunt in potentia, ut dicitur in IX Metaphys., subiectum enim privationis est ens in potentia. Sed Angeli, cum sint formae subsistentes, non habent esse in potentia. Ergo in eis non potest esse malum.
 Objection 1. It would seem that there can be no evil of fault in the angels. For there can be no evil except in things which are in potentiality, as is said by the Philosopher (Metaph. ix, text. 19), because the subject of privation is a being in potentiality. But the angels have not being in potentiality, since they are subsisting forms. Therefore there can be no evil in them.
Iª q. 63 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, Angeli sunt digniores quam corpora caelestia. Sed in corporibus caelestibus non potest esse malum, ut philosophi dicunt. Ergo neque in Angelis. Objection 2. Further, the angels are higher than the heavenly bodies. But philosophers say that there cannot be evil in the heavenly bodies. Therefore neither can there by in the angels.
Iª q. 63 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, id quod est naturale, semper inest. Sed naturale est Angelis quod moveantur motu dilectionis in Deum. Ergo hoc ab eis removeri non potest. Sed diligendo Deum non peccant. Ergo Angeli peccare non possunt. Objection 3. Further, what is natural to a thing is always in it. But it is natural for the angels to be moved by the movement of love towards God. Therefore such love cannot be withdrawn from them. But in loving God they do not sin. Consequently the angels cannot sin.
Iª q. 63 a. 1 arg. 4 Praeterea, appetitus non est nisi boni, vel apparentis boni. Sed in Angelis non potest esse apparens bonum, quod non sit verum bonum, quia in eis vel omnino error esse non potest, vel saltem non potest praecedere culpam. Ergo Angeli non possunt appetere nisi id quod est vere bonum. Sed nullus, appetendo id quod est vere bonum, peccat. Ergo Angelus appetendo non peccat. Objection 4. Further, desire is only of what is good or apparently good. Now for the angels there can be no apparent good which is not a true good; because in them either there can be no error at all, or at least not before guilt. Therefore the angels can desire only what it truly good. But no one sins by desiring what is truly good. Consequently the angel does not sin by desire.
Iª q. 63 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Iob IV, in Angelis suis reperit pravitatem. On the contrary, It is said (Job 4:18): "In His angels He found wickedness."
Iª q. 63 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod tam Angelus quam quaecumque creatura rationalis, si in sua sola natura consideretur, potest peccare, et cuicumque creaturae hoc convenit ut peccare non possit, hoc habet ex dono gratiae, non ex conditione naturae. Cuius ratio est, quia peccare nihil est aliud quam declinare a rectitudine actus quam debet habere; sive accipiatur peccatum in naturalibus, sive in artificialibus, sive in moralibus. Solum autem illum actum a rectitudine declinare non contingit, cuius regula est ipsa virtus agentis. Si enim manus artificis esset ipsa regula incisionis, nunquam posset artifex nisi recte lignum incidere, sed si rectitudo incisionis sit ab alia regula, contingit incisionem esse rectam et non rectam. Divina autem voluntas sola est regula sui actus, quia non ad superiorem finem ordinatur. Omnis autem voluntas cuiuslibet creaturae rectitudinem in suo actu non habet, nisi secundum quod regulatur a voluntate divina, ad quam pertinet ultimus finis, sicut quaelibet voluntas inferioris debet regulari secundum voluntatem superioris, ut voluntas militis secundum voluntatem ducis exercitus. Sic igitur in sola voluntate divina peccatum esse non potest, in qualibet autem voluntate creaturae potest esse peccatum, secundum conditionem suae naturae. I answer that, An angel or any other rational creature considered in his own nature, can sin; and to whatever creature it belongs not to sin, such creature has it as a gift of grace, and not from the condition of nature. The reason of this is, because sinning is nothing else than a deviation from that rectitude which an act ought to have; whether we speak of sin in nature, art, or morals. That act alone, the rule of which is the very virtue of the agent, can never fall short of rectitude. Were the craftsman's hand the rule itself engraving, he could not engrave the wood otherwise than rightly; but if the rightness of engraving be judged by another rule, then the engraving may be right or faulty. Now the Divine will is the sole rule of God's act, because it is not referred to any higher end. But every created will has rectitude of act so far only as it is regulated according to the Divine will, to which the last end is to be referred: as every desire of a subordinate ought to be regulated by the will of his superior; for instance, the soldier's will, according to the will of his commanding officer. Thus only in the Divine will can there be no sin; whereas there can be sin in the will of every creature; considering the condition of its nature.
Iª q. 63 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in Angelis non est potentia ad esse naturale. Est tamen in eis potentia secundum intellectivam partem, ad hoc quod convertantur in hoc vel in illud. Et quantum ad hoc, potest in eis esse malum. Reply to Objection 1. In the angels there is no potentiality to natural existence. Yet there is potentiality in their intellective part, as regards their being inclined to this or the other object. In this respect there can be evil in them.
Iª q. 63 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod corpora caelestia non habent operationem nisi naturalem. Et ideo sicut in natura eorum non potest esse corruptionis malum, ita nec in actione naturali eorum potest esse malum inordinationis. Sed supra actionem naturalem in Angelis est actio liberi arbitrii, secundum quam contingit in eis esse malum. Reply to Objection 2. The heavenly bodies have none but a natural operation. Therefore as there can be no evil of corruption in their nature; so neither can there be evil of disorder in their natural action. But besides their natural action there is the action of free-will in the angels, by reason of which evil may be in them.
Iª q. 63 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod naturale est Angelo quod convertatur motu dilectionis in Deum, secundum quod est principium naturalis esse. Sed quod convertatur in ipsum secundum quod est obiectum beatitudinis supernaturalis, hoc est ex amore gratuito, a quo averti potuit peccando. Reply to Objection 3. It is natural for the angel to turn to God by the movement of love, according as God is the principle of his natural being. But for him to turn to God as the object of supernatural beatitude, comes of infused love, from which he could be turned away by sinning.
Iª q. 63 a. 1 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod peccatum in actu liberi arbitrii contingit esse dupliciter. Uno modo, ex hoc quod aliquod malum eligitur, sicut homo peccat eligendo adulterium, quod secundum se est malum. Et tale peccatum semper procedit ex aliqua ignorantia vel errore, alioquin id quod est malum, non eligeretur ut bonum. Errat quidem adulter in particulari, eligens hanc delectationem inordinati actus quasi aliquod bonum ad nunc agendum, propter inclinationem passionis aut habitus; etiam si in universali non erret, sed veram de hoc sententiam teneat. Hoc autem modo in Angelo peccatum esse non potuit, quia nec in Angelis sunt passiones, quibus ratio aut intellectus ligetur, ut ex supra dictis patet; nec iterum primum peccatum habitus praecedere potuit ad peccatum inclinans. Alio modo contingit peccare per liberum arbitrium, eligendo aliquid quod secundum se est bonum, sed non cum ordine debitae mensurae aut regulae; ita quod defectus inducens peccatum sit solum ex parte electionis, quae non habet debitum ordinem, non ex parte rei electae; sicut si aliquis eligeret orare, non attendens ad ordinem ab Ecclesia institutum. Et huiusmodi peccatum non praeexigit ignorantiam, sed absentiam solum considerationis eorum quae considerari debent. Et hoc modo Angelus peccavit, convertendo se per liberum arbitrium ad proprium bonum, absque ordine ad regulam divinae voluntatis. Reply to Objection 4. Mortal sin occurs in two ways in the act of free-will. First, when something evil is chosen; as man sins by choosing adultery, which is evil of itself. Such sin always comes of ignorance or error; otherwise what is evil would never be chosen as good. The adulterer errs in the particular, choosing this delight of an inordinate act as something good to be performed now, from the inclination of passion or of habit; even though he does not err in his universal judgment, but retains a right opinion in this respect. In this way there can be no sin in the angel; because there are no passions in the angels to fetter reason or intellect, as is manifest from what has been said above (59, 4); nor, again, could any habit inclining to sin precede their first sin. In another way sin comes of free-will by choosing something good in itself, but not according to proper measure or rule; so that the defect which induces sin is only on the part of the choice which is not properly regulated, but not on the part of the thing chosen; as if one were to pray, without heeding the order established by the Church. Such a sin does not presuppose ignorance, but merely absence of consideration of the things which ought to be considered. In this way the angel sinned, by seeking his own good, from his own free-will, insubordinately to the rule of the Divine will.
Iª q. 63 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Angelis non possit esse solum peccatum superbiae et invidiae. In quemcumque enim cadit delectatio alicuius peccati, potest cadere peccatum illud. Sed Daemones delectantur etiam in obscenitatibus carnalium peccatorum, ut Augustinus dicit, II de Civ. Dei. Ergo in Daemonibus etiam peccata carnalia possunt esse.
 Objection 1. It would seem that there can be other sins in the angels besides those of pride and envy. Because whosoever can delight in any kind of sin, can fall into the sin itself. But the demons delight even in the obscenities of carnal sins; as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 3). Therefore there can also be carnal sins in the demons.
Iª q. 63 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, sicut superbia et invidia sunt peccata spiritualia, ita acedia et avaritia et ira. Sed spiritui conveniunt peccata spiritualia, sicut et carni peccata carnalia. Ergo non solum superbia et invidia in Angelis esse possunt, sed etiam acedia et avaritia. Objection 2. Further, as pride and envy are spiritual sins, so are sloth, avarice, and anger. But spiritual sins are concerned with the spirit, just as carnal sins are with the flesh. Therefore not only can there be pride and envy in the angels; but likewise sloth and avarice.
Iª q. 63 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, secundum Gregorium, in moralibus, ex superbia nascuntur plura vitia, et similiter ex invidia. Posita autem causa, ponitur effectus. Si ergo superbia et invidia in Angelis esse possunt, pari ratione et alia vitia in eis esse possunt. Objection 3. Further, according to Gregory (Moral. xxxi), many vices spring from pride; and in like manner from envy. But, if the cause is granted, the effect follows. If, therefore, there can be pride and envy in the angels, for the same reason there can likewise be other vices in them.
Iª q. 63 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, XIV libro de Civ. Dei, quod Diabolus non est fornicator aut ebriosus, neque aliquid huiusmodi, est tamen superbus et invidus. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 3) that the devil "is not a fornicator nor a drunkard, nor anything of the like sort; yet he is proud and envious."
Iª q. 63 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod peccatum aliquod in aliquo esse potest dupliciter, uno modo, secundum reatum; alio modo, secundum affectum. Secundum reatum quidem omnia peccata in Daemonibus esse contingit, quia dum homines ad omnia peccata inducunt, omnium peccatorum reatum incurrunt. Secundum affectum vero illa solum peccata in malis Angelis esse possunt, ad quae contingit affici spiritualem naturam. Spiritualem autem naturam affici non contingit ad bona quae sunt propria corpori, sed ad ea quae in rebus spiritualibus inveniri possunt, nihil enim afficitur nisi ad id quod suae naturae potest esse quodam modo conveniens. In spiritualibus autem bonis non potest esse peccatum dum aliquis ad ea afficitur, nisi per hoc quod in tali affectu superioris regula non servatur. Et hoc est peccatum superbiae, non subdi superiori in eo quo debet. Unde peccatum primum Angeli non potest esse aliud quam superbia. Sed consequenter potuit in eis esse etiam invidia. Eiusdem enim rationis est quod affectus tendat in aliquid appetendum, et quod renitatur opposito. Invidus autem ex hoc de bono alterius dolet, inquantum bonum alterius aestimat sui boni impedimentum. Non autem bonum alterius poterat aestimari impedimentum boni affectati per Angelum malum, nisi inquantum affectavit excellentiam singularem, quae quidem singularitas per alterius excellentiam cessat. Et ideo post peccatum superbiae consecutum est in Angelo peccante malum invidiae, secundum quod de bono hominis doluit; et etiam de excellentia divina, secundum quod eo Deus contra voluntatem ipsius Diaboli utitur in gloriam divinam. I answer that, Sin can exist in a subject in two ways: first of all by actual guilt, and secondly by affection. As to guilt, all sins are in the demons; since by leading men to sin they incur the guilt of all sins. But as to affection only those sins can be in the demons which can belong to a spiritual nature. Now a spiritual nature cannot be affected by such pleasures as appertain to bodies, but only by such as are in keeping with spiritual things; because nothing is affected except with regard to something which is in some way suited to its nature. But there can be no sin when anyone is incited to good of the spiritual order; unless in such affection the rule of the superior be not kept. Such is precisely the sin of pride--not to be subject to a superior when subjection is due. Consequently the first sin of the angel can be none other than pride. Yet, as a consequence, it was possible for envy also to be in them, since for the appetite to tend to the desire of something involves on its part resistance to anything contrary. Now the envious man repines over the good possessed by another, inasmuch as he deems his neighbor's good to be a hindrance to his own. But another's good could not be deemed a hindrance to the good coveted by the wicked angel, except inasmuch as he coveted a singular excellence, which would cease to be singular because of the excellence of some other. So, after the sin of pride, there followed the evil of envy in the sinning angel, whereby he grieved over man's good, and also over the Divine excellence, according as against the devil's will God makes use of man for the Divine glory.
Iª q. 63 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Daemones non delectantur in obscenitatibus carnalium peccatorum; quasi ipsi afficiantur ad delectationes carnales, sed hoc totum ex invidia procedit, quod in peccatis hominum quibuscumque delectantur, inquantum sunt impedimenta humani boni. Reply to Objection 1. The demons do not delight in the obscenities of the sins of the flesh, as if they themselves were disposed to carnal pleasures: it is wholly through envy that they take pleasure in all sorts of human sins, so far as these are hindrances to a man's good.
Iª q. 63 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod avaritia, secundum quod est speciale peccatum, est immoderatus appetitus rerum temporalium quae veniunt in usum vitae humanae, quaecumque pecunia aestimari possunt, et ad ista non afficiuntur Daemones, sicut nec ad delectationes carnales. Unde avaritia proprie sumpta in eis esse non potest. Sed si avaritia dicatur omnis immoderata cupiditas habendi quodcumque bonum creatum, sic avaritia continetur in superbia quae est in Daemonibus. Ira vero cum quadam passione est, sicut et concupiscentia. Unde ipsa in Daemonibus esse non potest nisi metaphorice. Acedia vero est quaedam tristitia, qua homo redditur tardus ad spirituales actus propter corporalem laborem; qui Daemonibus non competit. Et sic patet quod sola superbia et invidia sunt pure spiritualia peccata, quae Daemonibus competere possunt, ita tamen quod invidia non sumatur pro passione, sed pro voluntate renitente bono alterius. Reply to Objection 2. Avarice, considered as a special kind of sin, is the immoderate greed of temporal possessions which serve the use of human life, and which can be estimated in value of money; to these demons are not at all inclined, any more than they are to carnal pleasures. Consequently avarice properly so called cannot be in them. But if every immoderate greed of possessing any created good be termed avarice, in this way avarice is contained under the pride which is in the demons. Anger implies passion, and so does concupiscence; consequently they can only exist metaphorically in the demons. Sloth is a kind of sadness, whereby a man becomes sluggish in spiritual exercises because they weary the body; which does not apply to the demons. So it is evident that pride and envy are the only spiritual sins which can be found in demons; yet so that envy is not to be taken for a passion, but for a will resisting the good of another.
Iª q. 63 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod sub invidia et superbia, prout in Daemonibus ponuntur, comprehenduntur omnia peccata quae ab illis derivantur. Reply to Objection 3. Under envy and pride, as found in the demons, are comprised all other sins derived from them.
Iª q. 63 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Diabolus non appetierit esse ut Deus. Illud enim quod non cadit in apprehensione, non cadit in appetitu, cum bonum apprehensum moveat appetitum vel sensibilem vel rationalem, vel intellectualem (in solo enim huiusmodi appetitu contingit esse peccatum). Sed creaturam aliquam esse aequalem Deo, non cadit in apprehensione, implicat enim contradictionem, quia necesse est finitum esse infinitum, si aequatur infinito. Ergo Angelus non potuit appetere esse ut Deus.
 Objection 1. It would seem that the devil did not desire to be as God. For what does not fall under apprehension, does not fall under desire; because the good which is apprehended moves the appetite, whether sensible, rational, or intellectual; and sin consists only in such desire. But for any creature to be God's equal does not fall under apprehension, because it implies a contradiction; for if the finite equals the infinite, then it would itself be infinite. Therefore an angel could not desire to be as God.
Iª q. 63 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, illud quod est finis naturae, absque peccato appeti potest. Sed assimilari Deo est finis in quem tendit naturaliter quaelibet creatura. Si ergo Angelus appetiit esse ut Deus, non per aequalitatem, sed per similitudinem, videtur quod in hoc non peccaverit. Objection 2. Further, the natural end can always be desired without sin. But to be likened unto God is the end to which every creature naturally tends. If, therefore, the angel desired to be as God, not by equality, but by likeness, it would seem that he did not thereby sin.
Iª q. 63 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, Angelus in maiori plenitudine sapientiae conditus est quam homo. Sed nullus homo, nisi omnino amens, eligit esse aequalis Angelo, nedum Deo, quia electio non est nisi possibilium, de quibus est consilium. Ergo multo minus peccavit Angelus appetendo esse ut Deus. Objection 3. Further, the angel was created with greater fulness of wisdom than man. But no man, save a fool, ever makes choice of being the equal of an angel, still less of God; because choice regards only things which are possible, regarding which one takes deliberation. Therefore much less did the angel sin by desiring to be as God.
Iª q. 63 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Isaiae XIV, ex persona Diaboli, ascendam in caelum, et ero similis altissimo. Et Augustinus dicit in libro de quaestionibus Vet. Test., quod elatione inflatus, voluit dici Deus. On the contrary, It is said, in the person of the devil (Isaiah 14:13-14), "I will ascend into heaven . . . I will be like the Most High." And Augustine (De Qu. Vet. Test. cxiii) says that being "inflated with pride, he wished to be called God."
Iª q. 63 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Angelus, absque omni dubio, peccavit appetendo esse ut Deus. Sed hoc potest intelligi dupliciter, uno modo, per aequiparantiam; alio modo, per similitudinem. Primo quidem modo, non potuit appetere esse ut Deus, quia scivit hoc esse impossibile, naturali cognitione; nec primum actum peccandi in ipso praecessit vel habitus vel passio ligans cognoscitivam ipsius virtutem, ut in particulari deficiens eligeret impossibile, sicut in nobis interdum accidit. Et tamen, dato quod esset possibile, hoc esset contra naturale desiderium. Inest enim unicuique naturale desiderium ad conservandum suum esse, quod non conservaretur, si transmutaretur in alteram naturam. Unde nulla res quae est in inferiori gradu naturae, potest appetere superioris naturae gradum, sicut asinus non appetit esse equus, quia si transferretur in gradum superioris naturae, iam ipsum non esset. Sed in hoc imaginatio decipitur, quia enim homo appetit esse in altiori gradu quantum ad aliqua accidentalia, quae possunt crescere absque corruptione subiecti, aestimatur quod possit appetere altiorem gradum naturae, in quem pervenire non posset nisi esse desineret. Manifestum est autem quod Deus excedit Angelum, non secundum aliqua accidentalia, sed secundum gradum naturae, et etiam unus Angelus alium. Unde impossibile est quod Angelus inferior appetat esse aequalis superiori; nedum quod appetat esse aequalis Deo. Appetere autem esse ut Deus per similitudinem, contingit dupliciter. Uno modo, quantum ad id in quo aliquid natum est Deo assimilari. Et sic, si aliquis quantum ad hoc appetat esse Deo similis, non peccat, dummodo similitudinem Dei debito ordine appetat adipisci, ut scilicet eam a Deo habeat. Peccaret vero si quis etiam appeteret secundum iustitiam esse similis Deo, quasi propria virtute, et non ex virtute Dei. Alio vero modo potest aliquis appetere similis esse Deo, quantum ad hoc in quo non natus est assimilari; sicut si quis appeteret creare caelum et terram, quod est proprium Dei; in quo appetitu esset peccatum. Et hoc modo Diabolus appetiit esse ut Deus. Non ut ei assimilaretur quantum ad hoc quod est nulli subesse simpliciter, quia sic etiam suum non esse appeteret, cum nulla creatura esse possit nisi per hoc quod sub Deo esse participat. Sed in hoc appetiit esse similis Deo, quia appetiit ut finem ultimum beatitudinis id ad quod virtute suae naturae poterat pervenire, avertens suum appetitum a beatitudine supernaturali, quae est ex gratia Dei. Vel si appetiit ut ultimum finem illam Dei similitudinem quae datur ex gratia, voluit hoc habere per virtutem suae naturae, non ex divino auxilio secundum Dei dispositionem. Et hoc consonat dictis Anselmi, qui dicit quod appetiit illud ad quod pervenisset si stetisset. Et haec duo quodammodo in idem redeunt, quia secundum utrumque appetiit finalem beatitudinem per suam virtutem habere, quod est proprium Dei. Quia vero quod est per se, est principium et causa eius quod est per aliud, ex hoc etiam consecutum est quod appetiit aliquem principatum super alia habere. In quo etiam perverse voluit Deo assimilari. I answer that, Without doubt the angel sinned by seeking to be as God. But this can be understood in two ways: first, by equality; secondly, by likeness. He could not seek to be as God in the first way; because by natural knowledge he knew that this was impossible: and there was no habit preceding his first sinful act, nor any passion fettering his mind, so as to lead him to choose what was impossible by failing in some particular; as sometimes happens in ourselves. And even supposing it were possible, it would be against the natural desire; because there exists in everything the natural desire of preserving its own nature; which would not be preserved were it to be changed into another nature. Consequently, no creature of a lower order can ever covet the grade of a higher nature; just as an ass does not desire to be a horse: for were it to be so upraised, it would cease to be itself. But herein the imagination plays us false; for one is liable to think that, because a man seeks to occupy a higher grade as to accidentals, which can increase without the destruction of the subject, he can also seek a higher grade of nature, to which he could not attain without ceasing to exist. Now it is quite evident that God surpasses the angels, not merely in accidentals, but also in degree of nature; and one angel, another. Consequently it is impossible for one angel of lower degree to desire equality with a higher; and still more to covet equality with God. To desire to be as God according to likeness can happen in two ways. In one way, as to that likeness whereby everything is made to be likened unto God. And so, if anyone desire in this way to be Godlike, he commits no sin; provided that he desires such likeness in proper order, that is to say, that he may obtain it of God. But he would sin were he to desire to be like unto God even in the right way, as of his own, and not of God's power. In another way one may desire to be like unto God in some respect which is not natural to one; as if one were to desire to create heaven and earth, which is proper to God; in which desire there would be sin. It was in this way that the devil desired to be as God. Not that he desired to resemble God by being subject to no one else absolutely; for so he would be desiring his own 'not-being'; since no creature can exist except by holding its existence under God. But he desired resemblance with God in this respect--by desiring, as his last end of beatitude, something which he could attain by the virtue of his own nature, turning his appetite away from supernatural beatitude, which is attained by God's grace. Or, if he desired as his last end that likeness of God which is bestowed by grace, he sought to have it by the power of his own nature; and not from Divine assistance according to God's ordering. This harmonizes with Anselm's opinion, who says [De casu diaboli, iv.] that "he sought that to which he would have come had he stood fast." These two views in a manner coincide; because according to both, he sought to have final beatitude of his own power, whereas this is proper to God alone. Since, then, what exists of itself is the cause of what exists of another, it follows from this furthermore that he sought to have dominion over others; wherein he also perversely wished to be like unto God.
Iª q. 63 a. 3 ad arg. Et per hoc patet responsio ad omnia obiecta. From this we have the answer to all the objections.
Iª q. 63 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliqui Daemones sint naturaliter mali. Dicit enim Porphyrius, ut Augustinus introducit X de Civ. Dei, quod est quoddam genus Daemonum natura fallax, simulans deos et animas defunctorum. Sed esse fallacem est esse malum. Ergo aliqui Daemones sunt naturaliter mali.
 Objection 1. It would seem that some demons are naturally wicked. For Porphyry says, as quoted by Augustine (De Civ. Dei x, 11): "There is a class of demons of crafty nature, pretending that they are gods and the souls of the dead." But to be deceitful is to be evil. Therefore some demons are naturally wicked.
Iª q. 63 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, sicut Angeli sunt creati a Deo, ita et homines. Sed aliqui homines sunt naturaliter mali, de quibus dicitur Sap. XII, erat eorum malitia naturalis. Ergo et Angeli aliqui possunt esse naturaliter mali. Objection 2. Further, as the angels are created by God, so are men. But some men are naturally wicked, of whom it is said (Wisdom 12:10): "Their malice is natural." Therefore some angels may be naturally wicked.
Iª q. 63 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, aliqua animalia irrationalia habent quasdam naturales malitias, sicut vulpes naturaliter est subdola, et lupus naturaliter est rapax, et tamen sunt creaturae Dei. Ergo et Daemones, licet sint creaturae Dei, possunt esse naturaliter mali. Objection 3. Further, some irrational animals have wicked dispositions by nature: thus the fox is naturally sly, and the wolf naturally rapacious; yet they are God's creatures. Therefore, although the demons are God's creatures, they may be naturally wicked.
Iª q. 63 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod Daemones non sunt natura mali. On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "the demons are not naturally wicked."
Iª q. 63 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod omne quod est, inquantum est et naturam habet aliquam, in bonum aliquod naturaliter tendit, utpote ex principio bono existens, quia semper effectus convertitur in suum principium. Contingit autem alicui bono particulari aliquod malum esse adiunctum, sicut igni coniungitur hoc malum quod est esse consumptivum aliorum, sed bono universali nullum malum potest esse adiunctum. Si ergo aliquid sit cuius natura ordinetur in aliquod bonum particulare, potest naturaliter tendere in aliquod malum, non inquantum malum, sed per accidens, inquantum est coniunctum cuidam bono. Si vero aliquid sit cuius natura ordinetur in aliquod bonum secundum communem boni rationem hoc secundum suam naturam non potest tendere in aliquod malum. Manifestum est autem quod quaelibet natura intellectualis habet ordinem in bonum universale, quod potest apprehendere, et quod est obiectum voluntatis. Unde cum Daemones sint substantiae intellectuales, nullo modo possunt habere inclinationem naturalem in aliquod quodcumque malum. Et ideo non possunt esse naturaliter mali. I answer that, Everything which exists, so far as it exists and has a particular nature, tends naturally towards some good; since it comes from a good principle; because the effect always reverts to its principle. Now a particular good may happen to have some evil connected with it; thus fire has this evil connected with it that it consumes other things: but with the universal good no evil can be connected. If, then, there be anything whose nature is inclined towards some particular good, it can tend naturally to some evil; not as evil, but accidentally, as connected with some good. But if anything of its nature be inclined to good in general, then of its own nature it cannot be inclined to evil. Now it is manifest that every intellectual nature is inclined towards good in general, which it can apprehend and which is the object of the will. Hence, since the demons are intellectual substances, they can in no wise have a natural inclination towards any evil whatsoever; consequently they cannot be naturally evil.
Iª q. 63 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Augustinus ibidem reprehendit Porphyrium de hoc quod dixit quod Daemones erant naturaliter fallaces, dicens eos non esse naturaliter fallaces, sed propria voluntate. Porphyrius autem hac ratione posuit Daemones esse natura fallaces, quia ponebat Daemones esse animalia habentia naturam sensitivam. Natura autem sensitiva ordinatur ad aliquod bonum particulare, cui potest esse coniunctum malum. Et secundum hoc, aliquam inclinationem naturalem habere possunt ad malum; per accidens tamen, inquantum malum est coniunctum bono. Reply to Objection 1. Augustine rebukes Porphyry for saying that the demons are naturally deceitful; himself maintaining that they are not naturally so, but of their own will. Now the reason why Porphyry held that they are naturally deceitful was that, as he contended, demons are animals with a sensitive nature. Now the sensitive nature is inclined towards some particular good, with which evil may be connected. In this way, then, it can have a natural inclination to evil; yet only accidentally, inasmuch as evil is connected with good.
Iª q. 63 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod malitia aliquorum hominum potest dici naturalis, vel propter consuetudinem, quae est altera natura; vel propter naturalem inclinationem ex parte naturae sensitivae, ad aliquam inordinatam passionem, sicut quidam dicuntur naturaliter iracundi vel concupiscentes; non autem ex parte naturae intellectualis. Reply to Objection 2. The malice of some men can be called natural, either because of custom which is a second nature; or on account of the natural proclivity on the part of the sensitive nature to some inordinate passion, as some people are said to be naturally wrathful or lustful; but not on the part of the intellectual nature.
Iª q. 63 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod animalia bruta secundum naturam sensitivam habent naturalem inclinationem ad quaedam particularia bona, quibus coniuncta sunt aliqua mala; sicut vulpes ad quaerendum victum sagaciter, cui adiungitur dolositas. Unde esse dolosum non est malum vulpi, cum sit ei naturale; sicut nec esse furiosum est malum cani, sicut Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Reply to Objection 3. Brute beasts have a natural inclination in their sensitive nature towards certain particular goods, with which certain evils are connected; thus the fox in seeking its food has a natural inclination to do so with a certain skill coupled with deceit. Wherefore it is not evil in the fox to be sly, since it is natural to him; as it is not evil in the dog to be fierce, as Dionysius observes (De Div. Nom. iv).
Iª q. 63 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Diabolus in primo instanti suae creationis fuerit malus per culpam propriae voluntatis. Dicitur enim Ioan. VIII, de Diabolo, ille homicida erat ab initio.
 Objection 1. It would seem that the devil was wicked by the fault of his own will in the first instant of his creation. For it is said of the devil (John 8:44): "He was a murderer from the beginning."
Iª q. 63 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, secundum Augustinum, I super Gen. ad Litt., informitas creaturae non praecessit formationem tempore, sed origine tantum. Per caelum autem quod legitur primo creatum, ut ipse dicit in II libro, intelligitur natura angelica informis; per hoc autem quod dicitur quod Deus dixit, fiat lux, et facta est lux, intelligitur formatio eius per conversionem ad verbum; simul ergo natura Angeli creata est, et facta est lux. Sed simul dum facta est lux, distincta est a tenebris, per quas intelliguntur Angeli peccantes. Ergo in primo instanti suae creationis quidam Angeli fuerunt beati, et quidam peccaverunt. Objection 2. Further, according to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. i, 15), the lack of form in the creature did not precede its formation in order of time, but merely in order of nature. Now according to him (Gen. ad lit. ii, 8), the "heaven," which is said to have been created in the beginning, signifies the angelic nature while as yet not fully formed: and when it is said that God said: "Be light made: and light was made," we are to understand the full formation of the angel by turning to the Word. Consequently, the nature of the angel was created, and light was made, in the one instant. But at the same moment that light was made, it was made distinct from "darkness," whereby the angels who sinned are denoted. Therefore in the first instant of their creation some of the angels were made blessed, and some sinned.
Iª q. 63 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, peccatum opponitur merito. Sed in primo instanti suae creationis aliqua natura intellectualis potest mereri; sicut anima Christi, vel etiam ipsi boni Angeli. Ergo et Daemones in primo instanti suae creationis potuerunt peccare. Objection 3. Further, sin is opposed to merit. But some intellectual nature can merit in the first instant of its creation; as the soul of Christ, or also the good angels. Therefore the demons likewise could sin in the first instant of their creation.
Iª q. 63 a. 5 arg. 4 Praeterea, natura angelica virtuosior est quam natura corporea. Sed res corporalis statim in primo instanti suae creationis incipit habere suam operationem; sicut ignis in primo instanti quo generatus est, incipit moveri sursum. Ergo et Angelus in primo instanti suae creationis potuit operari. Aut ergo habuit operationem rectam, aut non rectam. Si rectam, cum gratiam habuerint, per eam meruerunt beatitudinem. In Angelis autem statim ad meritum sequitur praemium, ut supra dictum est. Ergo fuissent statim beati, et ita nunquam peccassent, quod est falsum. Relinquitur ergo quod in primo instanti, non recte operando, peccaverunt. Objection 4. Further, the angelic nature is more powerful than the corporeal nature. But a corporeal thing begins to have its operation in the first instant of its creation; as fire begins to move upwards in the first instant it is produced. Therefore the angel could also have his operation in the first instant of his creation. Now this operation was either ordinate or inordinate. It ordinate, then, since he had grace, he thereby merited beatitude. But with the angels the reward follows immediately upon merit; as was said above (62, 5). Consequently they would have become blessed at once; and so would never have sinned, which is false. It remains, then, that they sinned by inordinate action in their first instant.
Iª q. 63 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Gen. I, vidit Deus cuncta quae fecerat, et erant valde bona. Inter ea autem erant etiam Daemones. Ergo et Daemones aliquando fuerunt boni. On the contrary, It is written (Genesis 1:31): "God saw all the things that He had made, and they were very good." But among them were also the demons. Therefore the demons were at some time good.
Iª q. 63 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod quidam posuerunt quod statim Daemones in primo instanti suae creationis mali fuerunt, non quidem per naturam, sed per peccatum propriae voluntatis, quia ex quo est factus Diabolus, iustitiam recusavit. Cui sententiae, ut Augustinus dicit, XI de Civ. Dei, quisquis acquiescit, non cum illis haereticis sapit, idest Manichaeis, qui dicunt quod Diabolus habet naturam mali. Sed quia haec opinio auctoritati Scripturae contradicit (dicitur enim, sub figura principis Babylonis, de Diabolo, Isaiae XIV, quomodo cecidisti, Lucifer, qui mane oriebaris? Et Ezech. XXVIII, in deliciis Paradisi Dei fuisti dicitur ad Diabolum sub persona regis Tyri), ideo a magistris haec opinio tanquam erronea rationabiliter reprobata est. Unde aliqui dixerunt quod Angeli in primo instanti suae creationis peccare potuerunt, sed non peccaverunt. Sed haec opinio etiam a quibusdam improbatur ea ratione quia, cum duae operationes se consequuntur, impossibile videtur quod in eodem nunc utraque operatio terminetur. Manifestum est autem quod peccatum Angeli fuit operatio creatione posterior. Terminus autem creationis est ipsum esse Angeli; terminus vero operationis peccati est quod sunt mali. Impossibile ergo videtur quod in primo instanti quo Angelus esse coepit, fuerit malus. Sed haec ratio non videtur sufficiens. Habet enim solum locum in motibus temporalibus, qui successive aguntur; sicut si motus localis sequitur ad alterationem, non potest in eodem instanti terminari alteratio et localis motus. Sed si sunt mutationes instantaneae, simul et in eodem instanti potest esse terminus primae et secundae mutationis; sicut in eodem instanti in quo illuminatur luna a sole, illuminatur aer a luna. Manifestum est autem quod creatio est instantanea; et similiter motus liberi arbitrii in Angelis; non enim indigent collatione et discursu rationis, ut ex supra dictis patet. Unde nihil prohibet simul et in eodem instanti esse terminum creationis, et terminum liberi arbitrii. Et ideo aliter dicendum est, quod impossibile fuit Angelum in primo instanti peccasse per inordinatum actum liberi arbitrii. Quamvis enim res aliqua in primo instanti quo esse incipit, simul incipere possit operari; tamen illa operatio quae simul incipit cum esse rei, est ei ab agente a quo habet esse; sicut moveri sursum inest igni a generante. Unde si aliqua res habeat esse ab agente deficiente, quod possit esse causa defectivae actionis, poterit in primo instanti in quo incipit esse, habere defectivam operationem; sicut si tibia quae nascitur clauda ex debilitate seminis, statim incipiat claudicare. Agens autem quod Angelos in esse produxit, scilicet Deus, non potest esse causa peccati. Unde non potest dici quod Diabolus in primo instanti suae creationis fuerit malus. I answer that, Some have maintained that the demons were wicked straightway in the first instant of their creation; not by their nature, but by the sin of their own will; because, as soon as he was made, the devil refused righteousness. To this opinion, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 13), if anyone subscribes, he does not agree with those Manichean heretics who say that the devil's nature is evil of itself. Since this opinion, however, is in contradiction with the authority of Scripture--for it is said of the devil under the figure of the prince of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12): "How art thou fallen . . . O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning!" and it is said to the devil in the person of the King of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:13): "Thou wast in the pleasures of the paradise of God," --consequently, this opinion was reasonably rejected by the masters as erroneous. Hence others have said that the angels, in the first instant of their creation, could have sinned, but did not. Yet this view also is repudiated by some, because, when two operations follow one upon the other, it seems impossible for each operation to terminate in the one instant. Now it is clear that the angel's sin was an act subsequent to his creation. But the term of the creative act is the angel's very being, while the term of the sinful act is the being wicked. It seems, then, an impossibility for the angel to have been wicked in the first instant of his existence. This argument, however, does not satisfy. For it holds good only in such movements as are measured by time, and take place successively; thus, if local movement follows a change, then the change and the local movement cannot be terminated in the same instant. But if the changes are instantaneous, then all at once and in the same instant there can be a term to the first and the second change; thus in the same instant in which the moon is lit up by the sun, the atmosphere is lit up by the moon. Now, it is manifest that creation is instantaneous; so also is the movement of free-will in the angels; for, as has been already stated, they have no occasion for comparison or discursive reasoning (58, 3 ). Consequently, there is nothing to hinder the term of creation and of free-will from existing in the same instant. We must therefore reply that, on the contrary, it was impossible for the angel to sin in the first instant by an inordinate act of free-will. For although a thing can begin to act in the first instant of its existence, nevertheless, that operation which begins with the existence comes of the agent from which it drew its nature; just as upward movement in fire comes of its productive cause. Therefore, if there be anything which derives its nature from a defective cause, which can be the cause of a defective action, it can in the first instant of its existence have a defective operation; just as the leg, which is defective from birth, through a defect in the principle of generation, begins at once to limp. But the agent which brought the angels into existence, namely, God, cannot be the cause of sin. Consequently it cannot be said that the devil was wicked in the first instant of his creation.
Iª q. 63 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, XI de Civ. Dei, cum dicitur quod Diabolus ab initio peccat non ab initio ex quo creatus est, peccare putandus est, sed ab initio peccati; scilicet quia nunquam a peccato suo recessit. Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 15), when it is stated that "the devil sins from the beginning," "he is not to be thought of as sinning from the beginning wherein he was created, but from the beginning of sin": that is to say, because he never went back from his sin.
Iª q. 63 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod illa distinctio lucis et tenebrarum, secundum quod per tenebras peccata Daemonum intelliguntur, accipienda est secundum Dei praescientiam. Unde Augustinus dicit, XI de Civ. Dei, quod solus lucem ac tenebras discernere potuit, qui potuit etiam, priusquam caderent, praescire casuros. Reply to Objection 2. That distinction of light and darkness, whereby the sins of the demons are understood by the term darkness, must be taken as according to God's foreknowledge. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 15), that "He alone could discern light and darkness, Who also could foreknow, before they fell, those who would fall."
Iª q. 63 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod quidquid est in merito, est a Deo, et ideo in primo instanti suae creationis Angelus mereri potuit. Sed non est similis ratio de peccato, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 3. All that is in merit is from God; and consequently an angel could merit in the first instant of his creation. The same reason does not hold good of sin; as has been said.
Iª q. 63 a. 5 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod Deus non discrevit inter Angelos ante aversionem quorundam et conversionem aliorum, ut Augustinus dicit, XI de Civ. Dei, et ideo omnes, in gratia creati in primo instanti meruerunt. Sed quidam eorum statim impedimentum praestiterunt suae beatitudinis, praecedens meritum mortificantes. Et ideo beatitudine quam meruerunt, sunt privati. Reply to Objection 4. God did not distinguish between the angels before the turning away of some of them, and the turning of others to Himself, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 15). Therefore, as all were created in grace, all merited in their first instant. But some of them at once placed an impediment to their beatitude, thereby destroying their preceding merit; and consequently they were deprived of the beatitude which they had merited.
Iª q. 63 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliqua mora fuerit inter creationem et lapsum Angeli. Dicitur enim Ezech. XXVIII, ambulasti perfectus in viis tuis a die conceptionis tuae, donec inventa est iniquitas in te. Sed ambulatio, cum sit motus continuus, requirit aliquam moram. Ergo aliqua mora fuit inter creationem Diaboli et eius lapsum.
 Objection 1. It would seem that there was some interval between the angel's creation and his fall. For, it is said (Ezekiel 28:15): "Thou didst walk perfect [Vulg.: 'Thou hast walked in the midst of the stones of fire; thou wast perfect . . .'] in thy ways from the day of thy creation until iniquity was found in thee." But since walking is continuous movement, it requires an interval. Therefore there was some interval between the devil's creation and his fall.
Iª q. 63 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, Origenes dicit quod serpens antiquus non statim supra pectus et ventrem suum ambulavit; per quod intelligitur eius peccatum. Ergo Diabolus non statim post primum instans suae creationis peccavit. Objection 2. Further, Origen says (Hom. i in Ezech.) that "the serpent of old did not from the first walk upon his breast and belly"; which refers to his sin. Therefore the devil did not sin at once after the first instant of his creation.
Iª q. 63 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, posse peccare commune est homini et Angelo. Fuit autem aliqua mora inter formationem hominis et eius peccatum. Ergo, pari ratione, fuit aliqua mora inter formationem Diaboli et eius peccatum. Objection 3. Further, capability of sinning is common alike to man and angel. But there was some delay between man's formation and his sin. Therefore, for the like reason there was some interval between the devil's formation and his sin.
Iª q. 63 a. 6 arg. 4 Praeterea, aliud instans fuit in quo Diabolus peccavit, ab instanti in quo creatus fuit. Sed inter quaelibet duo instantia cadit tempus medium. Ergo aliqua mora fuit inter creationem eius et lapsum. Objection 4. Further, the instant wherein the devil sinned was distinct from the instant wherein he was created. But there is a middle time between every two instants. Therefore there was an interval between his creation and his fall.
Iª q. 63 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Ioan. VIII, de Diabolo, quod in veritate non stetit. Et sicut Augustinus dicit, XI de Civ. Dei, oportet ut hoc sic accipiamus, quod in veritate fuerit, sed non permanserit. On the contrary, It is said of the devil (John 8:44): "He stood not in the truth": and, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 15), "we must understand this in the sense, that he was in the truth, but did not remain in it."
Iª q. 63 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod circa hoc est duplex opinio. Sed probabilior, et sanctorum dictis magis consona est, quod statim post primum instans suae creationis Diabolus peccaverit. Et hoc necesse est dicere, si ponatur quod in primo instanti suae creationis in actum liberi arbitrii proruperit, et cum gratia fuerit creatus, ut supra diximus. Cum enim Angeli per unum actum meritorium ad beatitudinem perveniant, ut supra dictum est; si Diabolus in primo instanti, in gratia creatus, meruit, statim post primum instans beatitudinem accepisset, nisi statim impedimentum praestitisset peccando. Si vero ponatur quod Angelus in gratia creatus non fuerit; vel quod in primo instanti actum liberi arbitrii non potuerit habere; nihil prohibet aliquam moram fuisse inter creationem et lapsum. I answer that, There is a twofold opinion on this point. But the more probable one, which is also more in harmony with the teachings of the Saints, is that the devil sinned at once after the first instant of his creation. This must be maintained if it be held that he elicited an act of free-will in the first instant of his creation, and that he was created in grace; as we have said (62, 3). For since the angels attain beatitude by one meritorious act, as was said above (62, 5), if the devil, created in grace, merited in the first instant, he would at once have received beatitude after that first instant, if he had not placed an impediment by sinning. If, however, it be contended that the angel was not created in grace, or that he could not elicit an act of free-will in the first instant, then there is nothing to prevent some interval being interposed between his creation and fall.
Iª q. 63 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod per motus corporales, qui per tempus mensurantur, quandoque in sacra Scriptura intelliguntur metaphorice motus spirituales instantanei. Et sic per ambulationem intelligitur motus liberi arbitrii tendentis in bonum. Reply to Objection 1. Sometimes in Holy Scripture spiritual instantaneous movements are represented by corporeal movements which are measured by time. In this way by "walking" we are to understand the movement of free-will tending towards good.
Iª q. 63 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Origenes dicit quod serpens antiquus non a principio, nec statim supra pectus ambulavit, propter primum instans, in quo malus non fuit. Reply to Objection 2. Origen says, "The serpent of old did not from the first walk upon his breast and belly," because of the first instant in which he was not wicked.
Iª q. 63 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Angelus habet liberum arbitrium inflexibile post electionem, et ideo nisi statim post primum instans, in quo naturalem motum habuit ad bonum, impedimentum beatitudini praestitisset, fuisset firmatus in bono. Sed non est simile de homine. Et ideo ratio non sequitur. Reply to Objection 3. An angel has an inflexible free-will after once choosing; consequently, if after the first instant, in which he had a natural movement to good, he had not at once placed a barrier to beatitude, he would have been confirmed in good. It is not so with man; and therefore the argument does not hold good.
Iª q. 63 a. 6 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod inter quaelibet duo instantia esse tempus medium, habet veritatem inquantum tempus est continuum, ut probatur in VI Physic. Sed in Angelis, qui non sunt subiecti caelesti motui, qui primo per tempus continuum mensuratur, tempus accipitur pro ipsa successione operationum intellectus, vel etiam affectus. Sic igitur instans primum in Angelis intelligitur respondere operationi mentis angelicae, qua se in seipsam convertit per vespertinam cognitionem, quia in primo die commemoratur vespere, sed non mane. Et haec quidem operatio in omnibus bona fuit. Sed ab hac operatione quidam per matutinam cognitionem ad laudem verbi sunt conversi, quidam vero, in seipsis remanentes, facti sunt nox, per superbiam intumescentes, ut Augustinus dicit, IV super Gen. ad Litt. Et sic prima operatio fuit omnibus communis; sed in secunda sunt discreti. Et ideo in primo instanti omnes fuerunt boni; sed in secundo fuerunt boni a malis distincti. Reply to Objection 4. It is true to say that there is a middle time between every two instants, so far as time is continuous, as it is proved Phys. vi, text. 2. But in the angels, who are not subject to the heavenly movement, which is primarily measured by continuous time, time is taken to mean the succession of their mental acts, or of their affections. So the first instant in the angels is understood to respond to the operation of the angelic mind, whereby it introspects itself by its evening knowledge because on the first day evening is mentioned, but not morning. This operation was good in them all. From such operation some of them were converted to the praise of the Word by their morning knowledge while others, absorbed in themselves, became night, "swelling up with pride," as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. iv, 24). Hence the first act was common to them all; but in their second they were separated. Consequently they were all of them good in the first instant; but in the second the good were set apart from the wicked.
Iª q. 63 a. 7 arg. 1 Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ille Angelus qui fuit supremus inter peccantes, non fuerit supremus inter omnes. Dicitur enim de eo Ezech. XXVIII, tu Cherub extentus et protegens, posui te in monte sancto Dei. Sed ordo Cherubim est sub ordine Seraphim, ut Dionysius dicit, VII cap. Ang. Hier. Ergo Angelus qui fuit supremus inter peccantes, non fuit supremus inter omnes.
 Objection 1. It would seem that the highest among the angels who sinned was not the highest of all. For it is stated (Ezekiel 28:14): "Thou wast a cherub stretched out, and protecting, and I set thee in the holy mountain of God." Now the order of the Cherubim is under the order of the Seraphim, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vi, vii). Therefore, the highest angel among those who sinned was not the highest of all.
Iª q. 63 a. 7 arg. 2 Praeterea, Deus fecit naturam intellectualem propter beatitudinem consequendam. Si igitur Angelus qui fuit supremus inter omnes, peccavit, sequitur quod ordinatio divina fuerit frustrata in nobilissima creatura. Quod est inconveniens. Objection 2. Further, God made intellectual nature in order that it might attain to beatitude. If therefore the highest of the angels sinned, it follows that the Divine ordinance was frustrated in the noblest creature which is unfitting.
Iª q. 63 a. 7 arg. 3 Praeterea, quanto aliquid magis inclinatur in aliquid, tanto minus potest ab illo deficere. Sed Angelus quanto est superior, tanto magis inclinatur in Deum. Ergo minus potest a Deo peccando deficere. Et sic videtur quod Angelus qui peccavit, non fuerit supremus inter omnes, sed de inferioribus. Objection 3. Further, the more a subject is inclined towards anything, so much the less can it fall away from it. But the higher an angel is, so much the more is he inclined towards God. Therefore so much the less can he turn away from God by sinning. And so it seems that the angel who sinned was not the highest of all, but one of the lower angels.
Iª q. 63 a. 7 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit Gregorius, in homilia de centum ovibus, quod primus Angelus qui peccavit, dum cunctis agminibus Angelorum praelatus, eorum claritatem transcenderet, ex eorum comparatione clarior fuit. On the contrary, Gregory (Hom. xxxiv in Ev.) says that the chief angel who sinned, "being set over all the hosts of angels, surpassed them in brightness, and was by comparison the most illustrious among them."
Iª q. 63 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in peccato est duo considerare, scilicet pronitatem ad peccandum; et motivum ad peccandum. Si ergo consideremus in Angelis pronitatem ad peccandum, minus videtur quod peccaverint superiores Angeli, quam inferiores. Et propter hoc Damascenus dicit quod maior eorum qui peccaverunt, fuit terrestri ordini praelatus. Et videtur haec opinio consonare positioni Platonicorum, quam Augustinus recitat in Lib. de Civ. Dei VIII et X. Dicebant enim quod omnes dii erant boni, sed Daemonum quidam boni, quidam mali; deos nominantes substantias intellectuales quae sunt a globo lunari superius, Daemones vero substantias intellectuales quae sunt a globo lunari inferius, superiores hominibus ordine naturae. Nec est abiicienda haec opinio tanquam a fide aliena, quia tota creatura corporalis administratur a Deo per Angelos, ut Augustinus dicit, III de Trin.; unde nihil prohibet dicere inferiores Angelos divinitus distributos esse ad administrandum inferiora corpora, superiores vero ad administrandum corpora superiora, supremos vero ad assistendum Deo. Et secundum hoc Damascenus dicit quod illi qui ceciderunt, fuerunt de inferioribus, in quorum etiam ordine aliqui boni Angeli permanserunt. Si vero consideretur motivum ad peccandum, maius invenitur in superioribus quam in inferioribus. Fuit enim Daemonum peccatum superbia, ut supra dictum est; cuius motivum est excellentia, quae fuit maior in superioribus. Et ideo Gregorius dicit quod ille qui peccavit, fuit superior inter omnes. Et hoc videtur probabilius. Quia peccatum Angeli non processit ex aliqua pronitate, sed ex solo libero arbitrio, unde magis videtur consideranda esse ratio quae sumitur a motivo ad peccandum. Non est tamen inde alii opinioni praeiudicandum, quia etiam in principe inferiorum Angelorum potuit esse aliquod motivum ad peccandum. I answer that, Two things have to be considered in sin, namely, the proneness to sin, and the motive for sinning. If, then, in the angels we consider the proneness to sin, it seems that the higher angels were less likely to sin than the lower. On this account Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii), that the highest of those who sinned was set over the terrestrial order. This opinion seems to agree with the view of the Platonists, which Augustine quotes (De Civ. Dei vii, 6,7; x, 9,10,11). For they said that all the gods were good; whereas some of the demons were good, and some bad; naming as 'gods' the intellectual substances which are above the lunar sphere, and calling by the name of "demons" the intellectual substances which are beneath it, yet higher than men in the order of nature. Nor is this opinion to be rejected as contrary to faith; because the whole corporeal creation is governed by God through the angels, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 4,5). Consequently there is nothing to prevent us from saying that the lower angels were divinely set aside for presiding over the lower bodies, the higher over the higher bodies; and the highest to stand before God. And in this sense Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii) that they who fell were of the lower grade of angels; yet in that order some of them remained good. But if the motive for sinning be considered, we find that it existed in the higher angels more than in the lower. For, as has been said (2), the demons' sin was pride; and the motive of pride is excellence, which was greater in the higher spirits. Hence Gregory says that he who sinned was the very highest of all. This seems to be the more probable view: because the angels' sin did not come of any proneness, but of free choice alone. Consequently that argument seems to have the more weight which is drawn from the motive in sinning. Yet this must not be prejudicial to the other view; because there might be some motive for sinning in him also who was the chief of the lower angels.
Iª q. 63 a. 7 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Cherubim interpretatur plenitudo scientiae; Seraphim autem interpretatur ardentes sive incedentes. Et sic patet quod Cherubim denominatur a scientia, quae potest esse cum mortali peccato; Seraphim vero denominatur ab ardore caritatis, quae cum peccato mortali esse non potest. Et ideo primus Angelus peccans non est denominatus Seraphim, sed Cherubim. Reply to Objection 1. Cherubim is interpreted "fulness of knowledge," while "Seraphim" means "those who are on fire," or "who set on fire." Consequently Cherubim is derived from knowledge; which is compatible with mortal sin; but Seraphim is derived from the heat of charity, which is incompatible with mortal sin. Therefore the first angel who sinned is called, not a Seraph, but a Cherub.
Iª q. 63 a. 7 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod divina intentio non frustratur nec in his qui peccant, nec in his qui salvantur, utrorumque enim eventum Deus praecognoscit, et ex utroque habet gloriam, dum hos ex sua bonitate salvat, illos ex sua iustitia punit. Ipsa vero creatura intellectualis, dum peccat, a fine debito deficit. Nec hoc est inconveniens in quacumque creatura sublimi, sic enim creatura intellectualis instituta est a Deo, ut in eius arbitrio positum sit agere propter finem. Reply to Objection 2. The Divine intention is not frustrated either in those who sin, or in those who are saved; for God knows beforehand the end of both; and He procures glory from both, saving these of His goodness, and punishing those of His justice. But the intellectual creature, when it sins, falls away from its due end. Nor is this unfitting in any exalted creature; because the intellectual creature was so made by God, that it lies within its own will to act for its end.
Iª q. 63 a. 7 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod quantacumque inclinatio ad bonum fuerit in supremo Angelo, tamen ei necessitatem non inducebat. Unde potuit per liberum arbitrium eam non sequi. Reply to Objection 3. However great was the inclination towards good in the highest angel, there was no necessity imposed upon him: consequently it was in his power not to follow it.
Iª q. 63 a. 8 arg. 1 Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod peccatum primi Angeli peccantis non fuit aliis causa peccandi. Causa enim prior est causato. Sed omnes simul peccaverunt, ut Damascenus dicit. Ergo peccatum unius non fuit aliis causa peccandi.
 Objection 1. It would seem that the sin of the highest angel was not the cause of the others sinning. For the cause precedes the effect. But, as Damascene observes (De Fide Orth. ii), they all sinned at one time. Therefore the sin of one was not the cause of the others' sinning.
Iª q. 63 a. 8 arg. 2 Praeterea, primum peccatum Angeli non potest esse nisi superbia, ut supra dictum est. Sed superbia excellentiam quaerit. Magis autem excellentiae repugnat quod aliquis inferiori subdatur, quam superiori, et sic non videtur quod Daemones peccaverint per hoc quod voluerunt subesse alicui superiorum Angelorum, potius quam Deo. Sic autem peccatum unius Angeli fuisset aliis causa peccandi, si eos ad hoc induxisset ut sibi subiicerentur. Non ergo videtur quod peccatum primi Angeli fuerit causa peccandi aliis. Objection 2. Further, an angel's first sin can only be pride, as was shown above (2). But pride seeks excellence. Now it is more contrary to excellence for anyone to be subject to an inferior than to a superior; and so it does not appear that the angels sinned by desiring to be subject to a higher angel rather than to God. Yet the sin of one angel would have been the cause of the others sinning, if he had induced them to be his subjects. Therefore it does not appear that the sin of the highest angel was the cause of the others sinning.
Iª q. 63 a. 8 arg. 3 Praeterea, maius peccatum est velle subesse alteri contra Deum, quam contra Deum alteri velle praeesse, quia minus habet de motivo ad peccandum. Si ergo peccatum primi Angeli fuit aliis causa peccandi in hoc, quod eos ut sibi subiicerentur induxit, gravius peccassent inferiores Angeli quam supremus, quod est contra hoc quod super illud Psalmi CIII, draco iste quem formasti, dicit Glossa, qui ceteris in esse erat excellentior, factus est in malitia maior. Non ergo peccatum primi Angeli fuit aliis causa peccandi. Objection 3. Further, it is a greater sin to wish to be subject to another against God, than to wish to be over another against God; because there is less motive for sinning. If, therefore, the sin of the foremost angel was the cause of the others sinning, in that he induced them to subject themselves to him, then the lower angels would have sinned more deeply than the highest one; which is contrary to a gloss on Ps. 103:26: "This dragon which Thou hast formed--He who was the more excellent than the rest in nature, became the greater in malice." Therefore the sin of the highest angel was not the cause of the others sinning.
Iª q. 63 a. 8 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Apoc. XII, quod draco traxit secum tertiam partem stellarum. On the contrary, It is said (Apocalypse 12:4) that the dragon "drew" with him "the third part of the stars of heaven."
Iª q. 63 a. 8 co. Respondeo dicendum quod peccatum primi Angeli fuit aliis causa peccandi, non quidem cogens, sed quadam quasi exhortatione inducens. Cuius signum ex hoc apparet, quod omnes Daemones illi supremo subduntur; ut manifeste apparet per illud quod dicit dominus, Matth. XXV, ite, maledicti, in ignem aeternum, qui paratus est Diabolo et Angelis eius. Habet enim hoc ordo divinae iustitiae, ut cuius suggestioni aliquis consentit in culpa, eius potestati subdatur in poena; secundum illud II Petr. II, a quo quis superatus est, huic servus addictus est. I answer that, The sin of the highest angel was the cause of the others sinning; not as compelling them, but as inducing them by a kind of exhortation. A token thereof appears in this, that all the demons are subjects of that highest one; as is evident from our Lord's words: "Go [Vulg. 'Depart from Me'], you cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41). For the order of Divine justice exacts that whosoever consents to another's evil suggestion, shall be subjected to him in his punishment; according to (2 Peter 2:19): "By whom a man is overcome, of the same also he is the slave."
Iª q. 63 a. 8 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, licet simul Daemones peccaverint, tamen peccatum unius potuit esse aliis causa peccandi. Angelus enim non indiget ad eligendum vel exhortandum vel etiam consentiendum, temporis mora; sicut homo, qui deliberatione indiget ad eligendum et ad consentiendum, et locutione vocali ad exhortandum, quorum utrumque tempore agitur. Manifestum est autem quod etiam homo simul dum aliquid iam corde concepit, in eodem instanti incipit loqui. Et in ultimo instanti locutionis, in quo aliquis sensum loquentis capit, potest assentire ei quod dicitur, ut patet maxime in primis conceptionibus, quas quisque probat auditas. Sublato ergo tempore locutionis et deliberationis quod in nobis requiritur, in eodem instanti in quo primus Angelus suam affectionem intelligibili locutione expressit, possibile fuit aliis in eam consentire. Reply to Objection 1. Although the demons all sinned in the one instant, yet the sin of one could be the cause of the rest sinning. For the angel needs no delay of time for choice, exhortation, or consent, as man, who requires deliberation in order to choose and consent, and vocal speech in order to exhort; both of which are the work of time. And it is evident that even man begins to speak in the very instant when he takes thought; and in the last instant of speech, another who catches his meaning can assent to what is said; as is especially evident with regard to primary concepts, "which everyone accepts directly they are heard" [Boethius, De Hebdom.]. Taking away, then, the time for speech and deliberation which is required in us; in the same instant in which the highest angel expressed his affection by intelligible speech, it was possible for the others to consent thereto.
Iª q. 63 a. 8 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod superbus, ceteris paribus, magis vult subesse superiori quam inferiori. Sed si aliquam excellentiam consequatur sub inferiori, quam sub superiori consequi non possit, magis eligit inferiori subesse quam superiori. Sic igitur non fuit contra superbiam Daemonum quod subesse inferiori voluerunt, in eius principatum consentientes; ad hoc eum principem et ducem habere volentes, ut virtute naturali suam ultimam beatitudinem consequerentur; praesertim quia supremo Angelo naturae ordine etiam tunc subiecti erant. Reply to Objection 2. Other things being equal, the proud would rather be subject to a superior than to an inferior. Yet he chooses rather to be subject to an inferior than to a superior, if he can procure an advantage under an inferior which he cannot under a superior. Consequently it was not against the demons' pride for them to wish to serve an inferior by yielding to his rule; for they wanted to have him as their prince and leader, so that they might attain their ultimate beatitude of their own natural powers; especially because in the order of nature they were even then subject to the highest angel.
Iª q. 63 a. 8 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, Angelus non habet aliquid retardans, sed secundum suam totam virtutem movetur in illud ad quod movetur, sive in bonum sive in malum. Quia igitur supremus Angelus maiorem habuit naturalem virtutem quam inferiores, intensiori motu in peccatum prolapsus est. Et ideo factus est etiam in malitia maior. Reply to Objection 3. As was observed above (62, 6), an angel has nothing in him to retard his action, and with his whole might he is moved to whatsoever he is moved, be it good or bad. Consequently since the highest angel had greater natural energy than the lower angels, he fell into sin with intenser energy, and therefore he became the greater in malice.
Iª q. 63 a. 9 arg. 1 Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod plures peccaverunt de Angelis, quam permanserunt. Quia, ut dicit philosophus, malum est ut in pluribus, bonum ut in paucioribus.
 Objection 1. It would seem that more angels sinned than stood firm. For, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 6): "Evil is in many, but good is in few."
Iª q. 63 a. 9 arg. 2 Praeterea, iustitia et peccatum eadem ratione inveniuntur in Angelis et hominibus. Sed in hominibus plures inveniuntur mali quam boni; secundum illud Eccle. I, stultorum infinitus est numerus. Ergo pari ratione in Angelis. Objection 2. Further, justice and sin are to be found in the same way in men and in angels. But there are more wicked men to be found than good; according to Eccles. 1:15: "The number of fools is infinite." Therefore for the same reason it is so with the angels.
Iª q. 63 a. 9 arg. 3 Praeterea, Angeli distinguuntur secundum personas, et secundum ordines. Si igitur plures personae angelicae remanserunt, videtur etiam quod non de omnibus ordinibus aliqui peccaverunt. Objection 3. Further, the angels are distinguished according to persons and orders. Therefore if more angelic persons stood firm, it would appear that those who sinned were not from all the orders.
Iª q. 63 a. 9 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur IV Reg. VI, plures nobiscum sunt quam cum illis; quod exponitur de bonis Angelis qui sunt nobiscum in auxilium, et de malis qui nobis adversantur. On the contrary, It is said (2 Kings 6:16): "There are more with us than with them": which is expounded of the good angels who are with us to aid us, and the wicked spirits who are our foes.
Iª q. 63 a. 9 co. Respondeo dicendum quod plures Angeli permanserunt quam peccaverunt. Quia peccatum est contra naturalem inclinationem, ea vero quae contra naturam fiunt, ut in paucioribus accidunt; natura enim consequitur suum effectum vel semper, vel ut in pluribus. I answer that, More angels stood firm than sinned. Because sin is contrary to the natural inclination; while that which is against the natural order happens with less frequency; for nature procures its effects either always, or more often than not.
Iª q. 63 a. 9 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod philosophus loquitur quantum ad homines, in quibus malum contingit ex hoc quod sequuntur bona sensibilia, quae sunt pluribus nota, deserto bono rationis, quod paucioribus notum est. In Angelis autem non est nisi natura intellectualis. Unde non est similis ratio. Reply to Objection 1. The Philosopher is speaking with regard to men, in whom evil comes to pass from seeking after sensible pleasures, which are known to most men, and from forsaking the good dictated by reason, which good is known to the few. In the angels there is only an intellectual nature; hence the argument does not hold.
Iª q. 63 a. 9 ad 2 Et per hoc patet responsio ad secundum. And from this we have the answer to the second difficulty.
Iª q. 63 a. 9 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod secundum illos qui dicunt quod Diabolus maior fuit de inferiori ordine Angelorum, qui praesunt terrestribus, manifestum est quod non de quolibet ordine ceciderunt, sed de infimo tantum. Secundum vero illos qui ponunt maiorem Diabolum de supremo fuisse ordine, probabile est quod de quolibet ordine aliqui ceciderunt; sicut et in quemlibet ordinem homines assumuntur in supplementum ruinae angelicae. In quo etiam magis comprobatur libertas liberi arbitrii, quae secundum quemlibet gradum creaturae in malum flecti potest. In sacra Scriptura tamen nomina quorundam ordinum, ut Seraphim et thronorum, Daemonibus non attribuuntur; quia haec nomina sumuntur ab ardore caritatis et ab inhabitatione Dei, quae non possunt esse cum peccato mortali. Attribuuntur autem eis nomina Cherubim, potestatum et principatuum, quia haec nomina sumuntur a scientia et potentia, quae bonis malisque possunt esse communia. Reply to Objection 3. According to those who hold that the chief devil belonged to the lower order of the angels, who are set over earthly affairs, it is evident that some of every order did not fall, but only those of the lowest order. According to those who maintain that the chief devil was of the highest order, it is probable that some fell of every order; just as men are taken up into every order to supply for the angelic ruin. In this view the liberty of free-will is more established; which in every degree of creature can be turned to evil. In the Sacred Scripture, however, the names of some orders, as of Seraphim and Thrones, are not attributed to demons; since they are derived from the ardor of love and from God's indwelling, which are not consistent with mortal sin. Yet the names of Cherubim, Powers, and Principalities are attributed to them; because these names are derived from knowledge and from power, which can be common to both good and bad.
Iª q. 64 pr. Consequenter quaeritur de poena Daemonum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, de obtenebratione intellectus. Secundo, de obstinatione voluntatis. Tertio, de dolore ipsorum. Quarto, de loco poenali ipsorum.
Iª q. 64 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod intellectus Daemonis sit obtenebratus per privationem cognitionis omnis veritatis. Si enim aliquam veritatem cognoscerent, maxime cognoscerent seipsos, quod est cognoscere substantias separatas. Hoc autem eorum miseriae non convenit, cum ad magnam beatitudinem pertinere videatur, intantum quod quidam ultimam beatitudinem hominis posuerunt in cognoscendo substantias separatas. Ergo Daemones privantur omni cognitione veritatis.
 Objection 1. It would seem that the demons' intellect is darkened by being deprived of the knowledge of all truth. For it they knew any truth at all, they would most of all know themselves; which is to know separated substances. But this is not in keeping with their unhappiness: for this seems to belong to great happiness, insomuch as that some writers have assigned as man's last happiness the knowledge of the separated substances. Therefore the demons are deprived of all knowledge of truth.
Iª q. 64 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, id quod est manifestissimum in natura, videtur esse maxime manifestum Angelis, sive bonis sive malis. Quod enim non sit nobis maxime manifestum, contingit ex debilitate intellectus nostri a phantasmatibus accipientis, sicut ex debilitate oculi noctuae contingit quod non possit videre lumen solis. Sed Daemones non possunt cognoscere Deum, qui est secundum se manifestissimus, cum sit in summo veritatis, eo quod non habent mundum cor, quo solo videtur Deus. Ergo nec alia cognoscere possunt. Objection 2. Further, what is most manifest in its nature, seems to be specially manifest to the angels, whether good or bad. That the same is not manifest with regard to ourselves, comes from the weakness of our intellect which draws its knowledge from phantasms; as it comes from the weakness of its eye that the owl cannot behold the light of the sun. But the demons cannot know God, Who is most manifest of Himself, because He is the sovereign truth; and this is because they are not clean of heart, whereby alone can God be seen. Therefore neither can they know other things.
Iª q. 64 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, cognitio rerum Angelis conveniens est duplex, secundum Augustinum, scilicet matutina, et vespertina. Sed cognitio matutina non competit Daemonibus, quia non vident res in verbo, nec etiam cognitio vespertina, quia cognitio vespertina refert res cognitas ad laudem creatoris (unde post vespere fit mane, ut dicitur Gen. I). Ergo Daemones non possunt cognitionem de rebus habere. Objection 3. Further, according to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. iv, 22), the proper knowledge of the angels is twofold; namely, morning and evening. But the demons have no morning knowledge, because they do not see things in the Word; nor have they the evening knowledge, because this evening knowledge refers the things known to the Creator's praise (hence, after "evening" comes "morning" [Gn. 1). Therefore the demons can have no knowledge of things.
Iª q. 64 a. 1 arg. 4 Praeterea, Angeli in sua conditione cognoverunt mysterium regni Dei, ut Augustinus dicit, V super Gen. ad Litt. Sed Daemones hac cognitione privati sunt, quia si cognovissent, nequaquam dominum gloriae crucifixissent, ut dicitur I Cor. II. Ergo, pari ratione, omni alia cognitione veritatis sunt privati. Objection 4. Further, the angels at their creation knew the mystery of the kingdom of God, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. v, 19; De Civ. Dei xi). But the demons are deprived of such knowledge: "for if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory," as is said 1 Cor. 2:8. Therefore, for the same reason, they are deprived of all other knowledge of truth.
Iª q. 64 a. 1 arg. 5 Praeterea, quamcumque veritatem aliquis scit, aut cognoscit eam naturaliter, sicut nos cognoscimus prima principia; aut accipiendo ab alio, sicut quae scimus addiscendo; aut per experientiam longi temporis, sicut quae scimus inveniendo. Sed Daemones non possunt cognoscere veritatem per suam naturam, quia ab eis divisi sunt boni Angeli sicut lux a tenebris, ut Augustinus dicit; omnis autem manifestatio fit per lumen, ut dicitur Ephes. V. Similiter etiam neque per revelationem, neque addiscendo a bonis Angelis, quia non est conventio lucis ad tenebras, ut dicitur II Cor. VI. Neque etiam per experientiam longi temporis, quia experientia a sensu oritur. Ergo nulla in eis est cognitio veritatis. Objection 5. Further, whatever truth anyone knows is known either naturally, as we know first principles; or by deriving it from someone else, as we know by learning; or by long experience, as the things we learn by discovery. Now, the demons cannot know the truth by their own nature, because, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xi, 33), the good angels are separated from them as light is from darkness; and every manifestation is made through light, as is said Eph. 5:13. In like manner they cannot learn by revelation, nor by learning from the good angels: because "there is no fellowship of light with darkness [Vulg.: 'What fellowship hath . . . ?']" (2 Corinthians 6:14). Nor can they learn by long experience: because experience comes of the senses. Consequently there is no knowledge of truth in them.
Iª q. 64 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod data Daemonibus angelica dona nequaquam mutata esse dicimus, sed sunt integra et splendidissima. Inter ista autem naturalia dona est cognitio veritatis. Ergo in eis est aliqua veritatis cognitio. On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that, "certain gifts were bestowed upon the demons which, we say, have not been changed at all, but remain entire and most brilliant." Now, the knowledge of truth stands among those natural gifts. Consequently there is some knowledge of truth in them.
Iª q. 64 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod duplex est cognitio veritatis, una quidem quae habetur per gratiam; alia vero quae habetur per naturam. Et ista quae habetur per gratiam, est duplex, una quae est speculativa tantum, sicut cum alicui aliqua secreta divinorum revelantur; alia vero quae est affectiva, producens amorem Dei; et haec proprie pertinet ad donum sapientiae. Harum autem trium cognitionum prima in Daemonibus nec est ablata, nec diminuta. Consequitur enim ipsam naturam Angeli, qui secundum suam naturam est quidam intellectus vel mens, propter simplicitatem autem suae substantiae, a natura eius aliquid subtrahi non potest, ut sic per subtractionem naturalium puniatur, sicut homo punitur per subtractionem manus aut pedis aut alicuius huiusmodi. Et ideo dicit Dionysius quod dona naturalia in eis integra manent. Unde naturalis cognitio in eis non est diminuta. Secunda autem cognitio, quae est per gratiam, in speculatione consistens, non est in eis totaliter ablata, sed diminuta, quia de huiusmodi secretis divinis tantum revelatur eis quantum oportet, vel mediantibus Angelis, vel per aliqua temporalia divinae virtutis effecta, ut dicit Augustinus, IX de Civ. Dei; non autem sicut ipsis sanctis Angelis, quibus plura et clarius revelantur in ipso verbo. A tertia vero cognitione sunt totaliter privati, sicut et a caritate. I answer that, The knowledge of truth is twofold: one which comes of nature, and one which comes of grace. The knowledge which comes of grace is likewise twofold: the first is purely speculative, as when Divine secrets are imparted to an individual; the other is effective, and produces love for God; which knowledge properly belongs to the gift of wisdom. Of these three kinds of knowledge the first was neither taken away nor lessened in the demons. For it follows from the very nature of the angel, who, according to his nature, is an intellect or mind: since on account of the simplicity of his substance, nothing can be withdrawn from his nature, so as to punish him by subtracting from his natural powers, as a man is punished by being deprived of a hand or a foot or of something else. Therefore Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that the natural gifts remain entire in them. Consequently their natural knowledge was not diminished. The second kind of knowledge, however, which comes of grace, and consists in speculation, has not been utterly taken away from them, but lessened; because, of these Divine secrets only so much is revealed to them as is necessary; and that is done either by means of the angels, or "through some temporal workings of Divine power," as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 21); but not in the same degree as to the holy angels, to whom many more things are revealed, and more fully, in the Word Himself. But of the third knowledge, as likewise of charity, they are utterly deprived.
Iª q. 64 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod felicitas consistit in applicatione ad id quod superius est. Substantiae autem separatae sunt ordine naturae supra nos, unde aliqualis ratio felicitatis esse potest homini si cognoscat substantias separatas; licet perfecta eius felicitas sit in cognoscendo primam substantiam, scilicet Deum. Sed substantiae separatae cognoscere substantiam separatam est connaturale, sicut et nobis cognoscere naturas sensibiles. Unde sicut in hoc non est felicitas hominis, quod cognoscat naturas sensibiles; ita non est felicitas Angeli in hoc, quod cognoscat substantias separatas. Reply to Objection 1. Happiness consists in self-application to something higher. The separated substances are above us in the order of nature; hence man can have happiness of a kind by knowing the separated substances, although his perfect happiness consists in knowing the first substance, namely, God. But it is quite natural for one separate substance to know another; as it is natural for us to know sensible natures. Hence, as man's happiness does not consist in knowing sensible natures; so neither does the angel's happiness consist in knowing separated substances.
Iª q. 64 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod illud quod est manifestissimum in natura, est nobis occultum propter hoc quod excedit proportionem intellectus nostri; et non solum propter hoc quod intellectus noster accipit a phantasmatibus. Excedit autem divina substantia non solum proportionem intellectus humani, sed etiam intellectus angelici. Unde nec ipse Angelus secundum suam naturam, potest cognoscere Dei substantiam. Potest tamen altiorem cognitionem de Deo habere per suam naturam quam homo, propter perfectionem sui intellectus. Et talis cognitio Dei remanet etiam in Daemonibus. Licet enim non habeant puritatem quae est per gratiam, habent tamen puritatem naturae, quae sufficit ad cognitionem Dei quae eis competit ex natura. Reply to Objection 2. What is most manifest in its nature is hidden from us by its surpassing the bounds of our intellect; and not merely because our intellect draws knowledge from phantasms. Now the Divine substance surpasses the proportion not only of the human intellect, but even of the angelic. Consequently, not even an angel can of his own nature know God's substance. Yet on account of the perfection of his intellect he can of his nature have a higher knowledge of God than man can have. Such knowledge of God remains also in the demons. Although they do not possess the purity which comes with grace, nevertheless they have purity of nature; and this suffices for the knowledge of God which belongs to them from their nature.
Iª q. 64 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod creatura tenebra est, comparata excellentiae divini luminis, et ideo cognitio creaturae in propria natura, vespertina dicitur. Vespere enim est tenebris adiunctum, habet tamen aliquid de luce, cum autem totaliter deficit lux, est nox. Sic igitur et cognitio rerum in propria natura, quando refertur ad laudem creatoris, ut in bonis Angelis, habet aliquid de luce divina, et potest dici vespertina, si autem non referatur in Deum, sicut in Daemonibus, non dicitur vespertina, sed nocturna. Unde et in Genesi I, legitur quod tenebras quas Deus a luce separavit, vocavit noctem. Reply to Objection 3. The creature is darkness in comparison with the excellence of the Divine light; and therefore the creature's knowledge in its own nature is called "evening" knowledge. For the evening is akin to darkness, yet it possesses some light: but when the light fails utterly, then it is night. So then the knowledge of things in their own nature, when referred to the praise of the Creator, as it is in the good angels, has something of the Divine light, and can be called evening knowledge; but if it be not referred to God, as is the case with the demons, it is not called evening, but "nocturnal" knowledge. Accordingly we read in Gn. 1:5 that the darkness, which God separated from the light, "He called night."
Iª q. 64 a. 1 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod mysterium regni Dei, quod est impletum per Christum, omnes quidem Angeli a principio aliquo modo cognoverunt; maxime ex quo beatificati sunt visione verbi, quam Daemones nunquam habuerunt. Non tamen omnes Angeli cognoverunt perfecte, neque aequaliter. Unde Daemones multo minus, Christo existente in mundo, perfecte mysterium incarnationis cognoverunt. Non enim innotuit eis, ut Augustinus dicit sicut Angelis sanctis, qui verbi participata aeternitate perfruuntur, sed sicut eis terrendis innotescendum fuit per quaedam temporalia effecta. Si autem perfecte et per certitudinem cognovissent ipsum esse filium Dei, et effectum passionis eius, nunquam dominum gloriae crucifigi procurassent. Reply to Objection 4. All the angels had some knowledge from the very beginning respecting the mystery of God's kingdom, which found its completion in Christ; and most of all from the moment when they were beatified by the vision of the Word, which vision the demons never had. Yet all the angels did not fully and equally apprehend it; hence the demons much less fully understood the mystery of the Incarnation, when Christ was in the world. For, as Augustine observes (De Civ. Dei ix, 21), "It was not manifested to them as it was to the holy angels, who enjoy a participated eternity of the Word; but it was made known by some temporal effects, so as to strike terror into them." For had they fully and certainly known that He was the Son of God and the effect of His passion, they would never have procured the crucifixion of the Lord of glory.
Iª q. 64 a. 1 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod Daemones tribus modis cognoscunt veritatem aliquam. Uno modo, subtilitate suae naturae, quia licet sint obtenebrati per privationem luminis gratiae, sunt tamen lucidi lumine intellectualis naturae. Secundo, per revelationem a sanctis Angelis; cum quibus non conveniunt quidem per conformitatem voluntatis; conveniunt autem similitudine intellectualis naturae, secundum quam possunt accipere quod ab aliis manifestatur. Tertio modo cognoscunt per experientiam longi temporis; non quasi a sensu accipientes; sed dum in rebus singularibus completur similitudo eius speciei intelligibilis quam sibi naturaliter habent inditam, aliqua cognoscunt praesentia, quae non praecognoverunt futura, ut supra de cognitione Angelorum dictum est. Reply to Objection 5. The demons know a truth in three ways: first of all by the subtlety of their nature; for although they are darkened by privation of the light of grace, yet they are enlightened by the light of their intellectual nature: secondly, by revelation from the holy angels; for while not agreeing with them in conformity of will, they do agree, nevertheless, by their likeness of intellectual nature, according to which they can accept what is manifested by others: thirdly, they know by long experience; not as deriving it from the senses; but when the similitude of their innate intelligible species is completed in individual things, they know some things as present, which they previously did not know would come to pass, as we said when dealing with the knowledge of the angels (57, 3, ad 3).
Iª q. 64 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod voluntas Daemonum non sit obstinata in malo. Libertas enim arbitrii ad naturam intellectualis naturae pertinet, quae manet in Daemonibus, ut dictum est. Sed libertas arbitrii per se et prius ordinatur ad bonum quam ad malum. Ergo voluntas Daemonis non est ita obstinata in malo, quin possit redire ad bonum.
 Objection 1. It would seem that the will of the demons is not obstinate in evil. For liberty of will belongs to the nature of an intellectual being, which nature remains in the demons, as we said above (1). But liberty of will is directly and firstly ordained to good rather than to evil. Therefore the demons' will is not so obstinate in evil as not to be able to return to what is good.
Iª q. 64 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, maior est misericordia Dei, quae est infinita, quam Daemonis malitia, quae est finita. A malitia autem culpae ad bonitatem iustitiae nullus redit nisi per Dei misericordiam. Ergo etiam Daemones a statu malitiae possunt redire ad statum iustitiae. Objection 2. Further, since God's mercy is infinite, it is greater than the demons' malice, which is finite. But no one returns from the malice of sin to the goodness of justice save through God's mercy. Therefore the demons can likewise return from their state of malice to the state of justice.
Iª q. 64 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, si Daemones habent voluntatem obstinatam in malo, maxime haberent eam obstinatam in peccato quo peccaverunt. Sed illud peccatum in eis nunc non manet, scilicet superbia quia nec motivum manet, scilicet excellentia. Ergo Daemon non est obstinatus in malitia. Objection 3. Further, if the demons have a will obstinate in evil, then their will would be especially obstinate in the sin whereby they fell. But that sin, namely, pride, is in them no longer; because the motive for the sin no longer endures, namely, excellence. Therefore the demon is not obstinate in malice.
Iª q. 64 a. 2 arg. 4 Praeterea, Gregorius dicit quod homo per alium reparari potuit, quia per alium cecidit. Sed Daemones inferiores per primum ceciderunt, ut supra dictum est. Ergo eorum casus per alium reparari potest. Ergo non sunt in malitia obstinati. Objection 4. Further, Gregory says (Moral. iv) that man can be reinstated by another, since he fell through another. But, as was observed already (63, 8), the lower demons fell through the highest one. Therefore their fall can be repaired by another. Consequently they are not obstinate in malice.
Iª q. 64 a. 2 arg. 5 Praeterea, quicumque est in malitia obstinatus, nunquam aliquod bonum opus operatur. Sed Daemon aliqua bona opera facit, confitetur enim veritatem, dicens Christo, scio quia sis sanctus Dei, Marc. I, Daemones etiam credunt et contremiscunt, ut dicitur Iacob. II; Dionysius etiam dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod bonum et optimum concupiscunt, esse, vivere et intelligere. Ergo non sunt obstinati in malitia. Objection 5. Further, whoever is obstinate in malice, never performs any good work. But the demon performs some good works: for he confesses the truth, saying to Christ: "I know Who Thou art, the holy one of God" (Mark 1:24). "The demons" also "believe and tremble" (James 2:19). And Dionysius observes (Div. Nom. iv), that "they desire what is good and best, which is, to be, to live, to understand." Therefore they are not obstinate in malice.
Iª q. 64 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalmo LXXIII, superbia eorum qui te oderunt, ascendit semper; quod de Daemonibus exponitur. Ergo semper obstinati in malitia perseverant. On the contrary, It is said (Psalm 73:23): "The pride of them that hate Thee, ascendeth continually"; and this is understood of the demons. Therefore they remain ever obstinate in their malice.
Iª q. 64 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Origenis positio fuit quod omnis voluntas creaturae, propter libertatem arbitrii, potest flecti et in bonum et in malum, excepta anima Christi propter unionem verbi. Sed haec positio tollit veritatem beatitudinis a sanctis Angelis et hominibus, quia stabilitas sempiterna est de ratione verae beatitudinis; unde et vita aeterna nominatur. Repugnat etiam auctoritati Scripturae sacrae, quae Daemones et homines malos in supplicium aeternum mittendos, bonos autem in vitam aeternam transferendos pronuntiat, Matth. XXV. Unde haec positio est tanquam erronea reputanda; et tenendum est firmiter, secundum fidem Catholicam, quod et voluntas bonorum Angelorum confirmata est in bono, et voluntas Daemonum obstinata est in malo. Causam autem huius obstinationis oportet accipere, non ex gravitate culpae, sed ex conditione naturae status. Hoc enim est hominibus mors, quod Angelis casus, ut Damascenus dicit. Manifestum est autem quod omnia mortalia peccata hominum, sive sint magna sive sint parva, ante mortem sunt remissibilia; post mortem vero, irremissibilia, et perpetuo manentia. Ad inquirendum ergo causam huiusmodi obstinationis, considerandum est quod vis appetitiva in omnibus proportionatur apprehensivae a qua movetur, sicut mobile motori. Appetitus enim sensitivus est boni particularis, voluntas vero universalis, ut supra dictum est; sicut etiam sensus apprehensivus est singularium, intellectus vero universalium. Differt autem apprehensio Angeli ab apprehensione hominis in hoc, quod Angelus apprehendit immobiliter per intellectum, sicut et nos immobiliter apprehendimus prima principia, quorum est intellectus, homo vero per rationem apprehendit mobiliter, discurrendo de uno ad aliud, habens viam procedendi ad utrumque oppositorum. Unde et voluntas hominis adhaeret alicui mobiliter, quasi potens etiam ab eo discedere et contrario adhaerere, voluntas autem Angeli adhaeret fixe et immobiliter. Et ideo, si consideretur ante adhaesionem, potest libere adhaerere et huic et opposito (in his scilicet quae non naturaliter vult), sed postquam iam adhaesit, immobiliter adhaeret. Et ideo consuevit dici quod liberum arbitrium hominis flexibile est ad oppositum et ante electionem, et post; liberum autem arbitrium Angeli est flexibile ad utrumque oppositum ante electionem, sed non post. Sic igitur et boni Angeli, semper adhaerentes iustitiae, sunt in illa confirmati, mali vero, peccantes, sunt in peccato obstinati. De obstinatione vero hominum damnatorum infra dicetur. I answer that, It was Origen's opinion [Peri Archon i. 6 that every will of the creature can by reason of free-will be inclined to good and evil; with the exception of the soul of Christ on account of the union of the Word. Such a statement deprives angels and saints of true beatitude, because everlasting stability is of the very nature of true beatitude; hence it is termed "life everlasting." It is also contrary to the authority of Sacred Scripture, which declares that demons and wicked men shall be sent "into everlasting punishment," and the good brought "into everlasting life." Consequently such an opinion must be considered erroneous; while according to Catholic Faith, it must be held firmly both that the will of the good angels is confirmed in good, and that the will of the demons is obstinate in evil. We must seek for the cause of this obstinacy, not in the gravity of the sin, but in the condition of their nature or state. For as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii), "death is to men, what the fall is to the angels." Now it is clear that all the mortal sins of men, grave or less grave, are pardonable before death; whereas after death they are without remission and endure for ever. To find the cause, then, of this obstinacy, it must be borne in mind that the appetitive power is in all things proportioned to the apprehensive, whereby it is moved, as the movable by its mover. For the sensitive appetite seeks a particular good; while the will seeks the universal good, as was said above (59, 1); as also the sense apprehends particular objects, while the intellect considers universals. Now the angel's apprehension differs from man's in this respect, that the angel by his intellect apprehends immovably, as we apprehend immovably first principles which are the object of the habit of "intelligence"; whereas man by his reason apprehends movably, passing from one consideration to another; and having the way open by which he may proceed to either of two opposites. Consequently man's will adheres to a thing movably, and with the power of forsaking it and of clinging to the opposite; whereas the angel's will adheres fixedly and immovably. Therefore, if his will be considered before its adhesion, it can freely adhere either to this or to its opposite (namely, in such things as he does not will naturally); but after he has once adhered, he clings immovably. So it is customary to say that man's free-will is flexible to the opposite both before and after choice; but the angel's free-will is flexible either opposite before the choice, but not after. Therefore the good angels who adhered to justice, were confirmed therein; whereas the wicked ones, sinning, are obstinate in sin. Later on we shall treat of the obstinacy of men who are damned (SP, 98, 1, 2).
Iª q. 64 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod boni et mali Angeli habent liberum arbitrium, sed secundum modum et conditionem suae naturae, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 1. The good and wicked angels have free-will, but according to the manner and condition of their state, as has been said.
Iª q. 64 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod misericordia Dei liberat a peccato poenitentes. Illi vero qui poenitentiae capaces non sunt, immobiliter malo adhaerentes per divinam misericordiam non liberantur. Reply to Objection 2. God's mercy delivers from sin those who repent. But such as are not capable of repenting, cling immovably to sin, and are not delivered by the Divine mercy.
Iª q. 64 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod adhuc manet in Diabolo peccatum quo primo peccavit, quantum ad appetitum; licet non quantum ad hoc quod credat se posse obtinere. Sicut si aliquis credat se posse facere homicidium, et velit facere, et postea adimatur ei potestas; nihilominus voluntas homicidii in eo manere potest, ut velit fecisse, vel velit facere si posset. Reply to Objection 3. The devil's first sin still remains in him according to desire; although not as to his believing that he can obtain what he desired. Even so, if a man were to believe that he can commit murder, and wills to commit it, and afterwards the power is taken from him; nevertheless, the will to murder can stay with him, so that he would he had done it, or still would do it if he could.
Iª q. 64 a. 2 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod non est tota causa quare peccatum hominis sit remissibile, quia alio suggerente peccavit. Et ideo ratio non sequitur. Reply to Objection 4. The fact that man sinned from another's suggestion, is not the whole cause of man's sin being pardonable. Consequently the argument does not hold good.
Iª q. 64 a. 2 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod actus Daemonis est duplex. Quidam scilicet ex voluntate deliberata procedens, et hic proprie potest dici actus eius. Et talis actus Daemonis semper est malus, quia etsi aliquando aliquod bonum faciat, non tamen bene facit; sicut dum veritatem dicit ut decipiat, et dum non voluntarie credit et confitetur, sed rerum evidentia coactus. Alius autem actus Daemonis est naturalis; qui bonus esse potest, et attestatur bonitati naturae. Et tamen etiam tali bono actu abutuntur ad malum. Reply to Objection 5. A demon's act is twofold. One comes of deliberate will; and this is properly called his own act. Such an act on the demon's part is always wicked; because, although at times he does something good, yet he does not do it well; as when he tells the truth in order to deceive; and when he believes and confesses, yet not willingly, but compelled by the evidence of things. Another kind of act is natural to the demon; this can be good and bears witness to the goodness of nature. Yet he abuses even such good acts to evil purpose.
Iª q. 64 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod dolor non sit in Daemonibus. Cum enim dolor et gaudium opponantur, non possunt esse simul in eodem. Sed in Daemonibus est gaudium, dicit enim Augustinus, contra Manichaeos, Diabolus potestatem habet in eos qui Dei praecepta contemnunt, et de hac tam infelici potestate laetatur. Ergo in Daemonibus non est dolor.
 Objection 1. It would seem that there is no sorrow in the demons. For since sorrow and joy are opposites, they cannot be together in the same subject. But there is joy in the demons: for Augustine writing against the Maniches (De Gen. Contra Manich. ii, 17) says: "The devil has power over them who despise God's commandments, and he rejoices over this sinister power." Therefore there is no sorrow in the demons.
Iª q. 64 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, dolor est causa timoris, de his enim timemus dum futura sunt, de quibus dolemus dum praesentia sunt. Sed in Daemonibus non est timor; secundum illud Iob XLI, factus est ut nullum timeret. Ergo in Daemonibus non est dolor. Objection 2. Further, sorrow is the cause of fear, for those things cause fear while they are future, which cause sorrow when they are present. But there is no fear in the demons, according to Job 41:24, "Who was made to fear no one." Therefore there is no grief in the demons.
Iª q. 64 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, dolere de malo est bonum. Sed Daemones non possunt bene facere. Ergo non possunt dolere, ad minus de malo culpae; quod pertinet ad vermem conscientiae. Objection 3. Further, it is a good thing to be sorry for evil. But the demons can do no good action. Therefore they cannot be sorry, at least for the evil of sin; which applies to the worm of conscience.
Iª q. 64 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod peccatum Daemonis est gravius quam peccatum hominis. Sed homo punitur dolore pro delectatione peccati; secundum illud Apoc. XVIII, quantum glorificavit se et in deliciis fuit, tantum date ei tormentum et luctum. Ergo multo magis Diabolus, qui maximo se glorificavit, punitur doloris luctu. On the contrary, The demon's sin is greater than man's sin. But man is punished with sorrow on account of the pleasure taken in sin, according to Apoc. 18:7, "As much as she hath glorified herself, and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye to her." Consequently much more is the devil punished with the grief of sorrow, because he especially glorified himself.
Iª q. 64 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod timor, dolor, gaudium, et huiusmodi, secundum quod sunt passiones, in Daemonibus esse non possunt, sic enim sunt propriae appetitus sensitivi, qui est virtus in organo corporali. Sed secundum quod nominant simplices actus voluntatis, sic possunt esse in Daemonibus. Et necesse est dicere quod in eis sit dolor. Quia dolor, secundum quod significat simplicem actum voluntatis, nihil est aliud quam renisus voluntatis ad id quod est vel non est. Patet autem quod Daemones multa vellent non esse quae sunt, et esse quae non sunt, vellent enim, cum sint invidi, damnari eos qui salvantur. Unde oportet dicere quod in eis sit dolor, et praecipue quia de ratione poenae est, quod voluntati repugnet. Privantur etiam beatitudine quam naturaliter appetunt; et in multis eorum iniqua voluntas cohibetur. I answer that, Fear, sorrow, joy, and the like, so far as they are passions, cannot exist in the demons; for thus they are proper to the sensitive appetite, which is a power in a corporeal organ. According, however, as they denote simple acts of the will, they can be in the demons. And it must be said that there is sorrow in them; because sorrow, as denoting a simple act of the will, is nothing else than the resistance of the will to what is, or to what is not. Now it is evident that the demons would wish many things not to be, which are, and others to be, which are not: for, out of envy, they would wish others to be damned, who are saved. Consequently, sorrow must be said to exist in them: and especially because it is of the very notion of punishment for it to be repugnant to the will. Moreover, they are deprived of happiness, which they desire naturally; and their wicked will is curbed in many respects.
Iª q. 64 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod gaudium et dolor de eodem sunt opposita, non autem de diversis. Unde nihil prohibet unum simul dolere de uno, et gaudere de alio; et maxime secundum quod dolor et gaudium important simplices voluntatis actus; quia non solum in diversis, sed etiam in una et eadem re potest esse aliquid quod volumus, et aliquid quod nolumus. Reply to Objection 1. Joy and sorrow about the same thing are opposites, but not about different things. Hence there is nothing to hinder a man from being sorry for one thing, and joyful for another; especially so far as sorrow and joy imply simple acts of the will; because, not merely in different things, but even in one and the same thing, there can be something that we will, and something that we will not.
Iª q. 64 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod sicut in Daemonibus est dolor de praesenti, ita et timor de futuro. Quod autem dicitur, factus est ut nullum timeret, intelligitur de timore Dei cohibente a peccato. Alibi, namque scriptum est quod Daemones credunt et contremiscunt. Reply to Objection 2. As there is sorrow in the demons over present evil, so also there is fear of future evil. Now when it is said, "He was made to fear no one," this is to be understood of the fear of God which restrains from sin. For it is written elsewhere that "the devils believe and tremble" (James 2:19).
Iª q. 64 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod dolere de malo culpae propter se attestatur voluntatis bonitati, cui malum culpae opponitur. Dolere autem de malo poenae, vel de malo culpae propter poenam, attestatur bonitati naturae, cui malum poenae opponitur. Unde Augustinus dicit, XIX de Civ. Dei, quod dolor amissi boni in supplicio, testis est naturae bonae. Daemon ergo, cum perversae sit voluntatis et obstinatae, de malo culpae non dolet. Reply to Objection 3. To be sorry for the evil of sin on account of the sin bears witness to the goodness of the will, to which the evil of sin is opposed. But to be sorry for the evil of punishment, for the evil of sin on account of the punishment, bears witness to the goodness of nature, to which the evil of punishment is opposed. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 13), that "sorrow for good lost by punishment, is the witness to a good nature." Consequently, since the demon has a perverse and obstinate will, he is not sorry for the evil of sin.
Iª q. 64 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aer iste non sit locus poenalis Daemonum. Daemon enim est natura spiritualis. Natura autem spiritualis non afficitur loco. Ergo nullus locus est Daemonibus poenalis.
 Objection 1. It would seem that this atmosphere is not the demons' place of punishment. For a demon is a spiritual nature. But a spiritual nature is not affected by place. Therefore there is no place of punishment for demons.
Iª q. 64 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, peccatum hominis non est gravius quam peccatum Daemonis. Sed locus poenalis hominis est Infernus. Ergo multo magis Daemonis. Ergo non aer caliginosus. Objection 2. Further, man's sin is not graver than the demons'. But man's place of punishment is hell. Much more, therefore, is it the demons' place of punishment; and consequently not the darksome atmosphere.
Iª q. 64 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, Daemones puniuntur poena ignis. Sed in aere caliginoso non est ignis. Ergo aer caliginosus non est locus poenae Daemonum. Objection 3. Further, the demons are punished with the pain of fire. But there is no fire in the darksome atmosphere. Therefore the darksome atmosphere is not the place of punishment for the demons.
Iª q. 64 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, III super Gen. ad Litt., quod aer caliginosus est quasi carcer Daemonibus usque ad tempus iudicii. On the contrary, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. iii, 10), that "the darksome atmosphere is as a prison to the demons until the judgment day."
Iª q. 64 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Angeli, secundum suam naturam, medii sunt inter Deum et homines. Habet autem hoc divinae providentiae ratio, quod inferiorum bonum per superiora procuret. Bonum autem hominis dupliciter procuratur per divinam providentiam. Uno modo directe, dum scilicet aliquis inducitur ad bonum et retrahitur a malo, et hoc decenter fit per Angelos bonos. Alio modo indirecte, dum scilicet aliquis exercetur, impugnatus, per impugnationem contrarii. Et hanc procurationem boni humani conveniens fuit per malos Angelos fieri, ne totaliter post peccatum ab utilitate naturalis ordinis exciderent. Sic ergo Daemonibus duplex locus poenalis debetur. Unus quidem ratione suae culpae, et hic est Infernus. Alius autem ratione exercitationis humanae, et sic debetur eis caliginosus aer. Procuratio autem salutis humanae protenditur usque ad diem iudicii, unde et usque tunc durat ministerium Angelorum et exercitatio Daemonum. Unde et usque tunc et boni Angeli ad nos huc mittuntur, et Daemones in hoc aere caliginoso sunt ad nostrum exercitium, licet eorum aliqui etiam nunc in Inferno sint, ad torquendum eos quos ad malum induxerunt; sicut et aliquis boni Angeli sunt cum animabus sanctis in caelo. Sed post diem iudicii omnes mali, tam homines quam Angeli, in Inferno erunt; boni vero in caelo. I answer that, The angels in their own nature stand midway between God and men. Now the order of Divine providence so disposes, that it procures the welfare of the inferior orders through the superior. But man's welfare is disposed by Divine providence in two ways: first of all, directly, when a man is brought unto good and withheld from evil; and this is fittingly done through the good angels. In another way, indirectly, as when anyone assailed is exercised by fighting against opposition. It was fitting for this procuring of man's welfare to be brought about through the wicked spirits, lest they should cease to be of service in the natural order. Consequently a twofold place of punishment is due to the demons: one, by reason of their sin, and this is hell; and another, in order that they may tempt men, and thus the darksome atmosphere is their due place of punishment. Now the procuring of men's salvation is prolonged even to the judgment day: consequently, the ministry of the angels and wrestling with demons endure until then. Hence until then the good angels are sent to us here; and the demons are in this dark atmosphere for our trial: although some of them are even now in hell, to torment those whom they have led astray; just as some of the good angels are with the holy souls in heaven. But after the judgment day all the wicked, both men and angels, will be in hell, and the good in heaven.
Iª q. 64 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod locus non est poenalis Angelo aut animae, quasi afficiens alterando naturam; sed quasi afficiens voluntatem contristando, dum Angelus vel anima apprehendit se esse in loco non convenienti suae voluntati. Reply to Objection 1. A place is not penal to angel or soul as if affecting the nature by changing it, but as affecting the will by saddening it: because the angel or the soul apprehends that it is in a place not agreeable to its will.
Iª q. 64 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod anima secundum ordinem naturae non praefertur alteri animae, sicut Daemones ordine naturae praeferuntur hominibus. Unde non est similis ratio. Reply to Objection 2. One soul is not set over another in the order of nature, as the demons are over men in the order of nature; consequently there is no parallel.
Iª q. 64 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod aliqui dixerunt usque ad diem iudicii differri poenam sensibilem tam Daemonum quam animarum, et similiter beatitudinem sanctorum differri usque ad diem iudicii; quod est erroneum, et repugnans apostoli sententiae, qui dicit, II Cor. V, si terrestris domus nostra huius habitationis dissolvatur, domum habemus in caelo. Alii vero, licet hoc non concedant de animabus, concedunt tamen de Daemonibus. Sed melius est dicendum quod idem iudicium sit de malis animabus et malis Angelis; sicut idem iudicium est de bonis animabus et bonis Angelis. Unde dicendum est quod, sicut locus caelestis pertinet ad gloriam Angelorum, tamen gloria eorum non minuitur cum ad nos veniunt, quia considerant illum locum esse suum (eo modo quo dicimus honorem episcopi non minui dum actu non sedet in cathedra); similiter dicendum est quod Daemones licet non actu alligentur gehennali igni, dum sunt in aere isto caliginoso, tamen ex hoc ipso quod sciunt illam alligationem sibi deberi, eorum poena non diminuitur. Unde dicitur in quadam Glossa Iacobi III, quod portant secum ignem Gehennae quocumque vadant. Nec est contra hoc, quod rogaverunt dominum ut non mitteret eos in abyssum, ut dicitur Lucae VIII, quia hoc petierunt reputantes sibi poenam, si excluderentur a loco in quo possunt hominibus nocere. Unde Marci V, dicitur quod deprecabantur eum ne expelleret eos extra regionem. Reply to Objection 3. Some have maintained that the pain of sense for demons and souls is postponed until the judgment day: and that the beatitude of the saints is likewise postponed until the judgment day. But this is erroneous, and contrary to the teaching of the Apostle (2 Corinthians 5:1): "If our earthly house of this habitation be dissolved, we have a house in heaven." Others, again, while not admitting the same of souls, admit it as to demons. But it is better to say that the same judgment is passed upon wicked souls and wicked angels, even as on good souls and good angels. Consequently, it must be said that, although a heavenly place belongs to the glory of the angels, yet their glory is not lessened by their coming to us, for they consider that place to be their own; in the same way as we say that the bishop's honor is not lessened while he is not actually sitting on his throne. In like manner it must be said, that although the demons are not actually bound within the fire of hell while they are in this dark atmosphere, nevertheless their punishment is none the less; because they know that such confinement is their due. Hence it is said in a gloss upon James 3:6: "They carry fire of hell with them wherever they go." Nor is this contrary to what is said (Luke 8:31), "They besought the Lord not to cast them into the abyss"; for they asked for this, deeming it to be a punishment for them to be cast out of a place where they could injure men. Hence it is stated, "They [Vulg. 'He'] besought Him that He would not expel them [Vulg. 'him'] out of the country" (Mark 5:10).
Retrieved from "https://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory:Logic_Museum/Aquinas_Summa-I-61-64&oldid=95689"