Directory:Logic Museum/Aquinas Summa-I-54-58

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE – QUESTIONS LIV - LVIII

Question 54a1
Question 54a2
Question 54a3
Question 54a4
Question 54a5
Question 55a1
Question 55a2
Question 55a3
Question 56a1
Question 56a2
Question 56a3
Question 57a1
Question 57a2
Question 57a3
Question 57a4
Question 57a5
Question 58a1
Question 58a2
Question 58a3
Question 58a4
Question 58a5
Question 58a6
Question 58a7

Latin	English
Iª q. 54 pr. Consideratis his quae ad substantiam Angeli pertinent, procedendum est ad cognitionem ipsius. Haec autem consideratio erit quadripartita, nam primo considerandum est de his quae pertinent ad virtutem cognoscitivam Angeli; secundo, de his quae pertinent ad medium cognoscendi ipsius; tertio, de his quae ab eo cognoscuntur; quarto, de modo cognitionis ipsorum. Circa primum quaeruntur quinque. Primo, utrum intelligere Angeli sit sua substantia. Secundo, utrum eius esse sit suum intelligere. Tertio, utrum eius substantia sit sua virtus intellectiva. Quarto, utrum in Angelis sit intellectus agens et possibilis. Quinto, utrum in eis sit aliqua alia potentia cognoscitiva quam intellectus.
Iª q. 54 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod intelligere Angeli sit eius substantia. Angelus enim est sublimior et simplicior quam intellectus agens animae. Sed substantia intellectus agentis est sua actio; ut patet in III de anima per Aristotelem, et eius Commentatorem. Ergo, multo fortius, substantia Angeli est sua actio, quae est intelligere.	Objection 1. It would seem that the angel's act of understanding is his substance. For the angel is both higher and simpler than the active intellect of a soul. But the substance of the active intellect is its own action; as is evident from Aristotle (De Anima iii) and from his Commentator [Averroes, A.D. 1126-1198]. Therefore much more is the angel's substance his action--that is, his act of understanding.
Iª q. 54 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in XII Metaphys., quod actio intellectus est vita. Sed cum vivere sit esse viventibus, ut dicitur in II de anima, videtur quod vita sit essentia. Ergo actio intellectus est essentia intelligentis Angeli.	Objection 2. Further, the Philosopher says (Metaph. xii, text 39) that "the action of the intellect is life." But "since in living things to live is to be," as he says (De Anima ii, text 37), it seems that life is essence. Therefore the action of the intellect is the essence of an angel who understands.
Iª q. 54 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, si extrema sunt unum, medium non differt ab eis, quia extremum magis distat ab extremo, quam medium. Sed in Angelo idem est intellectus et intellectum, ad minus inquantum intelligit essentiam suam. Ergo intelligere, quod cadit medium inter intellectum et rem intellectam, est idem cum substantia Angeli intelligentis.	Objection 3. Further, if the extremes be one, then the middle does not differ from them; because extreme is farther from extreme than the middle is. But in an angel the intellect and the object understood are the same, at least in so far as he understands his own essence. Therefore the act of understanding, which is between the intellect and the thing understood, is one with the substance of the angel who understands.
Iª q. 54 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra, plus differt actio rei a substantia eius, quam ipsum esse eius. Sed nullius creati suum esse est sua substantia, hoc enim solius Dei proprium est, ut ex superioribus patet. Ergo neque Angeli, neque alterius creaturae, sua actio est eius substantia.	On the contrary, The action of anything differs more from its substance than does its existence. But no creature's existence is its substance, for this belongs to God only, as is evident from what was said above (3, 4). Therefore neither the action of an angel, nor of any other creature, is its substance.
Iª q. 54 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod impossibile est quod actio Angeli, vel cuiuscumque alterius creaturae, sit eius substantia. Actio enim est proprie actualitas virtutis; sicut esse est actualitas substantiae vel essentiae. Impossibile est autem quod aliquid quod non est purus actus, sed aliquid habet de potentia admixtum, sit sua actualitas, quia actualitas potentialitati repugnat. Solus autem Deus est actus purus. Unde in solo Deo sua substantia est suum esse et suum agere. Praeterea, si intelligere Angeli esset sua substantia, oporteret quod intelligere Angeli esset subsistens. Intelligere autem subsistens non potest esse nisi unum; sicut nec aliquod abstractum subsistens. Unde unius Angeli substantia non distingueretur neque a substantia Dei, quae est ipsum intelligere subsistens; neque a substantia alterius Angeli. Si etiam Angelus ipse esset suum intelligere, non possent esse gradus in intelligendo perfectius et minus perfecte, cum hoc contingat propter diversam participationem ipsius intelligere.	I answer that, It is impossible for the action of an angel, or of any creature, to be its own substance. For an action is properly the actuality of a power; just as existence is the actuality of a substance or of an essence. Now it is impossible for anything which is not a pure act, but which has some admixture of potentiality, to be its own actuality: because actuality is opposed to potentiality. But God alone is pure act. Hence only in God is His substance the same as His existence and His action. Besides, if an angel's act of understanding were his substance, it would be necessary for it to be subsisting. Now a subsisting act of intelligence can be but one; just as an abstract thing that subsists. Consequently an angel's substance would neither be distinguished from God's substance, which is His very act of understanding subsisting in itself, nor from the substance of another angel. Also, if the angel were his own act of understanding, there could then be no degrees of understanding more or less perfectly; for this comes about through the diverse participation of the act of understanding.
Iª q. 54 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum dicitur quod intellectus agens est sua actio, est praedicatio non per essentiam, sed per concomitantiam, quia cum sit in actu eius substantia, statim quantum est in se, concomitatur ipsam actio. Quod non est de intellectu possibili, qui non habet actiones nisi postquam fuerit factus in actu.	Reply to Objection 1. When the active intellect is said to be its own action, such predication is not essential, but concomitant, because, since its very nature consists in act, instantly, so far as lies in itself, action accompanies it: which cannot be said of the passive intellect, for this has no actions until after it has been reduced to act.
Iª q. 54 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod vita non hoc modo se habet ad vivere, sicut essentia ad esse; sed sicut cursus ad currere, quorum unum significat actum in abstracto, aliud in concreto. Unde non sequitur si vivere sit esse, quod vita sit essentia. Quamvis etiam quandoque vita pro essentia ponatur; secundum quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de Trin., quod memoria et intelligentia et voluntas sunt una essentia, una vita. Sed sic non accipitur a philosopho cum dicit quod actio intellectus est vita.	Reply to Objection 2. The relation between "life" and "to live" is not the same as that between "essence" and "to be"; but rather as that between "a race" and "to run," one of which signifies the act in the abstract, and the other in the concrete. Hence it does not follow, if "to live" is "to be," that "life" is "essence." Although life is sometimes put for the essence, as Augustine says (De Trin. x), "Memory and understanding and will are one essence, one life": yet it is not taken in this sense by the Philosopher, when he says that "the act of the intellect is life."
Iª q. 54 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod actio quae transit in aliquid extrinsecum, est realiter media inter agens et subiectum recipiens actionem. Sed actio quae manet in agente, non est realiter medium inter agens et obiectum, sed secundum modum significandi tantum, realiter vero consequitur unionem obiecti cum agente. Ex hoc enim quod intellectum fit unum cum intelligente, consequitur intelligere, quasi quidam effectus differens ab utroque.	Reply to Objection 3. The action which is transient, passing to some extrinsic object, is really a medium between the agent and the subject receiving the action. The action which remains within the agent, is not really a medium between the agent and the object, but only according to the manner of expression; for it really follows the union of the object with the agent. For the act of understanding is brought about by the union of the object understood with the one who understands it, as an effect which differs from both.
Iª q. 54 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod intelligere Angeli sit eius esse. Vivere enim viventibus est esse, ut dicitur in II de anima. Sed intelligere est quoddam vivere, ut in eodem dicitur. Ergo intelligere Angeli est eius esse.	Objection 1. It would seem that in the angel to understand is to exist. For in living things to live is to be, as the Philosopher says (De Anima ii, text. 37). But to "understand is in a sense to live" (De Anima ii, text. 37). Therefore in the angel to understand is to exist.
Iª q. 54 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, sicut se habet causa ad causam, ita effectus ad effectum. Sed forma per quam Angelus est, est eadem cum forma per quam intelligit ad minus seipsum. Ergo eius intelligere est idem cum suo esse.	Objection 2. Further, cause bears the same relation to cause, as effect to effect. But the form whereby the angel exists is the same as the form by which he understands at least himself. Therefore in the angel to understand is to exist.
Iª q. 54 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra, intelligere Angeli est motus eius; ut patet per Dionysium, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Sed esse non est motus. Ergo esse Angeli non est intelligere eius.	On the contrary, The angel's act of understanding is his movement, as is clear from Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv). But to exist is not movement. Therefore in the angel to be is not to understand.
Iª q. 54 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod actio Angeli non est eius esse, neque actio alicuius creaturae. Duplex enim est actionis genus, ut dicitur IX Metaphys. Una scilicet actio est quae transit in aliquid exterius, inferens ei passionem, sicut urere et secare. Alia vero actio est quae non transit in rem exteriorem, sed manet in ipso agente, sicut sentire, intelligere et velle, per huiusmodi enim actionem non immutatur aliquid extrinsecum, sed totum in ipso agente agitur. De prima ergo actione manifestum est quod non potest esse ipsum esse agentis, nam esse agentis significatur intra ipsum, actio autem talis est effluxus in actum ab agente. Secunda autem actio de sui ratione habet infinitatem, vel simpliciter, vel secundum quid. Simpliciter quidem, sicut intelligere, cuius obiectum est verum, et velle, cuius obiectum est bonum, quorum utrumque convertitur cum ente; et ita intelligere et velle, quantum est de se, habent se ad omnia; et utrumque recipit speciem ab obiecto. Secundum quid autem infinitum est sentire, quod se habet ad omnia sensibilia, sicut visus ad omnia visibilia. Esse autem cuiuslibet creaturae est determinatum ad unum secundum genus et speciem, esse autem solius Dei est simpliciter infinitum, in se omnia comprehendens, ut dicit Dionysius, V cap. de Div. Nom. Unde solum esse divinum est suum intelligere et suum velle.	I answer that, The action of the angel, as also the action of any creature, is not his existence. For as it is said (Metaph. ix, text. 16), there is a twofold class of action; one which passes out to something beyond, and causes passion in it, as burning and cutting; and another which does not pass outwards, but which remains within the agent, as to feel, to understand, to will; by such actions nothing outside is changed, but the whole action takes place within the agent. It is quite clear regarding the first kind of action that it cannot be the agent's very existence: because the agent's existence is signified as within him, while such an action denotes something as issuing from the agent into the thing done. But the second action of its own nature has infinity, either simple or relative. As an example of simple infinity, we have the act "to understand," of which the object is "the true"; and the act "to will," of which the object is "the good"; each of which is convertible with being; and so, to understand and to will, of themselves, bear relation to all things, and each receives its species from its object. But the act of sensation is relatively infinite, for it bears relation to all sensible things; as sight does to all things visible. Now the being of every creature is restricted to one in genus and species; God's being alone is simply infinite, comprehending all things in itself, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. v). Hence the Divine nature alone is its own act of understanding and its own act of will.
Iª q. 54 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod vivere quandoque sumitur pro ipso esse viventis, quandoque vero pro operatione vitae, idest per quam demonstratur aliquid esse vivens. Et hoc modo philosophus dicit quod intelligere est vivere quoddam, ibi enim distinguit diversos gradus viventium secundum diversa opera vitae.	Reply to Objection 1. Life is sometimes taken for the existence of the living subject: sometimes also for a vital operation, that is, for one whereby something is shown to be living. In this way the Philosopher says that to understand is, in a sense, to live: for there he distinguishes the various grades of living things according to the various functions of life.
Iª q. 54 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ipsa essentia Angeli est ratio totius sui esse, non autem est ratio totius sui intelligere, quia non omnia intelligere potest per suam essentiam. Et ideo secundum propriam rationem, inquantum est talis essentia, comparatur ad ipsum esse Angeli. Sed ad eius intelligere comparatur secundum rationem universalioris obiecti, scilicet veri vel entis. Et sic patet quod, licet sit eadem forma, non tamen secundum eandem rationem est principium essendi et intelligendi. Et propter hoc non sequitur quod in Angelo sit idem esse et intelligere.	Reply to Objection 2. The essence of an angel is the reason of his entire existence, but not the reason of his whole act of understanding, since he cannot understand everything by his essence. Consequently in its own specific nature as such an essence, it is compared to the existence of the angel, whereas to his act of understanding it is compared as included in the idea of a more universal object, namely, truth and being. Thus it is evident, that, although the form is the same, yet it is not the principle of existence and of understanding according to the same formality. On this account it does not follow that in the angel "to be" is the same as 'to understand.'
Iª q. 54 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod virtus vel potentia intellectiva in Angelo non sit aliud quam sua essentia. Mens enim et intellectus nominant potentiam intellectivam. Sed Dionysius in pluribus locis suorum librorum, nominat ipsos Angelos intellectus et mentes. Ergo Angelus est sua potentia intellectiva.	Objection 1. It would seem that in an angel the power or faculty of understanding is not different from his essence. For, "mind" and "intellect" express the power of understanding. But in many passages of his writings, Dionysius styles angels "intellects" and "minds." Therefore the angel is his own power of intelligence.
Iª q. 54 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, si potentia intellectiva in Angelo est aliquid praeter eius essentiam, oportet quod sit accidens, hoc enim dicimus esse accidens alicuius, quod est praeter eius essentiam. Sed forma simplex subiectum esse non potest, ut Boetius dicit, in libro de Trin. Ergo Angelus non esset forma simplex, quod est contra praemissa.	Objection 2. Further, if the angel's power of intelligence be anything besides his essence, then it must needs be an accident; for that which is besides the essence of anything, we call it accident. But "a simple form cannot be a subject," as Boethius states (De Trin. 1). Thus an angel would not be a simple form, which is contrary to what has been previously said (50, 2).
Iª q. 54 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, XII Confess., quod Deus fecit angelicam naturam prope se, materiam autem primam prope nihil, ex quo videtur quod Angelus sit simplicior quam materia prima, utpote Deo propinquior. Sed materia prima est sua potentia. Ergo multo magis Angelus est sua potentia intellectiva.	Objection 3. Further, Augustine (Confess. xii) says, that God made the angelic nature "nigh unto Himself," while He made primary matter "nigh unto nothing"; from this it would seem that the angel is of a simpler nature than primary matter, as being closer to God. But primary matter is its own power. Therefore much more is an angel his own power of intelligence.
Iª q. 54 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit, XI cap. Angel. Hier., quod Angeli dividuntur in substantiam, virtutem et operationem. Ergo aliud est in eis substantia, et aliud virtus, et aliud operatio.	On the contrary, Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. xi) that "the angels are divided into substance, power, and operation." Therefore substance, power, and operation, are all distinct in them.
Iª q. 54 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod nec in Angelo nec in aliqua creatura, virtus vel potentia operativa est idem quod sua essentia. Quod sic patet. Cum enim potentia dicatur ad actum, oportet quod secundum diversitatem actuum sit diversitas potentiarum, propter quod dicitur quod proprius actus respondet propriae potentiae. In omni autem creato essentia differt a suo esse, et comparatur ad ipsum sicut potentia ad actum, ut ex supra dictis patet. Actus autem ad quem comparatur potentia operativa, est operatio. In Angelo autem non est idem intelligere et esse, nec aliqua alia operatio aut in ipso aut in quocumque alio creato, est idem quod eius esse. Unde essentia Angeli non est eius potentia intellectiva, nec alicuius creati essentia est eius operativa potentia.	I answer that, Neither in an angel nor in any creature, is the power or operative faculty the same as its essence: which is made evident thus. Since every power is ordained to an act, then according to the diversity of acts must be the diversity of powers; and on this account it is said that each proper act responds to its proper power. But in every creature the essence differs from the existence, and is compared to it as potentiality is to act, as is evident from what has been already said (44, 1). Now the act to which the operative power is compared is operation. But in the angel to understand is not the same as to exist, nor is any operation in him, nor in any other created thing, the same as his existence. Hence the angel's essence is not his power of intelligence: nor is the essence of any creature its power of operation.
Iª q. 54 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Angelus dicitur intellectus et mens, quia tota eius cognitio est intellectualis. Cognitio autem animae partim est intellectualis, et partim sensitiva.	Reply to Objection 1. An angel is called "intellect" and "mind," because all his knowledge is intellectual: whereas the knowledge of a soul is partly intellectual and partly sensitive.
Iª q. 54 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod forma simplex quae est actus purus, nullius accidentis potest esse subiectum, quia subiectum comparatur ad accidens ut potentia ad actum. Et huiusmodi est solus Deus. Et de tali forma loquitur ibi Boetius. Forma autem simplex quae non est suum esse, sed comparatur ad ipsum ut potentia ad actum, potest esse subiectum accidentis, et praecipue eius quod consequitur speciem, huiusmodi enim accidens pertinet ad formam (accidens vero quod est individui, non consequens totam speciem, consequitur materiam, quae est individuationis principium). Et talis forma simplex est Angelus.	Reply to Objection 2. A simple form which is pure act cannot be the subject of accident, because subject is compared to accident as potentiality is to act. God alone is such a form: and of such is Boethius speaking there. But a simple form which is not its own existence, but is compared to it as potentiality is to act, can be the subject of accident; and especially of such accident as follows the species: for such accident belongs to the form--whereas an accident which belongs to the individual, and which does not belong to the whole species, results from the matter, which is the principle of individuation. And such a simple form is an angel.
Iª q. 54 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod potentia materiae est ad ipsum esse substantiale, et non potentia operativa, sed ad esse accidentale. Unde non est simile.	Reply to Objection 3. The power of matter is a potentiality in regard to substantial being itself, whereas the power of operation regards accidental being. Hence there is no comparison.
Iª q. 54 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Angelo sit intellectus agens et possibilis. Dicit enim philosophus, in III de anima, quod sicut in omni natura est aliquid quo est omnia fieri, et aliquid quo est omnia facere, ita etiam in anima. Sed Angelus est natura quaedam. Ergo in eo est intellectus agens et possibilis.	Objection 1. It would seem that there is both an active and a passive intellect in an angel. The Philosopher says (De Anima iii, text. 17) that, "in the soul, just as in every nature, there is something whereby it can become all things, and there is something whereby it can make all things." But an angel is a kind of nature. Therefore there is an active and a passive intellect in an angel.
Iª q. 54 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, recipere est proprium intellectus possibilis, illuminare autem est proprium intellectus agentis, ut patet in III de anima. Sed Angelus recipit illuminationem a superiori, et illuminat inferiorem. Ergo in eo est intellectus agens et possibilis.	Objection 2. Further, the proper function of the passive intellect is to receive; whereas to enlighten is the proper function of the active intellect, as is made clear in De Anima iii, text. 2,3,18. But an angel receives enlightenment from a higher angel, and enlightens a lower one. Therefore there is in him an active and a passive intellect.
Iª q. 54 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod in nobis intellectus agens et possibilis est per comparationem ad phantasmata; quae quidem comparantur ad intellectum possibilem ut colores ad visum, ad intellectum autem agentem ut colores ad lumen, ut patet ex III de anima. Sed hoc non est in Angelo. Ergo in Angelo non est intellectus agens et possibilis.	On the contrary, The distinction of active and passive intellect in us is in relation to the phantasms, which are compared to the passive intellect as colors to the sight; but to the active intellect as colors to the light, as is clear from De Anima iii, text. 18. But this is not so in the angel. Therefore there is no active and passive intellect in the angel.
Iª q. 54 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod necessitas ponendi intellectum possibilem in nobis, fuit propter hoc, quod nos invenimur quandoque intelligentes in potentia et non in actu, unde oportet esse quandam virtutem, quae sit in potentia ad intelligibilia ante ipsum intelligere, sed reducitur in actum eorum cum fit sciens, et ulterius cum fit considerans. Et haec virtus vocatur intellectus possibilis. Necessitas autem ponendi intellectum agentem fuit, quia naturae rerum materialium, quas nos intelligimus, non subsistunt extra animam immateriales et intelligibiles in actu, sed sunt solum intelligibiles in potentia, extra animam existentes, et ideo oportuit esse aliquam virtutem, quae faceret illas naturas intelligibiles actu. Et haec virtus dicitur intellectus agens in nobis. Utraque autem necessitas deest in Angelis. Quia neque sunt quandoque intelligentes in potentia tantum, respectu eorum quae naturaliter intelligunt, neque intelligibilia eorum sunt intelligibilia in potentia, sed in actu; intelligunt enim primo et principaliter res immateriales, ut infra patebit. Et ideo non potest in eis esse intellectus agens et possibilis, nisi aequivoce.	I answer that, The necessity for admitting a passive intellect in us is derived from the fact that we understand sometimes only in potentiality, and not actually. Hence there must exist some power, which, previous to the act of understanding, is in potentiality to intelligible things, but which becomes actuated in their regard when it apprehends them, and still more when it reflects upon them. This is the power which is denominated the passive intellect. The necessity for admitting an active intellect is due to this--that the natures of the material things which we understand do not exist outside the soul, as immaterial and actually intelligible, but are only intelligible in potentiality so long as they are outside the soul. Consequently it is necessary that there should be some power capable of rendering such natures actually intelligible: and this power in us is called the active intellect. But each of these necessities is absent from the angels. They are neither sometimes understanding only in potentiality, with regard to such things as they naturally apprehend; nor, again, are their intelligible in potentiality, but they are actually such; for they first and principally understand immaterial things, as will appear later (84, 7; 85, 1). Therefore there cannot be an active and a passive intellect in them, except equivocally.
Iª q. 54 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod philosophus intelligit ista duo esse in omni natura in qua contingit esse generari vel fieri, ut ipsa verba demonstrant. In Angelo autem non generatur scientia, sed naturaliter adest. Unde non oportet ponere in eis agens et possibile.	Reply to Objection 1. As the words themselves show, the Philosopher understands those two things to be in every nature in which there chances to be generation or making. Knowledge, however, is not generated in the angels, but is present naturally. Hence there is not need for admitting an active and a passive intellect in them.
Iª q. 54 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod intellectus agentis est illuminare non quidem alium intelligentem, sed intelligibilia in potentia, inquantum per abstractionem facit ea intelligibilia actu. Ad intellectum autem possibilem pertinet esse in potentia respectu naturalium cognoscibilium, et quandoque fieri actu. Unde quod Angelus illuminat Angelum, non pertinet ad rationem intellectus agentis. Neque ad rationem intellectus possibilis pertinet, quod illuminatur de supernaturalibus mysteriis, ad quae cognoscenda quandoque est in potentia. Si quis autem velit haec vocare intellectum agentem et possibilem, aequivoce dicet, nec de nominibus est curandum.	Reply to Objection 2. It is the function of the active intellect to enlighten, not another intellect, but things which are intelligible in potentiality, in so far as by abstraction it makes them to be actually intelligible. It belongs to the passive intellect to be in potentiality with regard to things which are naturally capable of being known, and sometimes to apprehend them actually. Hence for one angel to enlighten another does not belong to the notion of an active intellect: neither does it belong to the passive intellect for the angel to be enlightened with regard to supernatural mysteries, to the knowledge of which he is sometimes in potentiality. But if anyone wishes to call these by the names of active and passive intellect, he will then be speaking equivocally; and it is not about names that we need trouble.
Iª q. 54 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Angelis non sit sola intellectiva cognitio. Dicit enim Augustinus, VIII de Civ. Dei, quod in Angelis est vita quae intelligit et sentit. Ergo in eis est potentia sensitiva.	Objection 1. It would seem that the knowledge of the angels is not exclusively intellectual. For Augustine says (De Civ. Dei viii) that in the angels there is "life which understands and feels." Therefore there is a sensitive faculty in them as well.
Iª q. 54 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, Isidorus dicit quod Angeli multa noverunt per experientiam. Experientia autem fit ex multis memoriis, ut dicitur in I Metaphys. Ergo in eis est etiam memorativa potentia.	Objection 2. Further, Isidore says (De Summo Bono) that the angels have learnt many things by experience. But experience comes of many remembrances, as stated in Metaph. i, 1. Consequently they have likewise a power of memory.
Iª q. 54 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod in Daemonibus est phantasia proterva. Phantasia autem ad vim imaginativam pertinet. Ergo in Daemonibus est vis imaginativa. Et eadem ratione in Angelis, quia sunt eiusdem naturae.	Objection 3. Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that there is a sort of "perverted phantasy" in the demons. But phantasy belongs to the imaginative faculty. Therefore the power of the imagination is in the demons; and for the same reason it is in the angels, since they are of the same nature.
Iª q. 54 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit, in homilia de ascensione, quod homo sentit cum pecoribus, et intelligit cum Angelis.	On the contrary, Gregory says (Hom. 29 in Ev.), that "man senses in common with the brutes, and understands with the angels."
Iª q. 54 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in anima nostra sunt quaedam vires, quarum operationes per organa corporea exercentur, et huiusmodi vires sunt actus quarundam partium corporis, sicut est visus in oculo, et auditus in aure. Quaedam vero vires animae nostrae sunt, quarum operationes per organa corporea non exercentur, ut intellectus et voluntas, et huiusmodi non sunt actus aliquarum partium corporis. Angeli autem non habent corpora sibi naturaliter unita, ut ex supra dictis patet. Unde de viribus animae non possunt eis competere nisi intellectus et voluntas. Et hoc etiam Commentator dicit, XII Metaphys., quod substantiae separatae dividuntur in intellectum et voluntatem. Et hoc convenit ordini universi, ut suprema creatura intellectualis sit totaliter intellectiva; et non secundum partem, ut anima nostra. Et propter hoc etiam Angeli vocantur intellectus et mentes, ut supra dictum est.	I answer that, In our soul there are certain powers whose operations are exercised by corporeal organs; such powers are acts of sundry parts of the body, as sight of the eye, and hearing of the ear. There are some other powers of the soul whose operations are not performed through bodily organs, as intellect and will: these are not acts of any parts of the body. Now the angels have no bodies naturally joined to them, as is manifest from what has been said already (51, 1). Hence of the soul's powers only intellect and will can belong to them. The Commentator (Metaph. xii) says the same thing, namely, that the separated substances are divided into intellect and will. And it is in keeping with the order of the universe for the highest intellectual creature to be entirely intelligent; and not in part, as is our soul. For this reason the angels are called "intellects" and "minds," as was said above (3, ad 1).
Iª q. 54 a. 5 ad 1 Ad ea vero quae in contrarium obiiciuntur, potest dupliciter responderi. Uno modo, quod auctoritates illae loquuntur secundum opinionem illorum qui posuerunt Angelos et Daemones habere corpora naturaliter sibi unita. Qua opinione frequenter Augustinus in libris suis utitur, licet eam asserere non intendat, unde dicit, XXI de Civ. Dei, quod super hac inquisitione non est multum laborandum. Alio modo potest dici, quod auctoritates illae, et consimiles, sunt intelligendae per quandam similitudinem. Quia cum sensus certam apprehensionem habeat de proprio sensibili, est in usu loquentium ut etiam secundum certam apprehensionem intellectus aliquid sentire dicamur. Unde etiam sententia nominatur. Experientia vero Angelis attribui potest per similitudinem cognitorum, etsi non per similitudinem virtutis cognoscitivae. Est enim in nobis experientia, dum singularia per sensum cognoscimus, Angeli autem singularia cognoscunt, ut infra patebit, sed non per sensum. Sed tamen memoria in Angelis potest poni, secundum quod ab Augustino ponitur in mente; licet non possit eis competere secundum quod ponitur pars animae sensitivae. Similiter dicendum quod phantasia proterva attribuitur Daemonibus, ex eo quod habent falsam practicam existimationem de vero bono, deceptio autem in nobis proprie fit secundum phantasiam, per quam interdum similitudinibus rerum inhaeremus sicut rebus ipsis, ut patet in dormientibus et amentibus.	A twofold answer can be returned to the contrary objections. First, it may be replied that those authorities are speaking according to the opinion of such men as contended that angels and demons have bodies naturally united to them. Augustine often makes use of this opinion in his books, although he does not mean to assert it; hence he says (De Civ. Dei xxi) that "such an inquiry does not call for much labor." Secondly, it may be said that such authorities and the like are to be understood by way of similitude. Because, since sense has a sure apprehension of its proper sensible object, it is a common usage of speech, when he understands something for certain, to say that we "sense it." And hence it is that we use the word "sentence." Experience can be attributed to the angels according to the likeness of the things known, although not by likeness of the faculty knowing them. We have experience when we know single objects through the senses: the angels likewise know single objects, as we shall show (57, 2), yet not through the senses. But memory can be allowed in the angels, according as Augustine (De Trin. x) puts it in the mind; although it cannot belong to them in so far as it is a part of the sensitive soul. In like fashion 'a perverted phantasy' is attributed to demons, since they have a false practical estimate of what is the true good; while deception in us comes properly from the phantasy, whereby we sometimes hold fast to images of things as to the things themselves, as is manifest in sleepers and lunatics.
Iª q. 55 pr. Consequenter quaeritur de medio cognitionis angelicae. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo, utrum Angeli cognoscant omnia per suam substantiam, vel per aliquas species. Secundo, si per species, utrum per species connaturales, vel per species a rebus acceptas. Tertio, utrum Angeli superiores cognoscant per species magis universales, quam inferiores.
Iª q. 55 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli cognoscant omnia per suam substantiam. Dicit enim Dionysius, VII cap. de Div. Nom., quod Angeli sciunt ea quae sunt in terra, secundum propriam naturam mentis. Sed natura Angeli est eius essentia. Ergo Angelus per suam essentiam res cognoscit.	Objection 1. It would seem that the angels know all things by their substance. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. vii) that "the angels, according to the proper nature of a mind, know the things which are happening upon earth." But the angel's nature is his essence. Therefore the angel knows things by his essence.
Iª q. 55 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, secundum philosophum, in XII Metaphys., et in III de anima, in his quae sunt sine materia, idem est intellectus et quod intelligitur. Id autem quod intelligitur est idem intelligenti ratione eius quo intelligitur. Ergo in his quae sunt sine materia, sicut sunt Angeli, id quo intelligitur est ipsa substantia intelligentis.	Objection 2. Further, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. xii, text. 51; De Anima iii, text. 15), "in things which are without matter, the intellect is the same as the object understood." But the object understood is the same as the one who understands it, as regards that whereby it is understood. Therefore in things without matter, such as the angels, the medium whereby the object is understood is the very substance of the one understanding it.
Iª q. 55 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, omne quod est in altero, est in eo per modum eius in quo est. Sed Angelus habet naturam intellectualem. Ergo quidquid est in ipso, est in eo per modum intelligibilem. Sed omnia sunt in eo, quia inferiora in entibus sunt in superioribus essentialiter, superiora vero sunt in inferioribus participative; et ideo dicit Dionysius, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod Deus tota in totis congregat, idest omnia in omnibus. Ergo Angelus omnia in sua substantia cognoscit.	Objection 3. Further, everything which is contained in another is there according to the mode of the container. But an angel has an intellectual nature. Therefore whatever is in him is there in an intelligible mode. But all things are in him: because the lower orders of beings are essentially in the higher, while the higher are in the lower participatively: and therefore Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that God "enfolds the whole in the whole," i.e. all in all. Therefore the angel knows all things in his substance.
Iª q. 55 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit, in eodem capite, quod Angeli illuminantur rationibus rerum. Ergo cognoscunt per rationes rerum, et non per propriam substantiam.	On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "the angels are enlightened by the forms of things." Therefore they know by the forms of things, and not by their own substance.
Iª q. 55 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod illud quo intellectus intelligit, comparatur ad intellectum intelligentem ut forma eius, quia forma est quo agens agit. Oportet autem, ad hoc quod potentia perfecte compleatur per formam, quod omnia contineantur sub forma, ad quae potentia se extendit. Et inde est quod in rebus corruptibilibus forma non perfecte complet potentiam materiae, quia potentia materiae ad plura se extendit quam sit continentia formae huius vel illius. Potentia autem intellectiva Angeli se extendit ad intelligendum omnia, quia obiectum intellectus est ens vel verum commune. Ipsa autem essentia Angeli non comprehendit in se omnia, cum sit essentia determinata ad genus et ad speciem. Hoc autem proprium est essentiae divinae, quae infinita est, ut in se simpliciter omnia comprehendat perfecte. Et ideo solus Deus cognoscit omnia per suam essentiam. Angelus autem per suam essentiam non potest omnia cognoscere; sed oportet intellectum eius aliquibus speciebus perfici ad res cognoscendas.	I answer that, The medium through which the intellect understands, is compared to the intellect understanding it as its form, because it is by the form that the agent acts. Now in order that the faculty may be perfectly completed by the form, it is necessary for all things to which the faculty extends to be contained under the form. Hence it is that in things which are corruptible, the form does not perfectly complete the potentiality of the matter: because the potentiality of the matter extends to more things than are contained under this or that form. But the intellective power of the angel extends to understanding all things: because the object of the intellect is universal being or universal truth. The angel's essence, however, does not comprise all things in itself, since it is an essence restricted to a genus and species. This is proper to the Divine essence, which is infinite, simply and perfectly to comprise all things in Itself. Therefore God alone knows all things by His essence. But an angel cannot know all things by his essence; and his intellect must be perfected by some species in order to know things.
Iª q. 55 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum dicitur Angelum secundum suam naturam res cognoscere, ly secundum non determinat medium cognitionis, quod est similitudo cogniti; sed virtutem cognoscitivam, quae convenit Angelo secundum suam naturam.	Reply to Objection 1. When it is said that the angel knows things according to his own nature, the words "according to" do not determine the medium of such knowledge, since the medium is the similitude of the thing known; but they denote the knowing power, which belongs to the angel of his own nature.
Iª q. 55 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut sensus in actu est sensibile in actu, ut dicitur in III de anima, non ita quod ipsa vis sensitiva sit ipsa similitudo sensibilis quae est in sensu, sed quia ex utroque fit unum sicut ex actu et potentia; ita et intellectus in actu dicitur esse intellectum in actu, non quod substantia intellectus sit ipsa similitudo per quam intelligit, sed quia illa similitudo est forma eius. Idem est autem quod dicitur, in his quae sunt sine materia, idem est intellectus et quod intelligitur, ac si diceretur quod intellectus in actu est intellectum in actu, ex hoc enim aliquid est intellectum in actu quod est immateriale.	Reply to Objection 2. As the sense in act is the sensible in act, as stated in De Anima ii, text. 53, not so that the sensitive power is the sensible object's likeness contained in the sense, but because one thing is made from both as from act and potentiality: so likewise the intellect in act is said to be the thing understood in act, not that the substance of the intellect is itself the similitude by which it understands, but because that similitude is its form. Now, it is precisely the same thing to say "in things which are without matter, the intellect is the same thing as the object understood," as to say that "the intellect in act is the thing understood in act"; for a thing is actually understood, precisely because it is immaterial.
Iª q. 55 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ea quae sunt infra Angelum, et ea quae sunt supra ipsum, sunt quodammodo in substantia eius, non quidem perfecte, neque secundum propriam rationem, cum Angeli essentia, finita existens, secundum propriam rationem ab aliis distinguatur; sed secundum quandam rationem communem. In essentia autem Dei sunt omnia perfecte et secundum propriam rationem, sicut in prima et universali virtute operativa, a qua procedit quidquid est in quacumque re vel proprium vel commune. Et ideo Deus per essentiam suam habet propriam cognitionem de rebus omnibus, non autem Angelus, sed solam communem.	Reply to Objection 3. The things which are beneath the angel, and those which are above him, are in a measure in his substance, not indeed perfectly, nor according to their own proper formality--because the angel's essence, as being finite, is distinguished by its own formality from other things--but according to some common formality. Yet all things are perfectly and according to their own formality in God's essence, as in the first and universal operative power, from which proceeds whatever is proper or common to anything. Therefore God has a proper knowledge of all things by His own essence: and this the angel has not, but only a common knowledge.
Iª q. 55 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli intelligant per species a rebus acceptas. Omne enim quod intelligitur, per aliquam sui similitudinem in intelligente intelligitur. Similitudo autem alicuius in altero existens, aut est ibi per modum exemplaris, ita quod illa similitudo sit causa rei, aut est ibi per modum imaginis, ita quod sit causata a re. Oportet igitur quod omnis scientia intelligentis vel sit causa rei intellectae, vel causata a re. Sed scientia Angeli non est causa rerum existentium in natura, sed sola divina scientia. Ergo oportet quod species per quas intelligit intellectus angelicus, sint a rebus acceptae.	Objection 1. It would seem that the angels understand by species drawn from things. For everything understood is apprehended by some likeness within him who understands it. But the likeness of the thing existing in another is there either by way of an exemplar, so that the likeness is the cause of the thing; or else by way of an image, so that it is caused by such thing. All knowledge, then, of the person understanding must either be the cause of the object understood, or else caused by it. Now the angel's knowledge is not the cause of existing things; that belongs to the Divine knowledge alone. Therefore it is necessary for the species, by which the angelic mind understands, to be derived from things.
Iª q. 55 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, lumen angelicum est fortius quam lumen intellectus agentis in anima. Sed lumen intellectus agentis abstrahit species intelligibiles a phantasmatibus. Ergo lumen intellectus angelici potest abstrahere species etiam ab ipsis rebus sensibilibus. Et ita nihil prohibet dicere quod Angelus intelligat per species a rebus acceptas.	Objection 2. Further, the angelic light is stronger than the light of the active intellect of the soul. But the light of the active intellect abstracts intelligible species from phantasms. Therefore the light of the angelic mind can also abstract species from sensible things. So there is nothing to hinder us from saying that the angel understands through species drawn from things.
Iª q. 55 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, species quae sunt in intellectu, indifferenter se habent ad praesens et distans, nisi quatenus a rebus sensibilibus accipiuntur. Si ergo Angelus non intelligit per species a rebus acceptas, eius cognitio indifferenter se haberet ad propinqua et distantia, et ita frustra secundum locum moveretur.	Objection 3. Further, the species in the intellect are indifferent to what is present or distant, except in so far as they are taken from sensible objects. Therefore, if the angel does not understand by species drawn from things, his knowledge would be indifferent as to things present and distant; and so he would be moved locally to no purpose.
Iª q. 55 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit, VII cap. de Div. Nom., quod Angeli non congregant divinam cognitionem a rebus divisibilibus, aut a sensibilibus.	On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. vii) that the "angels do not gather their Divine knowledge from things divisible or sensible."
Iª q. 55 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod species per quas Angeli intelligunt, non sunt a rebus acceptae, sed eis connaturales. Sic enim oportet intelligere distinctionem et ordinem spiritualium substantiarum, sicut est distinctio et ordo corporalium. Suprema autem corpora habent potentiam in sui natura totaliter perfectam per formam, in corporibus autem inferioribus potentia materiae non totaliter perficitur per formam, sed accipit nunc unam, nunc aliam formam, ab aliquo agente. Similiter et inferiores substantiae intellectivae, scilicet animae humanae, habent potentiam intellectivam non completam naturaliter; sed completur in eis successive, per hoc quod accipiunt species intelligibiles a rebus. Potentia vero intellectiva in substantiis spiritualibus superioribus, idest in Angelis, naturaliter completa est per species intelligibiles, inquantum habent species intelligibiles connaturales ad omnia intelligenda quae naturaliter cognoscere possunt. Et hoc etiam ex ipso modo essendi huiusmodi substantiarum apparet. Substantiae enim spirituales inferiores, scilicet animae, habent esse affine corpori, inquantum sunt corporum formae, et ideo ex ipso modo essendi competit eis ut a corporibus, et per corpora suam perfectionem intelligibilem consequantur, alioquin frustra corporibus unirentur. Substantiae vero superiores, idest Angeli, sunt a corporibus totaliter absolutae, immaterialiter et in esse intelligibili subsistentes, et ideo suam perfectionem intelligibilem consequuntur per intelligibilem effluxum, quo a Deo species rerum cognitarum acceperunt simul cum intellectuali natura. Unde Augustinus dicit, II super Gen. ad Litt., quod cetera, quae infra Angelos sunt, ita creantur, ut prius fiant in cognitione rationalis creaturae, ac deinde in genere suo.	I answer that, The species whereby the angels understand are not drawn from things, but are connatural to them. For we must observe that there is a similarity between the distinction and order of spiritual substances and the distinction and order of corporeal substances. The highest bodies have in their nature a potentiality which is fully perfected by the form; whereas in the lower bodies the potentiality of matter is not entirely perfected by the form, but receives from some agent, now one form, now another. In like fashion also the lower intellectual substances --that is to say, human souls--have a power of understanding which is not naturally complete, but is successively completed in them by their drawing intelligible species from things. But in the higher spiritual substances--that is, the angels--the power of understanding is naturally complete by intelligible species, in so far as they have such species connatural to them, so as to understand all things which they can know naturally. The same is evident from the manner of existence of such substances. The lower spiritual substances--that is, souls--have a nature akin to a body, in so far as they are the forms of bodies: and consequently from their very mode of existence it behooves them to seek their intelligible perfection from bodies, and through bodies; otherwise they would be united with bodies to no purpose. On the other hand, the higher substances--that is, the angels--are utterly free from bodies, and subsist immaterially and in their own intelligible nature; consequently they attain their intelligible perfection through an intelligible outpouring, whereby they received from God the species of things known, together with their intellectual nature. Hence Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ii, 8): "The other things which are lower than the angels are so created that they first receive existence in the knowledge of the rational creature, and then in their own nature."
Iª q. 55 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in mente Angeli sunt similitudines creaturarum, non quidem ab ipsis creaturis acceptae, sed a Deo, qui est creaturarum causa, et in quo primo similitudines rerum existunt. Unde Augustinus dicit, in eodem libro, quod sicut ratio qua creatura conditur, prius est in verbo Dei quam ipsa creatura quae conditur, sic et eiusdem rationis cognitio prius fit in creatura intellectuali, ac deinde est ipsa conditio creaturae.	Reply to Objection 1. There are images of creatures in the angel's mind, not, indeed derived from creatures, but from God, Who is the cause of creatures, and in Whom the likenesses of creatures first exist. Hence Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ii, 8) that, "As the type, according to which the creature is fashioned, is in the Word of God before the creature which is fashioned, so the knowledge of the same type exists first in the intellectual creature, and is afterwards the very fashioning of the creature."
Iª q. 55 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod de extremo ad extremum non pervenitur nisi per medium. Esse autem formae in imaginatione, quod est quidem sine materia, non tamen sine materialibus conditionibus, medium est inter esse formae quae est in materia, et esse formae quae est in intellectu per abstractionem a materia et a conditionibus materialibus. Unde quantumcumque sit potens intellectus angelicus, non posset formas materiales reducere ad esse intelligibile, nisi prius reduceret eas ad esse formarum imaginatarum. Quod est impossibile, cum careat imaginatione, ut dictum est. Dato etiam quod posset abstrahere species intelligibiles a rebus materialibus, non tamen abstraheret, quia non indigeret eis, cum habeat species intelligibiles connaturales.	Reply to Objection 2. To go from one extreme to the other it is necessary to pass through the middle. Now the nature of a form in the imagination, which form is without matter but not without material conditions, stands midway between the nature of a form which is in matter, and the nature of a form which is in the intellect by abstraction from matter and from material conditions. Consequently, however powerful the angelic mind might be, it could not reduce material forms to an intelligible condition, except it were first to reduce them to the nature of imagined forms; which is impossible, since the angel has no imagination, as was said above (54, 5). Even granted that he could abstract intelligible species from material things, yet he would not do so; because he would not need them, for he has connatural intelligible species.
Iª q. 55 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod cognitio Angeli indifferenter se habet ad distans et propinquum secundum locum. Non tamen propter hoc motus eius localis est frustra, non enim movetur localiter ad cognitionem accipiendam, sed ad operandum aliquid in loco.	Reply to Objection 3. The angel's knowledge is quite indifferent as to what is near or distant. Nevertheless his local movement is not purposeless on that account: for he is not moved to a place for the purpose of acquiring knowledge, but for the purpose of operation.
Iª q. 55 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod superiores Angeli non intelligant per species magis universales quam inferiores. Universale enim esse videtur quod a particularibus abstrahitur. Sed Angeli non intelligunt per species a rebus abstractas. Ergo non potest dici quod species intellectus angelici sint magis vel minus universales.	Objection 1. It would seem that the higher angels do not understand by more universal species than the lower angels. For the universal, seemingly, is what is abstracted from particulars. But angels do not understand by species abstracted from things. Therefore it cannot be said that the species of the angelic intellect are more or less universal.
Iª q. 55 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, quod cognoscitur in speciali, perfectius cognoscitur quam quod cognoscitur in universali, quia cognoscere aliquid in universali est quodammodo medium inter potentiam et actum. Si ergo Angeli superiores cognoscunt per formas magis universales quam inferiores, sequitur quod Angeli superiores habeant scientiam magis imperfectam quam inferiores. Quod est inconveniens.	Objection 2. Further, whatever is known in detail is more perfectly known than what is known generically; because to know anything generically is, in a fashion, midway between potentiality and act. If, therefore, the higher angels know by more universal species than the lower, it follows that the higher have a more imperfect knowledge than the lower; which is not befitting.
Iª q. 55 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, idem non potest esse propria ratio multorum. Sed si Angelus superior cognoscat per unam formam universalem diversa, quae inferior Angelus cognoscit per plures formas speciales, sequitur quod Angelus superior utitur una forma universali ad cognoscendum diversa. Ergo non poterit habere propriam cognitionem de utroque. Quod videtur inconveniens.	Objection 3. Further, the same cannot be the proper type of many. But if the higher angel knows various things by one universal form, which the lower angel knows by several special forms, it follows that the higher angel uses one universal form for knowing various things. Therefore he will not be able to have a proper knowledge of each; which seems unbecoming.
Iª q. 55 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit Dionysius, XII cap. Angel. Hier., quod superiores Angeli participant scientiam magis in universali quam inferiores. Et in libro de causis dicitur quod Angeli superiores habent formas magis universales.	On the contrary, Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. xii) that the higher angels have a more universal knowledge than the lower. And in De Causis it is said that the higher angels have more universal forms.
Iª q. 55 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod ex hoc sunt in rebus aliqua superiora, quod sunt uni primo, quod est Deus, propinquiora et similiora. In Deo autem tota plenitudo intellectualis cognitionis continetur in uno, scilicet in essentia divina, per quam Deus omnia cognoscit. Quae quidem intelligibilis plenitudo in intellectibus creatis inferiori modo et minus simpliciter invenitur. Unde oportet quod ea quae Deus cognoscit per unum, inferiores intellectus cognoscant per multa, et tanto amplius per plura, quanto amplius intellectus inferior fuerit. Sic igitur quanto Angelus fuerit superior, tanto per pauciores species universitatem intelligibilium apprehendere poterit. Et ideo oportet quod eius formae sint universaliores, quasi ad plura se extendentes unaquaeque earum. Et de hoc exemplum aliqualiter in nobis perspici potest. Sunt enim quidam, qui veritatem intelligibilem capere non possunt, nisi eis particulatim per singula explicetur, et hoc quidem ex debilitate intellectus eorum contingit. Alii vero, qui sunt fortioris intellectus, ex paucis multa capere possunt.	I answer that, For this reason are some things of a more exalted nature, because they are nearer to and more like unto the first, which is God. Now in God the whole plenitude of intellectual knowledge is contained in one thing, that is to say, in the Divine essence, by which God knows all things. This plenitude of knowledge is found in created intellects in a lower manner, and less simply. Consequently it is necessary for the lower intelligences to know by many forms what God knows by one, and by so many forms the more according as the intellect is lower. Thus the higher the angel is, by so much the fewer species will he be able to apprehend the whole mass of intelligible objects. Therefore his forms must be more universal; each one of them, as it were, extending to more things. An example of this can in some measure be observed in ourselves. For some people there are who cannot grasp an intelligible truth, unless it be explained to them in every part and detail; this comes of their weakness of intellect: while there are others of stronger intellect, who can grasp many things from few.
Iª q. 55 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod accidit universali ut a singularibus abstrahatur, inquantum intellectus illud cognoscens a rebus cognitionem accipit. Si vero sit aliquis intellectus a rebus cognitionem non accipiens, universale ab eo cognitum non erit abstractum a rebus, sed quodammodo ante res praeexistens, vel secundum ordinem causae, sicut universales rerum rationes sunt in verbo Dei; vel saltem ordine naturae, sicut universales rerum rationes sunt in intellectu angelico.	Reply to Objection 1. It is accidental to the universal to be abstracted from particulars, in so far as the intellect knowing it derives its knowledge from things. But if there be an intellect which does not derive its knowledge from things, the universal which it knows will not be abstracted from things, but in a measure will be pre-existing to them; either according to the order of causality, as the universal ideas of things are in the Word of God; or at least in the order of nature, as the universal ideas of things are in the angelic mind.
Iª q. 55 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod cognoscere aliquid in universali, dicitur dupliciter. Uno modo, ex parte rei cognitae, ut scilicet cognoscatur solum universalis natura rei. Et sic cognoscere aliquid in universali est imperfectius, imperfecte enim cognosceret hominem, qui cognosceret de eo solum quod est animal. Alio modo, ex parte medii cognoscendi. Et sic perfectius est cognoscere aliquid in universali, perfectior enim est intellectus qui per unum universale medium potest singula propria cognoscere, quam qui non potest.	Reply to Objection 2. To know anything universally can be taken in two senses. In one way, on the part of the thing known, namely, that only the universal nature of the thing is known. To know a thing thus is something less perfect: for he would have but an imperfect knowledge of a man who only knew him to be an animal. In another way, on the part of the medium of such knowledge. In this way it is more perfect to know a thing in the universal; for the intellect, which by one universal medium can know each of the things which are properly contained in it, is more perfect than one which cannot.
Iª q. 55 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod idem non potest esse plurium propria ratio adaequata. Sed si sit excellens, potest idem accipi ut propria ratio et similitudo diversorum. Sicut in homine est universalis prudentia quantum ad omnes actus virtutum; et potest accipi ut propria ratio et similitudo particularis prudentiae quae est in leone ad actus magnanimitatis, et eius quae est in vulpe ad actus cautelae, et sic de aliis. Similiter essentia divina accipitur, propter sui excellentiam, ut propria ratio singulorum, quia est in ea unde sibi singula similentur secundum proprias rationes. Et eodem modo dicendum est de ratione universali quae est in mente Angeli, quod per eam, propter eius excellentiam, multa cognosci possunt propria cognitione.	Reply to Objection 3. The same cannot be the proper and adequate type of several things. But if it be eminent, then it can be taken as the proper type and likeness of many. Just as in man, there is a universal prudence with respect to all the acts of the virtues; which can be taken as the proper type and likeness of that prudence which in the lion leads to acts of magnanimity, and in the fox to acts of wariness; and so on of the rest. The Divine essence, on account of Its eminence, is in like fashion taken as the proper type of each thing contained therein: hence each one is likened to It according to its proper type. The same applies to the universal form which is in the mind of the angel, so that, on account of its excellence, many things can be known through it with a proper knowledge.
Iª q. 56 pr. Deinde quaeritur de cognitione Angelorum ex parte rerum quas cognoscunt. Et primo, de cognitione rerum immaterialium; secundo, de cognitione rerum materialium. Circa primum quaeruntur tria. Primo, utrum Angelus cognoscat seipsum. Secundo, utrum unus cognoscat alium. Tertio, utrum Angelus per sua naturalia cognoscat Deum.
Iª q. 56 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus seipsum non cognoscat. Dicit enim Dionysius, VI cap. Angel. Hier., quod Angeli ignorant proprias virtutes. Cognita autem substantia, cognoscitur virtus. Ergo Angelus non cognoscit suam essentiam.	Objection 1. It would seem that an angel does not know himself. For Dionysius says that "the angels do not know their own powers" (Coel. Hier. vi). But, when the substance is known, the power is known. Therefore an angel does not know his own essence.
Iª q. 56 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, Angelus est quaedam substantia singularis, alioquin non ageret, cum actus sint singularium subsistentium. Sed nullum singulare est intelligibile. Ergo non potest intelligi. Et ita, cum Angelo non adsit nisi intellectiva cognitio, non poterit aliquis Angelus cognoscere seipsum.	Objection 2. Further, an angel is a single substance, otherwise he would not act, since acts belong to single subsistences. But nothing single is intelligible. Therefore, since the angel possesses only knowledge which is intellectual, no angel can know himself.
Iª q. 56 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, intellectus movetur ab intelligibili, quia intelligere est quoddam pati, ut dicitur in III de anima. Sed nihil movetur aut patitur a seipso; ut in rebus corporalibus apparet. Ergo Angelus non potest intelligere seipsum.	Objection 3. Further, the intellect is moved by the intelligible object: because, as stated in De Anima iii, 4 understanding is a kind of passion. But nothing is moved by or is passive to itself; as appears in corporeal things. Therefore the angel cannot understand himself.
Iª q. 56 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, II super Gen. ad Litt., quod Angelus in ipsa sua conformatione, hoc est illustratione veritatis, cognovit seipsum.	On the contrary, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ii) that "the angel knew himself when he was established, that is, enlightened by truth."
Iª q. 56 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex supra dictis patet, obiectum aliter se habet in actione quae manet in agente, et in actione quae transit in aliquid exterius. Nam in actione quae transit in aliquid exterius, obiectum sive materia in quam transit actus, est separata ab agente, sicut calefactum a calefaciente, et aedificatum ab aedificante. Sed in actione quae manet in agente, oportet ad hoc quod procedat actio, quod obiectum uniatur agenti, sicut oportet quod sensibile uniatur sensui, ad hoc quod sentiat actu. Et ita se habet obiectum unitum potentiae ad huiusmodi actionem, sicut forma quae est principium actionis in aliis agentibus, sicut enim calor est principium formale calefactionis in igne, ita species rei visae est principium formale visionis in oculo. Sed considerandum est quod huiusmodi species obiecti quandoque est in potentia tantum in cognoscitiva virtute, et tunc est cognoscens in potentia tantum; et ad hoc quod actu cognoscat, requiritur quod potentia cognoscitiva reducatur in actum speciei. Si autem semper eam actu habeat, nihilominus per eam cognoscere potest absque aliqua mutatione vel receptione praecedenti. Ex quo patet quod moveri ab obiecto non est de ratione cognoscentis inquantum est cognoscens, sed inquantum est potentia cognoscens. Nihil autem differt, ad hoc quod forma sit principium actionis, quod ipsa forma sit alii inhaerens, et quod sit per se subsistens, non enim minus calor calefaceret si esset per se subsistens, quam calefacit inhaerens. Sic igitur et si aliquid in genere intelligibilium se habeat ut forma intelligibilis subsistens, intelliget seipsum. Angelus autem, cum sit immaterialis, est quaedam forma subsistens, et per hoc intelligibilis actu. Unde sequitur quod per suam formam, quae est sua substantia, seipsum intelligat.	I answer that, As is evident from what has been previously said (14, 2; 54, 2), the object is on a different footing in an immanent, and in a transient, action. In a transient action the object or matter into which the action passes is something separate from the agent, as the thing heated is from what gave it heat, and the building from the builder; whereas in an immanent action, for the action to proceed, the object must be united with the agent; just as the sensible object must be in contact with sense, in order that sense may actually perceive. And the object which is united to a faculty bears the same relation to actions of this kind as does the form which is the principle of action in other agents: for, as heat is the formal principle of heating in the fire, so is the species of the thing seen the formal principle of sight to the eye. It must, however, be borne in mind that this image of the object exists sometimes only potentially in the knowing faculty; and then there is only knowledge in potentiality; and in order that there may be actual knowledge, it is required that the faculty of knowledge be actuated by the species. But if it always actually possesses the species, it can thereby have actual knowledge without any preceding change or reception. >From this it is evident that it is not of the nature of knower, as knowing, to be moved by the object, but as knowing in potentiality. Now, for the form to be the principle of the action, it makes no difference whether it be inherent in something else, or self-subsisting; because heat would give forth heat none the less if it were self-subsisting, than it does by inhering in something else. So therefore, if in the order of intelligible beings there be any subsisting intelligible form, it will understand itself. And since an angel is immaterial, he is a subsisting form; and, consequently, he is actually intelligible. Hence it follows that he understands himself by his form, which is his substance.
Iª q. 56 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod littera illa est antiquae translationis, quae corrigitur per novam, in qua dicitur, praeterea et ipsos, scilicet Angelos, cognovisse proprias virtutes; loco cuius habebatur in alia translatione, et adhuc et eos ignorare proprias virtutes. Quamvis etiam littera antiquae translationis salvari possit quantum ad hoc, quod Angeli non perfecte cognoscunt suam virtutem, secundum quod procedit ab ordine divinae sapientiae, quae est Angelis incomprehensibilis.	Reply to Objection 1. That is the text of the old translation, which is amended in the new one, and runs thus: "furthermore they," that is to say the angels, "knew their own powers": instead of which the old translation read--"and furthermore they do not know their own powers." Although even the letter of the old translation might be kept in this respect, that the angels do not know their own power perfectly; according as it proceeds from the order of the Divine Wisdom, Which to the angels is incomprehensible.
Iª q. 56 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod singularium quae sunt in rebus corporalibus, non est intellectus, apud nos, non ratione singularitatis, sed ratione materiae, quae est in eis individuationis principium. Unde si aliqua singularia sunt sine materia subsistentia, sicut sunt Angeli, illa nihil prohibet intelligibilia esse actu.	Reply to Objection 2. We have no knowledge of single corporeal things, not because of their particularity, but on account of the matter, which is their principle of individuation. Accordingly, if there be any single things subsisting without matter, as the angels are, there is nothing to prevent them from being actually intelligible.
Iª q. 56 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod moveri et pati convenit intellectui secundum quod est in potentia. Unde non habet locum in intellectu angelico; maxime quantum ad hoc quod intelligit seipsum. Actio etiam intellectus non est eiusdem rationis cum actione quae in corporalibus invenitur, in aliam materiam transeunte.	Reply to Objection 3. It belongs to the intellect, in so far as if is in potentiality, to be moved and to be passive. Hence this does not happen in the angelic intellect, especially as regards the fact that he understands himself. Besides the action of the intellect is not of the same nature as the action found in corporeal things, which passes into some other matter.
Iª q. 56 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod unus Angelus alium non cognoscat. Dicit enim philosophus, in III de anima, quod si intellectus humanus haberet in se aliquam naturam de numero naturarum rerum sensibilium, illa natura interius existens prohiberet apparere extranea, sicut etiam si pupilla esset colorata aliquo colore, non posset videre omnem colorem. Sed sicut se habet intellectus humanus ad cognoscendas res corporeas, ita se habet intellectus angelicus ad cognoscendas res immateriales. Cum igitur intellectus angelicus habeat in se aliquam naturam determinatam de numero illarum naturarum, videtur quod alias cognoscere non possit.	Objection 1. It would seem that one angel does not know another. For the Philosopher says (De Anima iii, text. 4), that if the human intellect were to have in itself any one of the sensible things, then such a nature existing within it would prevent it from apprehending external things; as likewise, if the pupil of the eye were colored with some particular color, it could not see every color. But as the human intellect is disposed for understanding corporeal things, so is the angelic mind for understanding immaterial things. Therefore, since the angelic intellect has within itself some one determinate nature from the number of such natures, it would seem that it cannot understand other natures.
Iª q. 56 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, in libro de causis dicitur quod omnis intelligentia sit quod est supra se, inquantum est causata ab eo; et quod est sub se, inquantum est causa eius. Sed unus Angelus non est causa alterius. Ergo unus Angelus non cognoscit alium.	Objection 2. Further, it is stated in De Causis that "every intelligence knows what is above it, in so far as it is caused by it; and what is beneath it, in so far as it is its cause." But one angel is not the cause of another. Therefore one angel does not know another.
Iª q. 56 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, unus Angelus non potest cognoscere alium per essentiam ipsius Angeli cognoscentis, cum omnis cognitio sit secundum rationem similitudinis, essentia autem Angeli cognoscentis non est similis essentiae Angeli cogniti nisi in genere, ut ex supra dictis patet; unde sequeretur quod unus Angelus non haberet de alio cognitionem propriam, sed generalem tantum. Similiter etiam non potest dici quod unus Angelus cognoscat alium per essentiam Angeli cogniti, quia illud quo intellectus intelligit, est intrinsecum intellectui; sola autem Trinitas illabitur menti. Similiter etiam dici non potest quod unus cognoscat alium per speciem, quia illa species non differret ab Angelo intellecto, cum utrumque sit immateriale. Nullo igitur modo videtur quod unus Angelus possit intelligere alium.	Objection 3. Further, one angel cannot be known to another angel by the essence of the one knowing; because all knowledge is effected by way of a likeness. But the essence of the angel knowing is not like the essence of the angel known, except generically; as is clear from what has been said before (50, 4; 55, 1, ad 3). Hence, it follows that one angel would not have a particular knowledge of another, but only a general knowledge. In like manner it cannot be said that one angel knows another by the essence of the angel known; because that whereby the intellect understands is something within the intellect; whereas the Trinity alone can penetrate the mind. Again, it cannot be said that one angel knows the other by a species; because that species would not differ from the angel understood, since each is immaterial. Therefore in no way does it appear that one angel can understand another.
Iª q. 56 a. 2 arg. 4 Praeterea, si unus Angelus intelligit alium, aut hoc esset per speciem innatam, et sic sequeretur quod, si Deus nunc de novo crearet aliquem Angelum, quod non posset cognosci ab his qui nunc sunt. Aut per speciem acquisitam a rebus, et sic sequeretur quod Angeli superiores non possent cognoscere inferiores, a quibus nihil accipiunt. Nullo igitur modo videtur quod unus Angelus alium cognoscat.	Objection 4. Further, if one angel did understand another, this would be either by an innate species; and so it would follow that, if God were now to create another angel, such an angel could not be known by the existing angels; or else he would have to be known by a species drawn from things; and so it would follow that the higher angels could not know the lower, from whom they receive nothing. Therefore in no way does it seem that one angel knows another.
Iª q. 56 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in libro de causis, quod omnis intelligentia scit res quae non corrumpuntur.	On the contrary, We read in De Causis that "every intelligence knows the things which are not corrupted."
Iª q. 56 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, II super Gen. ad Litt., ea quae in verbo Dei ab aeterno praeextiterunt, dupliciter ab eo effluxerunt, uno modo, in intellectum angelicum; alio modo, ut subsisterent in propriis naturis. In intellectum autem angelicum processerunt per hoc, quod Deus menti angelicae impressit rerum similitudines, quas in esse naturali produxit. In verbo autem Dei ab aeterno extiterunt non solum rationes rerum corporalium, sed etiam rationes omnium spiritualium creaturarum. Sic igitur unicuique spiritualium creaturarum a verbo Dei impressae sunt omnes rationes rerum omnium, tam corporalium quam spiritualium. Ita tamen quod unicuique Angelo impressa est ratio suae speciei secundum esse naturale et intelligibile simul, ita scilicet quod in natura suae speciei subsisteret, et per eam se intelligeret, aliarum vero naturarum, tam spiritualium quam corporalium, rationes sunt ei impressae secundum esse intelligibile tantum, ut videlicet per huiusmodi species impressas, tam creaturas corporales quam spirituales cognosceret.	I answer that, As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. lit. ii), such things as pre-existed from eternity in the Word of God, came forth from Him in two ways: first, into the angelic mind; and secondly, so as to subsist in their own natures. They proceeded into the angelic mind in such a way, that God impressed upon the angelic mind the images of the things which He produced in their own natural being. Now in the Word of God from eternity there existed not only the forms of corporeal things, but likewise the forms of all spiritual creatures. So in every one of these spiritual creatures, the forms of all things, both corporeal and spiritual, were impressed by the Word of God; yet so that in every angel there was impressed the form of his own species according to both its natural and its intelligible condition, so that he should subsist in the nature of his species, and understand himself by it; while the forms of other spiritual and corporeal natures were impressed in him only according to their intelligible natures, so that by such impressed species he might know corporeal and spiritual creatures.
Iª q. 56 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod naturae spirituales Angelorum ab invicem distinguuntur ordine quodam, sicut supra dictum est. Et sic natura unius Angeli non prohibet intellectum ipsius a cognoscendis aliis naturis Angelorum, cum tam superiores quam inferiores habeant affinitatem cum natura eius, differentia existente tantum secundum diversos gradus perfectionis.	Reply to Objection 1. The spiritual natures of the angels are distinguished from one another in a certain order, as was already observed (50, 4, ad 1,2). So the nature of an angel does not hinder him from knowing the other angelic natures, since both the higher and lower bear affinity to his nature, the only difference being according to their various degrees of perfection.
Iª q. 56 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio causae et causati non facit ad hoc quod unus Angelus alium cognoscat, nisi ratione similitudinis, inquantum causa et causatum sunt similia. Et ideo, si inter Angelos ponatur similitudo absque causalitate, remanebit in uno cognitio alterius.	Reply to Objection 2. The nature of cause and effect does not lead one angel to know another, except on account of likeness, so far as cause and effect are alike. Therefore if likeness without causality be admitted in the angels, this will suffice for one to know another.
Iª q. 56 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod unus Angelus cognoscit alium per speciem eius in intellectu suo existentem, quae differt ab Angelo cuius similitudo est, non secundum esse materiale et immateriale, sed secundum esse naturale et intentionale. Nam ipse Angelus est forma subsistens in esse naturali, non autem species eius quae est in intellectu alterius Angeli, sed habet ibi esse intelligibile tantum. Sicut etiam et forma coloris in pariete habet esse naturale, in medio autem deferente habet esse intentionale tantum.	Reply to Objection 3. One angel knows another by the species of such angel existing in his intellect, which differs from the angel whose image it is, not according to material and immaterial nature, but according to natural and intentional existence. The angel is himself a subsisting form in his natural being; but his species in the intellect of another angel is not so, for there it possesses only an intelligible existence. As the form of color on the wall has a natural existence; but, in the deferent medium, it has only intentional existence.
Iª q. 56 a. 2 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod Deus unamquamque creaturam fecit proportionatam universo quod facere disposuit. Et ideo, si Deus instituisset facere plures Angelos vel plures naturas rerum, plures species intelligibiles mentibus angelicis impressisset. Sicut si aedificator voluisset facere maiorem domum, fecisset maius fundamentum. Unde eiusdem rationis est quod Deus adderet aliquam creaturam universo, et aliquam speciem intelligibilem Angelo.	Reply to Objection 4. God made every creature proportionate to the universe which He determined to make. Therefore had God resolved to make more angels or more natures of things, He would have impressed more intelligible species in the angelic minds; as a builder who, if he had intended to build a larger house, would have made larger foundations. Hence, for God to add a new creature to the universe, means that He would add a new intelligible species to an angel.
Iª q. 56 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli per sua naturalia Deum cognoscere non possint. Dicit enim Dionysius, I cap. de Div. Nom., quod Deus est super omnes caelestes mentes incomprehensibili virtute collocatus. Et postea subdit quod, quia est supra omnem substantiam, ab omni cognitione est segregatus.	Objection 1. It would seem that the angels cannot know God by their natural principles. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i) that God "by His incomprehensible might is placed above all heavenly minds." Afterwards he adds that, "since He is above all substances, He is remote from all knowledge."
Iª q. 56 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, Deus in infinitum distat ab intellectu Angeli. Sed in infinitum distantia non possunt attingi. Ergo videtur quod Angelus per sua naturalia non possit Deum cognoscere.	Objection 2. Further, God is infinitely above the intellect of an angel. But what is infinitely beyond cannot be reached. Therefore it appears that an angel cannot know God by his natural principles.
Iª q. 56 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, I Cor. XIII dicitur, videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem. Ex quo videtur quod sit duplex Dei cognitio, una, qua videtur per sui essentiam, secundum quam dicitur videri facie ad faciem; alia, secundum quod videtur in speculo creaturarum. Sed primam Dei cognitionem Angelus habere non potuit per sua naturalia, ut supra ostensum est. Visio autem specularis Angelis non convenit, quia non accipiunt divinam cognitionem e rebus sensibilibus, ut dicit Dionysius, VII cap. de Div. Nom. Ergo Angeli per sua naturalia Deum cognoscere non possunt.	Objection 3. Further, it is written (1 Corinthians 13:12): "We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face." From this it appears that there is a twofold knowledge of God; the one, whereby He is seen in His essence, according to which He is said to be seen face to face; the other whereby He is seen in the mirror of creatures. As was already shown (12, 4), an angel cannot have the former knowledge by his natural principles. Nor does vision through a mirror belong to the angels, since they do not derive their knowledge of God from sensible things, as Dionysius observes (Div. Nom. vii). Therefore the angels cannot know God by their natural powers.
Iª q. 56 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra, Angeli sunt potentiores in cognoscendo quam homines. Sed homines per sua naturalia Deum cognoscere possunt; secundum illud Rom. I, quod notum est Dei, manifestum est in illis. Ergo multo magis Angeli.	On the contrary, The angels are mightier in knowledge than men. Yet men can know God through their natural principles; according to Rm. 1:19: "what is known of God is manifest in them." Therefore much more so can the angels.
Iª q. 56 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Angeli aliquam cognitionem de Deo habere possunt per sua naturalia. Ad cuius evidentiam, considerandum est quod aliquid tripliciter cognoscitur. Uno modo, per praesentiam suae essentiae in cognoscente, sicut si lux videatur in oculo, et sic dictum est quod Angelus intelligit seipsum. Alio modo, per praesentiam suae similitudinis in potentia cognoscitiva, sicut lapis videtur ab oculo per hoc quod similitudo eius resultat in oculo. Tertio modo, per hoc quod similitudo rei cognitae non accipitur immediate ab ipsa re cognita, sed a re alia, in qua resultat, sicut cum videmus hominem in speculo. Primae igitur cognitioni assimilatur divina cognitio, qua per essentiam suam videtur. Et haec cognitio Dei non potest adesse creaturae alicui per sua naturalia, ut supra dictum est. Tertiae autem cognitioni assimilatur cognitio qua nos cognoscimus Deum in via, per similitudinem eius in creaturis resultantem; secundum illud Rom. I, invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta, conspiciuntur. Unde et dicimur Deum videre in speculo. Cognitio autem qua Angelus per sua naturalia cognoscit Deum, media est inter has duas; et similatur illi cognitioni qua videtur res per speciem ab ea acceptam. Quia enim imago Dei est in ipsa natura Angeli impressa per suam essentiam, Angelus Deum cognoscit, inquantum est similitudo Dei. Non tamen ipsam essentiam Dei videt, quia nulla similitudo creata est sufficiens ad repraesentandam divinam essentiam. Unde magis ista cognitio tenet se cum speculari, quia et ipsa natura angelica est quoddam speculum divinam similitudinem repraesentans.	I answer that, The angels can have some knowledge of God by their own principles. In evidence whereof it must be borne in mind that a thing is known in three ways: first, by the presence of its essence in the knower, as light can be seen in the eye; and so we have said that an angel knows himself--secondly, by the presence of its similitude in the power which knows it, as a stone is seen by the eye from its image being in the eye--thirdly, when the image of the object known is not drawn directly from the object itself, but from something else in which it is made to appear, as when we behold a man in a mirror. To the first-named class that knowledge of God is likened by which He is seen through His essence; and knowledge such as this cannot accrue to any creature from its natural principles, as was said above (12, 4). The third class comprises the knowledge whereby we know God while we are on earth, by His likeness reflected in creatures, according to Rm. 1:20: "The invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." Hence, too, we are said to see God in a mirror. But the knowledge, whereby according to his natural principles the angel knows God, stands midway between these two; and is likened to that knowledge whereby a thing is seen through the species abstracted from it. For since God's image is impressed on the very nature of the angel in his essence, the angel knows God in as much as he is the image of God. Yet he does not behold God's essence; because no created likeness is sufficient to represent the Divine essence. Such knowledge then approaches rather to the specular kind; because the angelic nature is itself a kind of mirror representing the Divine image.
Iª q. 56 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Dionysius loquitur de cognitione comprehensionis, ut expresse eius verba ostendunt. Et sic a nullo intellectu creato cognoscitur.	Reply to Objection 1. Dionysius is speaking of the knowledge of comprehension, as his words expressly state. In this way God is not known by any created intellect.
Iª q. 56 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod propter hoc quod intellectus et essentia Angeli in infinitum distant a Deo, sequitur quod non possit ipsum comprehendere, nec per suam naturam eius essentiam videre. Non tamen sequitur propter hoc, quod nullam eius cognitionem habere possit, quia sicut Deus in infinitum distat ab Angelo, ita cognitio quam Deus habet de seipso, in infinitum distat a cognitione quam Angelus habet de eo.	Reply to Objection 2. Since an angel's intellect and essence are infinitely remote from God, it follows that he cannot comprehend Him; nor can he see God's essence through his own nature. Yet it does not follow on that account that he can have no knowledge of Him at all: because, as God is infinitely remote from the angel, so the knowledge which God has of Himself is infinitely above the knowledge which an angel has of Him.
Iª q. 56 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod cognitio quam naturaliter Angelus habet de Deo, est media inter utramque cognitionem, et tamen magis se tenet cum una, ut supra dictum est.	Reply to Objection 3. The knowledge which an angel has of God is midway between these two kinds of knowledge; nevertheless it approaches more to one of them, as was said above.
Iª q. 57 pr. Deinde quaeritur de his materialibus quae ab Angelis cognoscuntur. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quinque. Primo, utrum Angeli cognoscant naturas rerum materialium. Secundo, utrum cognoscant singularia. Tertio, utrum cognoscant futura. Quarto, utrum cognoscant cogitationes cordium. Quinto, utrum cognoscant omnia mysteria gratiae.
Iª q. 57 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli non cognoscant res materiales. Intellectum enim est perfectio intelligentis. Res autem materiales non possunt esse perfectiones Angelorum, cum sint infra ipsos. Ergo Angeli non cognoscunt res materiales.	Objection 1. It would seem that the angels do not know material things. For the object understood is the perfection of him who understands it. But material things cannot be the perfections of angels, since they are beneath them. Therefore the angels do not know material things.
Iª q. 57 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, visio intellectualis est eorum quae sunt in anima per sui essentiam, ut dicitur in Glossa, II ad Cor. XII. Sed res materiales non possunt esse in anima hominis, vel in mente Angeli, per suas essentias. Ergo non possunt intellectuali visione cognosci, sed solum imaginaria, qua apprehenduntur similitudines corporum; et sensibili, quae est de ipsis corporibus. In Angelis autem non est visio imaginaria et sensibilis, sed solum intellectualis. Ergo Angeli materialia cognoscere non possunt.	Objection 2. Further, intellectual vision is only of such things as exist within the soul by their essence, as is said in the gloss [On 2 Cor. 12:2, taken from Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xii. 28)]. But the material things cannot enter by their essence into man's soul, nor into the angel's mind. Therefore they cannot be known by intellectual vision, but only by imaginary vision, whereby the images of bodies are apprehended, and by sensible vision, which regards bodies in themselves. Now there is neither imaginary nor sensible vision in the angels, but only intellectual. Therefore the angels cannot know material things.
Iª q. 57 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, res materiales non sunt intelligibiles in actu, sed sunt cognoscibiles apprehensione sensus et imaginationis; quae non est in Angelis. Ergo Angeli materialia non cognoscunt.	Objection 3. Further, material things are not actually intelligible, but are knowable by apprehension of sense and of imagination, which does not exist in angels. Therefore angels do not know material things.
Iª q. 57 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra, quidquid potest inferior virtus, potest virtus superior. Sed intellectus hominis, qui est ordine naturae infra intellectum Angeli, potest cognoscere res materiales. Ergo multo fortius intellectus Angeli.	On the contrary, Whatever the lower power can do, the higher can do likewise. But man's intellect, which in the order of nature is inferior to the angel's, can know material things. Therefore much more can the mind of an angel.
Iª q. 57 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod talis est ordo in rebus, quod superiora in entibus sunt perfectiora inferioribus, et quod in inferioribus continetur deficienter et partialiter et multipliciter, in superioribus continetur eminenter et per quandam totalitatem et simplicitatem. Et ideo in Deo, sicut in summo rerum vertice, omnia supersubstantialiter praeexistunt secundum ipsum suum simplex esse, ut Dionysius dicit, in libro de Div. Nom. Angeli autem inter ceteras creaturas sunt Deo propinquiores et similiores, unde et plura participant ex bonitate divina, et perfectius, ut Dionysius dicit, IV cap. Cael. Hier. Sic igitur omnia materialia in ipsis Angelis praeexistunt, simplicius quidem et immaterialius quam in ipsis rebus; multiplicius autem et imperfectius quam in Deo. Omne autem quod est in aliquo; est in eo per modum eius in quo est. Angeli autem secundum suam naturam sunt intellectuales. Et ideo, sicut Deus per suam essentiam materialia cognoscit, ita Angeli ea cognoscunt per hoc quod sunt in eis per suas intelligibiles species.	I answer that, The established order of things is for the higher beings to be more perfect than the lower; and for whatever is contained deficiently, partially, and in manifold manner in the lower beings, to be contained in the higher eminently, and in a certain degree of fulness and simplicity. Therefore, in God, as in the highest source of things, all things pre-exist supersubstantially in respect of His simple Being itself, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. 1). But among other creatures the angels are nearest to God, and resemble Him most; hence they share more fully and more perfectly in the Divine goodness, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv). Consequently, all material things pre-exist in the angels more simply and less materially even than in themselves, yet in a more manifold manner and less perfectly than in God. Now whatever exists in any subject, is contained in it after the manner of such subject. But the angels are intellectual beings of their own nature. Therefore, as God knows material things by His essence, so do the angels know them, forasmuch as they are in the angels by their intelligible species.
Iª q. 57 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod intellectum est perfectio intelligentis secundum speciem intelligibilem quam habet in intellectu. Et sic species intelligibiles quae sunt in intellectu Angeli, sunt perfectiones et actus intellectus angelici.	Reply to Objection 1. The thing understood is the perfection of the one who understands, by reason of the intelligible species which he has in his intellect. And thus the intelligible species which are in the intellect of an angel are perfections and acts in regard to that intellect.
Iª q. 57 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod sensus non apprehendit essentias rerum, sed exteriora accidentia tantum. Similiter neque imaginatio, sed apprehendit solas similitudines corporum. Intellectus autem solus apprehendit essentias rerum. Unde in III de anima dicitur quod obiectum intellectus est quod quid est, circa quod non errat, sicut neque sensus circa proprium sensibile. Sic ergo essentiae rerum materialium sunt in intellectu hominis vel Angeli, ut intellectum est in intelligente, et non secundum esse suum reale. Quaedam vero sunt quae sunt in intellectu vel in anima secundum utrumque esse. Et utrorumque est visio intellectualis.	Reply to Objection 2. Sense does not apprehend the essences of things, but only their outward accidents. In like manner neither does the imagination; for it apprehends only the images of bodies. The intellect alone apprehends the essences of things. Hence it is said (De Anima iii, text. 26) that the object of the intellect is "what a thing is," regarding which it does not err; as neither does sense regarding its proper sensible object. So therefore the essences of material things are in the intellect of man and angels, as the thing understood is in him who understands, and not according to their real natures. But some things are in an intellect or in the soul according to both natures; and in either case there is intellectual vision.
Iª q. 57 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, si Angelus acciperet cognitionem rerum materialium ab ipsis rebus materialibus, oporteret quod faceret eas intelligibiles actu, abstrahendo eas. Non autem accipit cognitionem earum a rebus materialibus, sed per species actu intelligibiles rerum sibi connaturales, rerum materialium notitiam habet; sicut intellectus noster secundum species quas intelligibiles facit abstrahendo.	Reply to Objection 3. If an angel were to draw his knowledge of material things from the material things themselves, he would require to make them actually intelligible by a process of abstraction. But he does not derive his knowledge of them from the material things themselves; he has knowledge of material things by actually intelligible species of things, which species are connatural to him; just as our intellect has, by species which it makes intelligible by abstraction.
Iª q. 57 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus singularia non cognoscat. Dicit enim philosophus, in I Physic., quod sensus est singularium, ratio vero (vel intellectus) universalium. In Angelis autem non est vis cognoscitiva nisi intellectiva, ut ex superioribus patet. Ergo singularia non cognoscunt.	Objection 1. It would seem that angels do not know singulars. For the Philosopher says (Poster. i, text. 22): "The sense has for its object singulars, but the intellect, universals." Now, in the angels there is no power of understanding save the intellectual power, as is evident from what was said above (54, 5). Consequently they do not know singulars.
Iª q. 57 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, omnis cognitio est per assimilationem aliquam cognoscentis ad cognitum. Sed non videtur quod possit esse aliqua assimilatio Angeli ad singulare inquantum est singulare, cum Angelus sit immaterialis, ut supra dictum est, singularitatis vero principium sit materia. Ergo Angelus non potest cognoscere singularia.	Objection 2. Further, all knowledge comes about by some assimilation of the knower to the object known. But it is not possible for any assimilation to exist between an angel and a singular object, in so far as it is singular; because, as was observed above (50, 2), an angel is immaterial, while matter is the principle of singularity. Therefore the angel cannot know singulars.
Iª q. 57 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, si Angelus scit singularia, aut per species singulares, aut per species universales. Non per singulares, quia sic oporteret quod haberet species infinitas. Neque per universales, quia universale non est sufficiens principium cognoscendi singulare inquantum est singulare, cum in universali singularia non cognoscantur nisi in potentia. Ergo Angelus non cognoscit singularia.	Objection 3. Further, if an angel does know singulars, it is either by singular or by universal species. It is not by singular species; because in this way he would require to have an infinite number of species. Nor is it by universal species; since the universal is not the sufficient principle for knowing the singular as such, because singular things are not known in the universal except potentially. Therefore the angel does not know singulars.
Iª q. 57 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra, nullus potest custodire quod non cognoscit. Sed Angeli custodiunt homines singulares, secundum illud Psalmi XC, Angelis suis mandavit de te, et cetera. Ergo Angeli cognoscunt singularia.	On the contrary, No one can guard what he does not know. But angels guard individual men, according to Ps. 90:11: "He hath given His angels charge over Thee." Consequently the angels know singulars.
Iª q. 57 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod quidam totaliter subtraxerunt Angelis singularium cognitionem. Sed hoc primo quidem derogat Catholicae fidei, quae ponit haec inferiora administrari per Angelos, secundum illud Heb. I, omnes sunt administratorii spiritus. Si autem singularium notitiam non haberent, nullam providentiam habere possent de his quae in hoc mundo aguntur; cum actus singularium sint. Et hoc est contra illud quod dicitur Eccle. V, ne dicas coram Angelo, non est providentia. Secundo, etiam derogat philosophiae documentis, secundum quae ponuntur Angeli motores caelestium orbium, et quod eos moveant secundum intellectum et voluntatem. Et ideo alii dixerunt quod Angelus habet quidem cognitionem singularium, sed in causis universalibus, ad quas reducuntur particulares omnes effectus, sicut si astrologus iudicet de aliqua eclipsi futura, per dispositiones caelestium motuum. Sed haec positio praedicta inconvenientia non evadit, quia sic cognoscere singulare in causis universalibus, non est cognoscere ipsum ut est singulare, hoc est ut est hic et nunc. Astrologus enim cognoscens eclipsim futuram per computationem caelestium motuum, scit eam in universali; et non prout est hic et nunc, nisi per sensum accipiat. Administratio autem et providentia et motus sunt singularium, prout sunt hic et nunc. Et ideo aliter dicendum est quod, sicut homo cognoscit diversis viribus cognitivis omnia rerum genera, intellectu quidem universalia et immaterialia, sensu autem singularia et corporalia; ita Angelus per unam intellectivam virtutem utraque cognoscit. Hoc enim rerum ordo habet, quod quanto aliquid est superius, tanto habeat virtutem magis unitam et ad plura se extendentem, sicut in ipso homine patet quod sensus communis, qui est superior quam sensus proprius, licet sit unica potentia, omnia cognoscit quae quinque sensibus exterioribus cognoscuntur, et quaedam alia quae nullus sensus exterior cognoscit, scilicet differentiam albi et dulcis. Et simile etiam est in aliis considerare. Unde cum Angelus naturae ordine sit supra hominem, inconveniens est dicere quod homo quacumque sua potentia cognoscat aliquid, quod Angelus per unam vim suam cognoscitivam, scilicet intellectum, non cognoscat. Unde Aristoteles pro inconvenienti habet ut litem, quam nos scimus, Deus ignoret; ut patet in I de anima, et in III Metaphys. Modus autem quo intellectus Angeli singularia cognoscit, ex hoc considerari potest quod, sicut a Deo effluunt res ut subsistant in propriis naturis, ita etiam ut sint in cognitione angelica. Manifestum est autem quod a Deo effluit in rebus non solum illud quod ad naturam universalem pertinet, sed etiam ea quae sunt individuationis principia, est enim causa totius substantiae rei, et quantum ad materiam et quantum ad formam. Et secundum quod causat, sic et cognoscit, quia scientia eius est causa rei, ut supra ostensum est. Sicut igitur Deus per essentiam suam, per quam omnia causat, est similitudo omnium, et per eam omnia cognoscit non solum quantum ad naturas universales, sed etiam quantum ad singularitatem; ita Angeli per species a Deo inditas, res cognoscunt non solum quantum ad naturam universalem, sed etiam secundum earum singularitatem, inquantum sunt quaedam repraesentationes multiplicatae illius unicae et simplicis essentiae.	I answer that, Some have denied to the angels all knowledge of singulars. In the first place this derogates from the Catholic faith, which asserts that these lower things are administered by angels, according to Heb. 1:14: "They are all ministering spirits." Now, if they had no knowledge of singulars, they could exercise no provision over what is going on in this world; since acts belong to individuals: and this is against the text of Eccles. 5:5: "Say not before the angel: There is no providence." Secondly, it is also contrary to the teachings of philosophy, according to which the angels are stated to be the movers of the heavenly spheres, and to move them according to their knowledge and will. Consequently others have said that the angel possesses knowledge of singulars, but in their universal causes, to which all particular effects are reduced; as if the astronomer were to foretell a coming eclipse from the dispositions of the movements of the heavens. This opinion does not escape the aforesaid implications; because, to know a singular, merely in its universal causes, is not to know it as singular, that is, as it exists here and now. The astronomer, knowing from computation of the heavenly movements that an eclipse is about to happen, knows it in the universal; yet he does not know it as taking place now, except by the senses. But administration, providence and movement are of singulars, as they are here and now existing. Therefore, it must be said differently, that, as man by his various powers of knowledge knows all classes of things, apprehending universals and immaterial things by his intellect, and things singular and corporeal by the senses, so an angel knows both by his one mental power. For the order of things runs in this way, that the higher a thing is, so much the more is its power united and far-reaching: thus in man himself it is manifest that the common sense which is higher than the proper sense, although it is but one faculty, knows everything apprehended by the five outward senses, and some other things which no outer sense knows; for example, the difference between white and sweet. The same is to be observed in other cases. Accordingly, since an angel is above man in the order of nature, it is unreasonable to say that a man knows by any one of his powers something which an angel by his one faculty of knowledge, namely, the intellect, does not know. Hence Aristotle pronounces it ridiculous to say that a discord, which is known to us, should be unknown to God (De Anima i, text. 80; Metaph. text. 15). The manner in which an angel knows singular things can be considered from this, that, as things proceed from God in order that they may subsist in their own natures, so likewise they proceed in order that they may exist in the angelic mind. Now it is clear that there comes forth from God not only whatever belongs to their universal nature, but likewise all that goes to make up their principles of individuation; since He is the cause of the entire substance of the thing, as to both its matter and its form. And for as much as He causes, does He know; for His knowledge is the cause of a thing, as was shown above (14, 8). Therefore as by His essence, by which He causes all things, God is the likeness of all things, and knows all things, not only as to their universal natures, but also as to their singularity; so through the species imparted to them do the angels know things, not only as to their universal nature, but likewise in their individual conditions, in so far as they are the manifold representations of that one simple essence.
Iª q. 57 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod philosophus loquitur de intellectu nostro, qui non intelligit res nisi abstrahendo; et per ipsam abstractionem a materialibus conditionibus, id quod abstrahitur, fit universale. Hic autem modus intelligendi non convenit Angelis, ut supra dictum est, et ideo non est eadem ratio.	Reply to Objection 1. The Philosopher is speaking of our intellect, which apprehends only by a process of abstraction; and by such abstraction from material conditions the thing abstracted becomes a universal. Such a manner of understanding is not in keeping with the nature of the angels, as was said above (55, 2, 3 ad 1), and consequently there is no comparison.
Iª q. 57 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod secundum suam naturam Angeli non assimilantur rebus materialibus sicut assimilatur aliquid alicui secundum convenientiam in genere vel in specie, aut in accidente; sed sicut superius habet similitudinem cum inferiori, ut sol cum igne. Et per hunc etiam modum in Deo est similitudo omnium, et quantum ad formam et quantum ad materiam, inquantum in ipso praeexistit ut in causa quidquid in rebus invenitur. Et eadem ratione species intellectus Angeli, quae sunt quaedam derivatae similitudines a divina essentia, sunt similitudines rerum non solum quantum ad formam, sed etiam quantum ad materiam.	Reply to Objection 2. It is not according to their nature that the angels are likened to material things, as one thing resembles another by agreement in genus, species, or accident; but as the higher bears resemblance to the lower, as the sun does to fire. Even in this way there is in God a resemblance of all things, as to both matter and form, in so far as there pre-exists in Him as in its cause whatever is to be found in things. For the same reason, the species in the angel's intellect, which are images drawn from the Divine essence, are the images of things not only as to their form, but also as to their matter.
Iª q. 57 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Angeli cognoscunt singularia per formas universales, quae tamen sunt similitudines rerum et quantum ad principia universalia, et quantum ad individuationis principia. Quomodo autem per eandem speciem possint multa cognosci iam supra dictum est.	Reply to Objection 3. Angels know singulars by universal forms, which nevertheless are the images of things both as to their universal, and as to their individuating principles. How many things can be known by the same species, has been already stated above (55, 3, ad 3).
Iª q. 57 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli cognoscant futura. Angeli enim potentiores sunt in cognoscendo quam homines. Sed homines aliqui cognoscunt multa futura. Ergo multo fortius Angeli.	Objection 1. It would seem that the angels know future events. For angels are mightier in knowledge than men. But some men know many future events. Therefore much more do the angels.
Iª q. 57 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, praesens et futurum sunt differentiae temporis. Sed intellectus Angeli est supra tempus, parificatur enim intelligentia aeternitati, idest aevo, ut dicitur in libro de causis. Ergo quantum ad intellectum Angeli, non differunt praeteritum et futurum; sed indifferenter cognoscit utrumque.	Objection 2. Further, the present and the future are differences of time. But the angel's intellect is above time; because, as is said in De Causis, "an intelligence keeps pace with eternity," that is, aeviternity. Therefore, to the angel's mind, past and future are not different, but he knows each indifferently.
Iª q. 57 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, Angelus non cognoscit per species acceptas a rebus, sed per species innatas universales. Sed species universales aequaliter se habent ad praesens, praeteritum et futurum. Ergo videtur quod Angeli indifferenter cognoscant praeterita et praesentia et futura.	Objection 3. Further, the angel does not understand by species derived from things, but by innate universal species. But universal species refer equally to present, past, and future. Therefore it appears that the angels know indifferently things past, present, and future.
Iª q. 57 a. 3 arg. 4 Praeterea, sicut aliquid dicitur distans secundum tempus, ita secundum locum. Sed Angeli cognoscunt distantia secundum locum. Ergo etiam cognoscunt distantia secundum tempus futurum.	Objection 4. Further, as a thing is spoken of as distant by reason of time, so is it by reason of place. But angels know things which are distant according to place. Therefore they likewise know things distant according to future time.
Iª q. 57 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra, id quod est proprium signum divinitatis, non convenit Angelis. Sed cognoscere futura est proprium signum divinitatis; secundum illud Isaiae XLI, annuntiate quae ventura sunt in futurum, et sciemus quod dii estis vos. Ergo Angeli non cognoscunt futura.	On the contrary, Whatever is the exclusive sign of the Divinity, does not belong to the angels. But to know future events is the exclusive sign of the Divinity, according to Is. 41:23: "Show the things that are to come hereafter, and we shall know that ye are gods." Therefore the angels do not know future events.
Iª q. 57 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod futurum dupliciter potest cognosci. Uno modo, in causa sua. Et sic futura quae ex necessitate ex causis suis proveniunt, per certam scientiam cognoscuntur, ut solem oriri cras. Quae vero ex suis causis proveniunt ut in pluribus, cognoscuntur non per certitudinem, sed per coniecturam; sicut medicus praecognoscit sanitatem infirmi. Et iste modus cognoscendi futura adest Angelis; et tanto magis quam nobis, quanto magis rerum causas et universalius et perfectius cognoscunt; sicut medici qui acutius vident causas, melius de futuro statu aegritudinis prognosticantur. Quae vero proveniunt ex causis suis ut in paucioribus, penitus sunt ignota, sicut casualia et fortuita. Alio modo cognoscuntur futura in seipsis. Et sic solius Dei est futura cognoscere, non solum quae ex necessitate proveniunt, vel ut in pluribus, sed etiam casualia et fortuita, quia Deus videt omnia in sua aeternitate, quae, cum sit simplex, toti tempori adest, et ipsum concludit. Et ideo unus Dei intuitus fertur in omnia quae aguntur per totum tempus sicut in praesentia, et videt omnia ut in seipsis sunt; sicut supra dictum est cum de Dei scientia ageretur. Angelicus autem intellectus, et quilibet intellectus creatus, deficit ab aeternitate divina. Unde non potest ab aliquo intellectu creato cognosci futurum, ut est in suo esse.	I answer that, The future can be known in two ways. First, it can be known in its cause. And thus, future events which proceed necessarily from their causes, are known with sure knowledge; as that the sun will rise tomorrow. But events which proceed from their causes in the majority of cases, are not known for certain, but conjecturally; thus the doctor knows beforehand the health of the patient. This manner of knowing future events exists in the angels, and by so much the more than it does in us, as they understand the causes of things both more universally and more perfectly; thus doctors who penetrate more deeply into the causes of an ailment can pronounce a surer verdict on the future issue thereof. But events which proceed from their causes in the minority of cases are quite unknown; such as casual and chance events. In another way future events are known in themselves. To know the future in this way belongs to God alone; and not merely to know those events which happen of necessity, or in the majority of cases, but even casual and chance events; for God sees all things in His eternity, which, being simple, is present to all time, and embraces all time. And therefore God's one glance is cast over all things which happen in all time as present before Him; and He beholds all things as they are in themselves, as was said before when dealing with God's knowledge (14, 13). But the mind of an angel, and every created intellect, fall far short of God's eternity; hence the future as it is in itself cannot be known by any created intellect.
Iª q. 57 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod homines non cognoscunt futura nisi in causis suis, vel Deo revelante. Et sic Angeli multo subtilius futura cognoscunt.	Reply to Objection 1. Men cannot know future things except in their causes, or by God's revelation. The angels know the future in the same way, but much more distinctly.
Iª q. 57 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, licet intellectus Angeli sit supra tempus quo mensurantur corporales motus, est tamen in intellectu Angeli tempus secundum successionem intelligibilium conceptionum; secundum quod dicit Augustinus, VIII super Gen. ad Litt., quod Deus movet spiritualem creaturam per tempus. Et ita, cum sit successio in intellectu Angeli, non omnia quae aguntur per totum tempus, sunt ei praesentia.	Reply to Objection 2. Although the angel's intellect is above that time according to which corporeal movements are reckoned, yet there is a time in his mind according to the succession of intelligible concepts; of which Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. viii) that "God moves the spiritual creature according to time." And thus, since there is succession in the angel's intellect, not all things that happen through all time, are present to the angelic mind.
Iª q. 57 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet species quae sunt in intellectu Angeli, quantum est de se, aequaliter se habeant ad praesentia, praeterita et futura; tamen praesentia, praeterita et futura non aequaliter se habent ad rationes. Quia ea quae praesentia sunt, habent naturam per quam assimilantur speciebus quae sunt in mente Angeli, et sic per eas cognosci possunt. Sed quae futura sunt, nondum habent naturam per quam illis assimilentur, unde per eas cognosci non possunt.	Reply to Objection 3. Although the species in the intellect of an angel, in so far as they are species, refer equally to things present, past, and future; nevertheless the present, past, and future do not bear the same relations to the species. Present things have a nature according to which they resemble the species in the mind of an angel: and so they can be known thereby. Things which are yet to come have not yet a nature whereby they are likened to such species; consequently, they cannot be known by those species.
Iª q. 57 a. 3 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod distantia secundum locum sunt iam in rerum natura, et participant aliquam speciem, cuius similitudo est in Angelo, quod non est verum de futuris, ut dictum est. Et ideo non est simile.	Reply to Objection 4. Things distant according to place are already existing in nature; and share in some species, whose image is in the angel; whereas this is not true of future things, as has been stated. Consequently there is no comparison.
Iª q. 57 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli cognoscant cogitationes cordium. Dicit enim Gregorius, in moralibus, super illud Iob XXVIII, non aequabitur ei aurum vel vitrum, quod tunc, scilicet in beatitudine resurgentium, unus erit perspicabilis alteri sicut ipse sibi, et cum uniuscuiusque intellectus attenditur, simul conscientia penetratur. Sed resurgentes erunt similes Angelis, sicut habetur Matth. XXII. Ergo unus Angelus potest videre id quod est in conscientia alterius.	Objection 1. It would seem that the angels know secret thoughts. For Gregory (Moral. xviii), explaining Job 28:17: "Gold or crystal cannot equal it," says that "then," namely in the bliss of those rising from the dead, "one shall be as evident to another as he is to himself, and when once the mind of each is seen, his conscience will at the same time be penetrated." But those who rise shall be like the angels, as is stated (Matthew 22:30). Therefore an angel can see what is in another's conscience.
Iª q. 57 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, sicut se habent figurae ad corpora, ita se habent species intelligibiles ad intellectum. Sed viso corpore, videtur eius figura. Ergo visa substantia intellectuali, videtur species intelligibilis quae est in ipsa. Ergo, cum Angelus videat alium Angelum, et etiam animam, videtur quod possit videre cogitationem utriusque.	Objection 2. Further, intelligible species bear the same relation to the intellect as shapes do to bodies. But when the body is seen its shape is seen. Therefore, when an intellectual substance is seen, the intelligible species within it is also seen. Consequently, when one angel beholds another, or even a soul, it seems that he can see the thoughts of both.
Iª q. 57 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, ea quae sunt in intellectu nostro, sunt similiora Angelo quam ea quae sunt in phantasia, cum haec sint intellecta in actu, illa vero in potentia tantum. Sed ea quae sunt in phantasia, possunt cognosci ab Angelo sicut corporalia, cum phantasia sit virtus corporis. Ergo videtur quod Angelus possit cognoscere cogitationes intellectus.	Objection 3. Further, the ideas of our intellect resemble the angel more than do the images in our imagination; because the former are actually understood, while the latter are understood only potentially. But the images in our imagination can be known by an angel as corporeal things are known: because the imagination is a corporeal faculty. Therefore it seems that an angel can know the thoughts of the intellect.
Iª q. 57 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra, quod est proprium Dei, non convenit Angelis. Sed cognoscere cogitationes cordium est proprium Dei, secundum illud Ierem. XVII, pravum est cor hominis et inscrutabile, quis cognoscet illud? Ego, dominus, scrutans corda. Ergo Angeli non cognoscunt secreta cordium.	On the contrary, What is proper to God does not belong to the angels. But it is proper to God to read the secrets of hearts, according to Jer. 17:9: "The heart is perverse above all things, and unsearchable; who can know it? I am the Lord, Who search the heart." Therefore angels do not know the secrets of hearts.
Iª q. 57 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod cogitatio cordis dupliciter potest cognosci. Uno modo, in suo effectu. Et sic non solum ab Angelo, sed etiam ab homine cognosci potest; et tanto subtilius, quanto effectus huiusmodi fuerit magis occultus. Cognoscitur enim cogitatio interdum non solum per actum exteriorem, sed etiam per immutationem vultus, et etiam medici aliquas affectiones animi per pulsum cognoscere possunt. Et multo magis Angeli, vel etiam Daemones, quanto subtilius huiusmodi immutationes occultas corporales perpendunt. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de divinatione Daemonum, quod aliquando hominum dispositiones, non solum voce prolatas, verum etiam cogitatione conceptas, cum signa quaedam in corpore exprimuntur ex animo, tota facilitate perdiscunt, quamvis in libro Retract. hoc dicat non esse asserendum quomodo fiat. Alio modo possunt cognosci cogitationes, prout sunt in intellectu; et affectiones, prout sunt in voluntate. Et sic solus Deus cogitationes cordium et affectiones voluntatum cognoscere potest. Cuius ratio est, quia voluntas rationalis creaturae soli Deo subiacet; et ipse solus in eam operari potest, qui est principale eius obiectum, ut ultimus finis; et hoc magis infra patebit. Et ideo ea quae in voluntate sunt, vel quae ex voluntate sola dependent, soli Deo sunt nota. Manifestum est autem quod ex sola voluntate dependet quod aliquis actu aliqua consideret, quia cum aliquis habet habitum scientiae, vel species intelligibiles in eo existentes, utitur eis cum vult. Et ideo dicit apostolus, I Cor. II, quod quae sunt hominis, nemo novit nisi spiritus hominis, qui in ipso est.	I answer that, A secret thought can be known in two ways: first, in its effect. In this way it can be known not only by an angel, but also by man; and with so much the greater subtlety according as the effect is the more hidden. For thought is sometimes discovered not merely by outward act, but also by change of countenance; and doctors can tell some passions of the soul by the mere pulse. Much more then can angels, or even demons, the more deeply they penetrate those occult bodily modifications. Hence Augustine says (De divin. daemon.) that demons "sometimes with the greatest faculty learn man's dispositions, not only when expressed by speech, but even when conceived in thought, when the soul expresses them by certain signs in the body"; although (Retract. ii, 30) he says "it cannot be asserted how this is done." In another way thoughts can be known as they are in the mind, and affections as they are in the will: and thus God alone can know the thoughts of hearts and affections of wills. The reason of this is, because the rational creature is subject to God only, and He alone can work in it Who is its principal object and last end: this will be developed later (63, 1; 105, 5). Consequently all that is in the will, and all things that depend only on the will, are known to God alone. Now it is evident that it depends entirely on the will for anyone actually to consider anything; because a man who has a habit of knowledge, or any intelligible species, uses them at will. Hence the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 2:11): "For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him?"
Iª q. 57 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod modo cogitatio unius hominis non cognoscitur ab alio, propter duplex impedimentum, scilicet propter grossitiem corporis, et propter voluntatem claudentem sua secreta. Primum autem obstaculum tolletur in resurrectione, nec est in Angelis. Sed secundum impedimentum manebit post resurrectionem, et est modo in Angelis. Et tamen qualitatem mentis, quantum ad quantitatem gratiae et gloriae, repraesentabit claritas corporis. Et sic unus mentem alterius videre poterit.	Reply to Objection 1. In the present life one man's thought is not known by another owing to a twofold hindrance; namely, on account of the grossness of the body, and because the will shuts up its secrets. The first obstacle will be removed at the Resurrection, and does not exist at all in the angels; while the second will remain, and is in the angels now. Nevertheless the brightness of the body will show forth the quality of the soul; as to its amount of grace and of glory. In this way one will be able to see the mind of another.
Iª q. 57 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, etsi unus Angelus, species intelligibiles alterius videat, per hoc quod modus intelligibilium specierum, secundum maiorem et minorem universalitatem, proportionatur nobilitati substantiarum; non tamen sequitur quod unus cognoscat quomodo alius illis intelligibilibus speciebus utitur actualiter considerando.	Reply to Objection 2. Although one angel sees the intelligible species of another, by the fact that the species are proportioned to the rank of these substances according to greater or lesser universality, yet it does not follow that one knows how far another makes use of them by actual consideration.
Iª q. 57 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod appetitus brutalis non est dominus sui actus, sed sequitur impressionem alterius causae corporalis vel spiritualis. Quia igitur Angeli cognoscunt res corporales et dispositiones earum, possunt per haec cognoscere quod est in appetitu et in apprehensione phantastica brutorum animalium; et etiam hominum, secundum quod in eis quandoque appetitus sensitivus procedit in actum, sequens aliquam impressionem corporalem, sicut in brutis semper est. Non tamen oportet quod Angeli cognoscant motum appetitus sensitivi et apprehensionem phantasticam hominis, secundum quod moventur a voluntate et ratione, quia etiam inferior pars animae participat aliqualiter rationem, sicut obediens imperanti, ut dicitur in I Ethic. Nec tamen sequitur quod, si Angelus cognoscit quod est in appetitu sensitivo vel phantasia hominis, quod cognoscat id quod est in cogitatione vel voluntate, quia intellectus vel voluntas non subiacet appetitui sensitivo et phantasiae, sed potest eis diversimode uti.	Reply to Objection 3. The appetite of the brute does not control its act, but follows the impression of some other corporeal or spiritual cause. Since, therefore, the angels know corporeal things and their dispositions, they can thereby know what is passing in the appetite or in the imaginative apprehension of the brute beasts, and even of man, in so far as the sensitive appetite sometimes, through following some bodily impression, influences his conduct, as always happens in brutes. Yet the angels do not necessarily know the movement of the sensitive appetite and the imaginative apprehension of man in so far as these are moved by the will and reason; because, even the lower part of the soul has some share of reason, as obeying its ruler, as is said in Ethics iii, 12. But it does not follow that, if the angel knows what is passing through man's sensitive appetite or imagination, he knows what is in the thought or will: because the intellect or will is not subject to the sensitive appetite or the imagination, but can make various uses of them.
Iª q. 57 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli mysteria gratiae cognoscant. Quia inter omnia mysteria excellentius est mysterium incarnationis Christi. Sed hoc Angeli cognoverunt a principio, dicit enim Augustinus, V super Gen. ad Litt., quod sic fuit hoc mysterium absconditum a saeculis in Deo, ut tamen innotesceret principibus et potestatibus in caelestibus. Et dicit apostolus, I ad Tim. III, quod apparuit Angelis illud magnum sacramentum pietatis. Ergo Angeli mysteria gratiae cognoscunt.	Objection 1. It would seem that the angels know mysteries of grace. For, the mystery of the Incarnation is the most excellent of all mysteries. But the angels knew of it from the beginning; for Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. v, 19): "This mystery was hidden in God through the ages, yet so that it was known to the princes and powers in heavenly places." And the Apostle says (1 Timothy 3:16): "That great mystery of godliness appeared unto angels*." [Vulg.: 'Great is the mystery of godliness, which . . . appeared unto angels.'] Therefore the angels know the mysteries of grace.
Iª q. 57 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, rationes omnium mysteriorum gratiae in divina sapientia continentur. Sed Angeli vident ipsam Dei sapientiam, quae est eius essentia. Ergo Angeli mysteria gratiae cognoscunt.	Objection 2. Further, the reasons of all mysteries of grace are contained in the Divine wisdom. But the angels behold God's wisdom, which is His essence. Therefore they know the mysteries of grace.
Iª q. 57 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, prophetae per Angelos instruuntur, ut patet per Dionysium, IV cap. Angel. Hier. Sed prophetae mysteria gratiae cognoverunt, dicitur enim Amos III, non faciet dominus verbum, nisi revelaverit secretum ad servos suos, prophetas. Ergo Angeli mysteria gratiae cognoscunt.	Objection 3. Further, the prophets are enlightened by the angels, as is clear from Dionysius (Coel. Hier. iv). But the prophets knew mysteries of grace; for it is said (Amos 3:7): "For the Lord God doth nothing without revealing His secret to His servants the prophets." Therefore angels know the mysteries of grace.
Iª q. 57 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod nullus discit illud quod cognoscit. Sed Angeli, etiam supremi, quaerunt de divinis mysteriis gratiae, et ea discunt, dicitur enim VII cap. Cael. Hier., quod sacra Scriptura inducit quasdam caelestes essentias ad ipsum Iesum quaestionem facientes, et addiscentes scientiam divinae eius operationis pro nobis, et Iesum eas sine medio docentem; ut patet Isaiae LXIII, ubi quaerentibus Angelis, quis est iste qui venit de Edom? Respondit Iesus, ego, qui loquor iustitiam. Ergo Angeli non cognoscunt mysteria gratiae.	On the contrary, No one learns what he knows already. Yet even the highest angels seek out and learn mysteries of grace. For it is stated (Coel. Hier. vii) that "Sacred Scripture describes some heavenly essences as questioning Jesus, and learning from Him the knowledge of His Divine work for us; and Jesus as teaching them directly": as is evident in Is. 63:1, where, on the angels asking, "Who is he who cometh up from Edom?" Jesus answered, "It is I, Who speak justice." Therefore the angels do not know mysteries of grace.
Iª q. 57 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in Angelis est cognitio duplex. Una quidem naturalis, secundum quam cognoscunt res tum per essentiam suam, tum etiam per species innatas. Et hac cognitione mysteria gratiae Angeli cognoscere non possunt. Haec enim mysteria ex pura Dei voluntate dependent, si autem unus Angelus non potest cognoscere cogitationes alterius ex voluntate eius dependentes, multo minus potest cognoscere ea quae ex sola Dei voluntate dependent. Et sic argumentatur apostolus, I Cor. II, quae sunt hominis, nemo novit nisi spiritus hominis, qui in ipso est. Ita et quae sunt Dei, nemo novit nisi spiritus Dei. Est autem alia Angelorum cognitio, quae eos beatos facit, qua vident verbum et res in verbo. Et hac quidem visione cognoscunt mysteria gratiae, non quidem omnia, nec aequaliter omnes sed secundum quod Deus voluerit eis revelare; secundum illud apostoli, I Cor. II, nobis autem revelavit Deus per spiritum suum. Ita tamen quod superiores Angeli, perspicacius divinam sapientiam contemplantes, plura mysteria et altiora in ipsa Dei visione cognoscunt, quae inferioribus manifestant, eos illuminando. Et horum etiam mysteriorum quaedam a principio suae creationis cognoverunt; quaedam vero postmodum, secundum quod eorum officiis congruit, edocentur.	I answer that, There is a twofold knowledge in the angel. The first is his natural knowledge, according to which he knows things both by his essence, and by innate species. By such knowledge the angels cannot know mysteries of grace. For these mysteries depend upon the pure will of God: and if an angel cannot learn the thoughts of another angel, which depend upon the will of such angel, much less can he ascertain what depends entirely upon God's will. The Apostle reasons in this fashion (1 Corinthians 2:11): "No one knoweth the things of a man [Vulg.: 'What man knoweth the things of a man, but . . . ?'], but the spirit of a man that is in him." So, "the things also that are of God no man knoweth but the Spirit of God." There is another knowledge of the angels, which renders them happy; it is the knowledge whereby they see the Word, and things in the Word. By such vision they know mysteries of grace, but not all mysteries: nor do they all know them equally; but just as God wills them to learn by revelation; as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 2:10): "But to us God hath revealed them through His Spirit"; yet so that the higher angels beholding the Divine wisdom more clearly, learn more and deeper mysteries in the vision of God, which mysteries they communicate to the lower angels by enlightening them. Some of these mysteries they knew from the very beginning of their creation; others they are taught afterwards, as befits their ministrations.
Iª q. 57 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod de mysterio incarnationis Christi dupliciter contingit loqui. Uno modo, in generali, et sic omnibus revelatum est a principio suae beatitudinis. Cuius ratio est, quia hoc est quoddam generale principium, ad quod omnia eorum officia ordinantur, omnes enim sunt administratorii spiritus, ut dicitur Heb. I, in ministerium missi propter eos qui haereditatem capiunt salutis; quod quidem fit per incarnationis mysterium. Unde oportuit de hoc mysterio omnes a principio communiter edoceri. Alio modo possumus loqui de mysterio incarnationis quantum ad speciales conditiones. Et sic non omnes Angeli a principio de omnibus sunt edocti, immo quidam, etiam superiores Angeli, postmodum didicerunt, ut patet per auctoritatem Dionysii inductam.	Reply to Objection 1. One can speak in two ways of the mystery of the Incarnation. First of all, in general; and in this way it was revealed to all from the commencement of their beatitude. The reason of this is, that this is a kind of general principle to which all their duties are ordered. For "all are [Vulg.: 'Are they not all.'] ministering spirits, sent to minister for them who shall receive the inheritance of salvation (Hebrews 1:14)"; and this is brought by the mystery of the Incarnation. Hence it was necessary for all of them to be instructed in this mystery from the very beginning. We can speak of the mystery of the Incarnation in another way, as to its special conditions. Thus not all the angels were instructed on all points from the beginning; even the higher angels learned these afterwards, as appears from the passage of Dionysius already quoted.
Iª q. 57 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, licet Angeli beati divinam sapientiam contemplentur, non tamen eam comprehendunt. Et ideo non oportet quod cognoscant quidquid in ea latet.	Reply to Objection 2. Although the angels in bliss behold the Divine wisdom, yet they do not comprehend it. So it is not necessary for them to know everything hidden in it.
Iª q. 57 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod quidquid prophetae cognoverunt de mysteriis gratiae per revelationem divinam, multo excellentius est Angelis revelatum. Et licet prophetis ea quae Deus facturus erat circa salutem humani generis, in generali revelaverit; quaedam tamen specialia apostoli circa hoc cognoverunt, quae prophetae non cognoverant; secundum illud Ephes. III, potestis, legentes, intelligere prudentiam meam in mysterio Christi, quod aliis generationibus non est agnitum, sicut nunc revelatum est sanctis apostolis eius. Inter ipsos etiam prophetas, posteriores cognoverunt quod priores non cognoverant; secundum illud Psalmi CXVIII, super senes intellexi. Et Gregorius dicit quod per successiones temporum, crevit divinae cognitionis augmentum.	Reply to Objection 3. Whatever the prophets knew by revelation of the mysteries of grace, was revealed in a more excellent way to the angels. And although God revealed in general to the prophets what He was one day to do regarding the salvation of the human race, still the apostles knew some particulars of the same, which the prophets did not know. Thus we read (Ephesians 3:4-5): "As you reading, may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to His holy apostles." Among the prophets also, the later ones knew what the former did not know; according to Ps. 118:100: "I have had understanding above ancients," and Gregory says: "The knowledge of Divine things increased as time went on" (Hom. xvi in Ezech.).
Iª q. 58 pr. Post haec considerandum est de modo angelicae cognitionis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur septem. Primo, utrum intellectus Angeli quandoque sit in potentia, quandoque in actu. Secundo, utrum Angelus possit simul intelligere multa. Tertio, utrum intelligat discurrendo. Quarto, utrum intelligat componendo et dividendo. Quinto, utrum in intellectu Angeli possit esse falsitas. Sexto, utrum cognitio Angeli possit dici matutina et vespertina. Septimo, utrum sit eadem cognitio matutina et vespertina, vel diversae.
Iª q. 58 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod intellectus Angeli quandoque sit in potentia. Motus enim est actus existentis in potentia, ut dicitur III Physic. Sed mentes angelicae intelligendo moventur, ut dicit Dionysius, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Ergo mentes angelicae quandoque sunt in potentia.	Objection 1. It would seem that the angel's intellect is sometimes in potentiality and sometimes in act. For movement is the act of what is in potentiality, as stated in Phys. iii, 6. But the angels' minds are moved by understanding, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). Therefore the angelic minds are sometimes in potentiality.
Iª q. 58 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, cum desiderium sit rei non habitae, possibilis tamen haberi, quicumque desiderat aliquid intelligere, est in potentia ad illud. Sed I Petri I, dicitur, in quem desiderant Angeli prospicere. Ergo intellectus Angeli quandoque est in potentia.	Objection 2. Further, since desire is of a thing not possessed but possible to have, whoever desires to know anything is in potentiality thereto. But it is said (1 Peter 1:12): "On Whom the angels desire to look." Therefore the angel's intellect is sometimes in potentiality.
Iª q. 58 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, in libro de causis dicitur quod intelligentia intelligit secundum modum suae substantiae. Sed substantia Angeli habet aliquid de potentia permixtum. Ergo quandoque intelligit in potentia.	Objection 3. Further, in the book De Causis it is stated that "an intelligence understands according to the mode of its substance." But the angel's intelligence has some admixture of potentiality. Therefore it sometimes understands potentially.
Iª q. 58 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, II super Gen. ad Litt., quod Angeli, ex quo creati sunt, ipsa verbi aeternitate, sancta et pia contemplatione perfruuntur. Sed intellectus contemplans non est in potentia, sed in actu. Ergo intellectus Angeli non est in potentia.	On the contrary, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ii): "Since the angels were created, in the eternity of the Word, they enjoy holy and devout contemplation." Now a contemplating intellect is not in potentiality, but in act. Therefore the intellect of an angel is not in potentiality.
Iª q. 58 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit, in III de anima et in VIII Physic., intellectus dupliciter est in potentia, uno modo, sicut ante addiscere vel invenire, idest antequam habeat habitum scientiae; alio modo dicitur esse in potentia, sicut cum iam habet habitum scientiae, sed non considerat. Primo igitur modo, intellectus Angeli nunquam est in potentia respectu eorum ad quae eius cognitio naturalis se extendere potest. Sicut enim corpora superiora, scilicet caelestia, non habent potentiam ad esse, quae non sit completa per actum; ita caelestes intellectus, scilicet Angeli, non habent aliquam intelligibilem potentiam, quae non sit totaliter completa per species intelligibiles connaturales eis. Sed quantum ad ea quae eis divinitus revelantur, nihil prohibet intellectus eorum esse in potentia, quia sic etiam corpora caelestia sunt in potentia quandoque ut illuminentur a sole. Secundo vero modo, intellectus Angeli potest esse in potentia ad ea quae cognoscit naturali cognitione, non enim omnia quae naturali cognitione cognoscit, semper actu considerat. Sed ad cognitionem verbi, et eorum quae in verbo videt, nunquam hoc modo est in potentia, quia semper actu intuetur verbum, et ea quae in verbo videt. In hac enim visione eorum beatitudo consistit, beatitudo autem non consistit in habitu, sed in actu, ut dicit philosophus, in I Ethic.	I answer that, As the Philosopher states (De Anima iii, text. 8; Phys. viii, 32), the intellect is in potentiality in two ways; first, "as before learning or discovering," that is, before it has the habit of knowledge; secondly, as "when it possesses the habit of knowledge, but does not actually consider." In the first way an angel's intellect is never in potentiality with regard to the things to which his natural knowledge extends. For, as the higher, namely, the heavenly, bodies have no potentiality to existence, which is not fully actuated, in the same way the heavenly intellects, the angels, have no intelligible potentiality which is not fully completed by connatural intelligible species. But with regard to things divinely revealed to them, there is nothing to hinder them from being in potentiality: because even the heavenly bodies are at times in potentiality to being enlightened by the sun. In the second way an angel's intellect can be in potentiality with regard to things learnt by natural knowledge; for he is not always actually considering everything that he knows by natural knowledge. But as to the knowledge of the Word, and of the things he beholds in the Word, he is never in this way in potentiality; because he is always actually beholding the Word, and the things he sees in the Word. For the bliss of the angels consists in such vision; and beatitude does not consist in habit, but in act, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 8).
Iª q. 58 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod motus ibi non sumitur secundum quod est actus imperfecti, idest existentis in potentia; sed secundum quod est actus perfecti, idest existentis in actu. Sic enim intelligere et sentire dicuntur motus, ut dicitur in III de anima.	Reply to Objection 1. Movement is taken there not as the act of something imperfect, that is, of something existing in potentiality, but as the act of something perfect, that is, of one actually existing. In this way understanding and feeling are termed movements, as stated in De Anima iii, text. 28.
Iª q. 58 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod desiderium illud Angelorum non excludit rem desideratam, sed eius fastidium. Vel dicuntur desiderare Dei visionem, quantum ad novas revelationes, quas pro opportunitate negotiorum a Deo recipiunt.	Reply to Objection 2. Such desire on the part of the angels does not exclude the object desired, but weariness thereof. Or they are said to desire the vision of God with regard to fresh revelations, which they receive from God to fit them for the tasks which they have to perform.
Iª q. 58 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod in substantia Angeli non est aliqua potentia denudata ab actu. Et similiter nec intellectus Angeli sic est in potentia, quod sit absque actu.	Reply to Objection 3. In the angel's substance there is no potentiality divested of act. In the same way, the angel's intellect is never so in potentiality as to be without act.
Iª q. 58 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus non possit simul multa intelligere. Dicit enim philosophus, II Topic., quod contingit multa scire, sed unum tantum intelligere.	Objection 1. It would seem that an angel cannot understand many things at the same time. For the Philosopher says (Topic. ii, 4) that "it may happen that we know many things, but understand only one."
Iª q. 58 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, nihil intelligitur nisi secundum quod intellectus formatur per speciem intelligibilem, sicut corpus formatur per figuram. Sed unum corpus non potest formari diversis figuris. Ergo unus intellectus non potest simul intelligere diversa intelligibilia.	Objection 2. Further, nothing is understood unless the intellect be informed by an intelligible species; just at the body is formed by shape. But one body cannot be formed into many shapes. Therefore neither can one intellect simultaneously understand various intelligible things.
Iª q. 58 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, intelligere est motus quidam. Nullus autem motus terminatur ad diversos terminos. Ergo non contingit simul multa intelligere.	Objection 3. Further, to understand is a kind of movement. But no movement terminates in various terms. Therefore many things cannot be understood altogether.
Iª q. 58 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus, IV Sup. Gen. ad Litt., potentia spiritualis mentis angelicae cuncta quae voluerit, facillime simul comprehendit.	On the contrary, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. iv, 32): "The spiritual faculty of the angelic mind comprehends most easily at the same time all things that it wills."
Iª q. 58 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ad unitatem motus requiritur unitas termini, ita ad unitatem operationis requiritur unitas obiecti. Contingit autem aliqua accipi ut plura, et ut unum; sicut partes alicuius continui. Si enim unaquaeque per se accipiatur, plures sunt, unde et non una operatione, nec simul accipiuntur per sensum et intellectum. Alio modo accipiuntur secundum quod sunt unum in toto, et sic simul et una operatione cognoscuntur tam per sensum quam per intellectum, dum totum continuum consideratur, ut dicitur in III de anima. Et sic etiam intellectus noster simul intelligit subiectum et praedicatum, prout sunt partes unius propositionis; et duo comparata, secundum quod conveniunt in una comparatione. Ex quo patet quod multa, secundum quod sunt distincta, non possunt simul intelligi; sed secundum quod uniuntur in uno intelligibili, sic simul intelliguntur. Unumquodque autem est intelligibile in actu, secundum quod eius similitudo est in intellectu. Quaecumque igitur per unam speciem intelligibilem cognosci possunt, cognoscuntur ut unum intelligibile; et ideo simul cognoscuntur. Quae vero per diversas species intelligibiles cognoscuntur, ut diversa intelligibilia capiuntur. Angeli igitur ea cognitione qua cognoscunt res per verbum, omnia cognoscunt una intelligibili specie, quae est essentia divina. Et ideo quantum ad talem cognitionem, omnia simul cognoscunt, sicut et in patria non erunt volubiles nostrae cogitationes, ab aliis in alia euntes atque redeuntes, sed omnem scientiam nostram simul uno conspectu videbimus, ut Augustinus dicit in XV de Trin. Ea vero cognitione qua cognoscunt res per species innatas, omnia illa simul possunt intelligere, quae una specie cognoscuntur; non autem illa quae diversis.	I answer that, As unity of term is requisite for unity of movement, so is unity of object required for unity of operation. Now it happens that several things may be taken as several or as one; like the parts of a continuous whole. For if each of the parts be considered severally they are many: consequently neither by sense nor by intellect are they grasped by one operation, nor all at once. In another way they are taken as forming one in the whole; and so they are grasped both by sense and intellect all at once and by one operation; as long as the entire continuous whole is considered, as is stated in De Anima iii, text. 23. In this way our intellect understands together both the subject and the predicate, as forming parts of one proposition; and also two things compared together, according as they agree in one point of comparison. >From this it is evident that many things, in so far as they are distinct, cannot be understood at once; but in so far as they are comprised under one intelligible concept, they can be understood together. Now everything is actually intelligible according as its image is in the intellect. All things, then, which can be known by one intelligible species, are known as one intelligible object, and therefore are understood simultaneously. But things known by various intelligible species, are apprehended as different intelligible objects. Consequently, by such knowledge as the angels have of things through the Word, they know all things under one intelligible species, which is the Divine essence. Therefore, as regards such knowledge, they know all things at once: just as in heaven "our thoughts will not be fleeting, going and returning from one thing to another, but we shall survey all our knowledge at the same time by one glance," as Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 16). But by that knowledge wherewith the angels know things by innate species, they can at one time know all things which can be comprised under one species; but not such as are under various species.
Iª q. 58 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod intelligere multa ut unum, est quodammodo unum intelligere.	Reply to Objection 1. To understand many things as one, is, so to speak, to understand one thing.
Iª q. 58 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod intellectus formatur per intelligibilem speciem quam apud se habet. Et ideo sic potest una specie intelligibili multa simul intelligibilia intueri, sicut unum corpus per unam figuram potest simul multis corporibus assimilari.	Reply to Objection 2. The intellect is informed by the intelligible species which it has within it. So it can behold at the same time many intelligible objects under one species; as one body can by one shape be likened to many bodies.
Iª q. 58 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum sicut ad primum.	To the third objection the answer is the same as the first.
Iª q. 58 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus cognoscat discurrendo. Discursus enim intellectus attenditur secundum hoc, quod unum per aliud cognoscitur. Sed Angeli cognoscunt unum per aliud, cognoscunt enim creaturas per verbum. Ergo intellectus Angeli cognoscit discurrendo.	Objection 1. It would seem that the knowledge of an angel is discursive. For the discursive movement of the mind comes from one thing being known through another. But the angels know one thing through another; for they know creatures through the Word. Therefore the intellect of an angel knows by discursive method.
Iª q. 58 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, quidquid potest virtus inferior, potest et virtus superior. Sed intellectus humanus potest syllogizare, et in effectibus causas cognoscere, secundum quae discursus attenditur. Ergo intellectus Angeli, qui superior est ordine naturae, multo magis hoc potest.	Objection 2. Further, whatever a lower power can do, the higher can do. But the human intellect can syllogize, and know causes in effects; all of which is the discursive method. Therefore the intellect of the angel, which is higher in the order of nature, can with greater reason do this.
Iª q. 58 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, Isidorus dicit quod Daemones per experientiam multa cognoscunt. Sed experimentalis cognitio est discursiva, ex multis enim memoriis fit unum experimentum, et ex multis experimentis fit unum universale, ut dicitur in fine Poster., et in principio Metaphys. Ergo cognitio Angelorum est discursiva.	Objection 3. Further, Isidore (De sum. bono i, 10) says that "demons learn more things by experience." But experimental knowledge is discursive: for, "one experience comes of many remembrances, and one universal from many experiences," as Aristotle observes (Poster. ii; Metaph. vii). Therefore an angel's knowledge is discursive.
Iª q. 58 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit, VII cap. de Div. Nom., quod Angeli non congregant divinam cognitionem a sermonibus diffusis, neque ab aliquo communi ad ista specialia simul aguntur.	On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. vii) that the "angels do not acquire Divine knowledge from separate discourses, nor are they led to something particular from something common."
Iª q. 58 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut saepius dictum est, Angeli illum gradum tenent in substantiis spiritualibus, quem corpora caelestia in substantiis corporeis, nam et caelestes mentes a Dionysio dicuntur. Est autem haec differentia inter caelestia et terrena corpora, quod corpora terrena per mutationem et motum adipiscuntur suam ultimam perfectionem, corpora vero caelestia statim, ex ipsa sua natura, suam ultimam perfectionem habent. Sic igitur et inferiores intellectus, scilicet hominum, per quendam motum et discursum intellectualis operationis perfectionem in cognitione veritatis adipiscuntur; dum scilicet ex uno cognito in aliud cognitum procedunt. Si autem statim in ipsa cognitione principii noti, inspicerent quasi notas omnes conclusiones consequentes, in eis discursus locum non haberet. Et hoc est in Angelis, quia statim in illis quae primo naturaliter cognoscunt, inspiciunt omnia quaecumque in eis cognosci possunt. Et ideo dicuntur intellectuales, quia etiam apud nos, ea quae statim naturaliter apprehenduntur, intelligi dicuntur; unde intellectus dicitur habitus primorum principiorum. Animae vero humanae, quae veritatis notitiam per quendam discursum acquirunt, rationales vocantur. Quod quidem contingit ex debilitate intellectualis luminis in eis. Si enim haberent plenitudinem intellectualis luminis, sicut Angeli, statim in primo aspectu principiorum totam virtutem eorum comprehenderent, intuendo quidquid ex eis syllogizari posset.	I answer that, As has often been stated (1; 55, 1), the angels hold that grade among spiritual substances which the heavenly bodies hold among corporeal substances: for Dionysius calls them "heavenly minds" (1; 55, 1). Now, the difference between heavenly and earthly bodies is this, that earthly bodies obtain their last perfection by chance and movement: while the heavenly bodies have their last perfection at once from their very nature. So, likewise, the lower, namely, the human, intellects obtain their perfection in the knowledge of truth by a kind of movement and discursive intellectual operation; that is to say, as they advance from one known thing to another. But, if from the knowledge of a known principle they were straightway to perceive as known all its consequent conclusions, then there would be no discursive process at all. Such is the condition of the angels, because in the truths which they know naturally, they at once behold all things whatsoever that can be known in them. Therefore they are called "intellectual beings": because even with ourselves the things which are instantly grasped by the mind are said to be understood [intelligi]; hence "intellect" is defined as the habit of first principles. But human souls which acquire knowledge of truth by the discursive method are called "rational"; and this comes of the feebleness of their intellectual light. For if they possessed the fulness of intellectual light, like the angels, then in the first aspect of principles they would at once comprehend their whole range, by perceiving whatever could be reasoned out from them.
Iª q. 58 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod discursus quendam motum nominat. Omnis autem motus est de uno priori in aliud posterius. Unde discursiva cognitio attenditur secundum quod ex aliquo prius noto devenitur in cognitionem alterius posterius noti, quod prius erat ignotum. Si autem in uno inspecto simul aliud inspiciatur, sicut in speculo inspicitur simul imago rei et res; non est propter hoc cognitio discursiva. Et hoc modo cognoscunt Angeli res in verbo.	Reply to Objection 1. Discursion expresses movement of a kind. Now all movement is from something before to something after. Hence discursive knowledge comes about according as from something previously known one attains to the knowledge of what is afterwards known, and which was previously unknown. But if in the thing perceived something else be seen at the same time, as an object and its image are seen simultaneously in a mirror, it is not discursive knowledge. And in this way the angels know things in the Word.
Iª q. 58 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Angeli syllogizare possunt, tanquam syllogismum cognoscentes; et in causis effectus vident, et in effectibus causas, non tamen ita quod cognitionem veritatis ignotae acquirant syllogizando ex causis in causata, et ex causatis in causas.	Reply to Objection 2. The angels can syllogize, in the sense of knowing a syllogism; and they see effects in causes, and causes in effects: yet they do not acquire knowledge of an unknown truth in this way, by syllogizing from causes to effect, or from effect to cause.
Iª q. 58 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod experientia in Angelis et Daemonibus dicitur secundum quandam similitudinem, prout scilicet cognoscunt sensibilia praesentia; tamen absque omni discursu.	Reply to Objection 3. Experience is affirmed of angels and demons simply by way of similitude, forasmuch as they know sensible things which are present, yet without any discursion withal.
Iª q. 58 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli intelligant componendo et dividendo. Ubi enim est multitudo intellectuum, ibi est compositio intellectuum, ut dicitur in III de anima. Sed in intellectu Angeli est multitudo intellectuum, cum per diversas species diversa intelligat, et non omnia simul. Ergo in intellectu Angeli est compositio et divisio.	Objection 1. It would seem that the angels understand by composing and dividing. For, where there is multiplicity of things understood, there is composition of the same, as is said in De Anima iii, text. 21. But there is a multitude of things understood in the angelic mind; because angels apprehend different things by various species, and not all at one time. Therefore there is composition and division in the angel's mind.
Iª q. 58 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, plus distat negatio ab affirmatione, quam quaecumque duae naturae oppositae, quia prima distinctio est per affirmationem et negationem. Sed aliquas naturas distantes Angelus non cognoscit per unum, sed per diversas species, ut ex dictis patet. Ergo oportet quod affirmationem et negationem cognoscat per diversa. Et ita videtur quod Angelus intelligat componendo et dividendo.	Objection 2. Further, negation is far more remote from affirmation than any two opposite natures are; because the first of distinctions is that of affirmation and negation. But the angel knows certain distant natures not by one, but by diverse species, as is evident from what was said (2). Therefore he must know affirmation and negation by diverse species. And so it seems that he understands by composing and dividing.
Iª q. 58 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, locutio est signum intellectus. Sed Angeli hominibus loquentes, proferunt affirmativas et negativas enuntiationes, quae sunt signa compositionis et divisionis in intellectu; ut ex multis locis sacrae Scripturae apparet. Ergo videtur quod Angelus intelligat componendo et dividendo.	Objection 3. Further, speech is a sign of the intellect. But in speaking to men, angels use affirmative and negative expressions, which are signs of composition and of division in the intellect; as is manifest from many passages of Sacred Scripture. Therefore it seems that the angel understands by composing and dividing.
Iª q. 58 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit, VII cap. de Div. Nom., quod virtus intellectualis Angelorum resplendet conspicaci divinorum intellectuum simplicitate. Sed simplex intelligentia est sine compositione et divisione, ut dicitur in III de anima. Ergo Angelus intelligit sine compositione et divisione.	On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. vii) that "the intellectual power of the angel shines forth with the clear simplicity of divine concepts." But a simple intelligence is without composition and division. Therefore the angel understands without composition or division.
Iª q. 58 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in intellectu ratiocinante comparatur conclusio ad principium, ita in intellectu componente et dividente comparatur praedicatum ad subiectum. Si enim intellectus statim in ipso principio videret conclusionis veritatem, nunquam intelligeret discurrendo vel ratiocinando. Similiter si intellectus statim in apprehensione quidditatis subiecti, haberet notitiam de omnibus quae possunt attribui subiecto vel removeri ab eo, nunquam intelligeret componendo et dividendo, sed solum intelligendo quod quid est. Sic igitur patet quod ex eodem provenit quod intellectus noster intelligit discurrendo, et componendo et dividendo, ex hoc scilicet, quod non statim in prima apprehensione alicuius primi apprehensi, potest inspicere quidquid in eo virtute continetur. Quod contingit ex debilitate luminis intellectualis in nobis, sicut dictum est. Unde cum in Angelo sit lumen intellectuale perfectum, cum sit speculum purum et clarissimum, ut dicit Dionysius, IV cap. de Div. Nom.; relinquitur quod Angelus, sicut non intelligit ratiocinando, ita non intelligit componendo et dividendo. Nihilominus tamen compositionem et divisionem enuntiationum intelligit, sicut et ratiocinationem syllogismorum, intelligit enim composita simpliciter, et mobilia immobiliter, et materialia immaterialiter.	I answer that, As in the intellect, when reasoning, the conclusion is compared with the principle, so in the intellect composing and dividing, the predicate is compared with the subject. For if our intellect were to see at once the truth of the conclusion in the principle, it would never understand by discursion and reasoning. In like manner, if the intellect in apprehending the quiddity of the subject were at once to have knowledge of all that can be attributed to, or removed from, the subject, it would never understand by composing and dividing, but only by understanding the essence. Thus it is evident that for the self-same reason our intellect understands by discursion, and by composing and dividing, namely, that in the first apprehension of anything newly apprehended it does not at once grasp all that is virtually contained in it. And this comes from the weakness of the intellectual light within us, as has been said (3). Hence, since the intellectual light is perfect in the angel, for he is a pure and most clear mirror, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv), it follows that as the angel does not understand by reasoning, so neither does he by composing and dividing. Nevertheless, he understands the composition and the division of enunciations, just as he apprehends the reasoning of syllogisms: for he understands simply, such things as are composite, things movable immovably, and material things immaterially.
Iª q. 58 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod non qualiscumque multitudo intellectuum compositionem causat, sed multitudo illorum intellectuum quorum unum attribuitur alteri, vel removetur ab altero. Angelus autem, intelligendo quidditatem alicuius rei, simul intelligit quidquid ei attribui potest vel removeri ab ea. Unde intelligendo quod quid est, intelligit quidquid nos intelligere possumus et componendo et dividendo, per unum suum simplicem intellectum.	Reply to Objection 1. Not every multitude of things understood causes composition, but a multitude of such things understood that one of them is attributed to, or denied of, another. When an angel apprehends the nature of anything, he at the same time understands whatever can be either attributed to it, or denied of it. Hence, in apprehending a nature, he by one simple perception grasps all that we can learn by composing and dividing.
Iª q. 58 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod diversae quidditates rerum minus differunt, quantum ad rationem existendi, quam affirmatio et negatio. Tamen quantum ad rationem cognoscendi, affirmatio et negatio magis conveniunt, quia statim per hoc quod cognoscitur veritas affirmationis, cognoscitur falsitas negationis oppositae.	Reply to Objection 2. The various natures of things differ less as to their mode of existing than do affirmation and negation. Yet, as to the way in which they are known, affirmation and negation have something more in common; because directly the truth of an affirmation is known, the falsehood of the opposite negation is known also.
Iª q. 58 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod hoc quod Angeli loquuntur enuntiationes affirmativas et negativas, manifestat quod Angeli cognoscunt compositionem et divisionem, non autem quod cognoscant componendo et dividendo, sed simpliciter cognoscendo quod quid est.	Reply to Objection 3. The fact that angels use affirmative and negative forms of speech, shows that they know both composition and division: yet not that they know by composing and dividing, but by knowing simply the nature of a thing.
Iª q. 58 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in intellectu Angeli possit esse falsitas. Protervitas enim ad falsitatem pertinet. Sed in Daemonibus est phantasia proterva, ut dicit Dionysius, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Ergo videtur quod in Angelorum intellectu possit esse falsitas.	Objection 1. It would seem that there can be falsehood in the angel's intellect. For perversity appertains to falsehood. But, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv), there is "a perverted fancy" in the demons. Therefore it seems that there can be falsehood in the intellect of the angels.
Iª q. 58 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, nescientia est causa falsae aestimationis. Sed in Angelis potest esse nescientia, ut Dionysius dicit, VI cap. Eccles. Hier. Ergo videtur quod in eis possit esse falsitas.	Objection 2. Further, nescience is the cause of estimating falsely. But, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vi), there can be nescience in the angels. Therefore it seems there can be falsehood in them.
Iª q. 58 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, omne quod cadit a veritate sapientiae, et habet rationem depravatam, habet falsitatem vel errorem in suo intellectu. Sed hoc Dionysius dicit de Daemonibus, VII cap. de Div. Nom. Ergo videtur quod in intellectu Angelorum possit esse falsitas.	Objection 3. Further, everything which falls short of the truth of wisdom, and which has a depraved reason, has falsehood or error in its intellect. But Dionysius (Div. Nom. vii) affirms this of the demons. Therefore it seems that there can be error in the minds of the angels.
Iª q. 58 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra, philosophus dicit, III de anima, quod intellectus semper verus est. Augustinus etiam dicit, in libro octoginta trium quaest., quod nihil intelligitur nisi verum. Sed Angeli non cognoscunt aliquid nisi intelligendo. Ergo in Angeli cognitione non potest esse deceptio et falsitas.	On the contrary, The Philosopher says (De Anima iii, text. 41) that "the intelligence is always true." Augustine likewise says (QQ. 83, qu. 32) that "nothing but what is true can be the object of intelligence" Therefore there can be neither deception nor falsehood in the angel's knowledge.
Iª q. 58 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod huius quaestionis veritas aliquatenus ex praemissa dependet. Dictum est enim quod Angelus non intelligit componendo et dividendo, sed intelligendo quod quid est. Intellectus autem circa quod quid est semper verus est, sicut et sensus circa proprium obiectum, ut dicitur in III de anima. Sed per accidens in nobis accidit deceptio et falsitas intelligendo quod quid est, scilicet secundum rationem alicuius compositionis, vel cum definitionem unius rei accipimus ut definitionem alterius; vel cum partes definitionis sibi non cohaerent, sicut si accipiatur pro definitione alicuius rei, animal quadrupes volatile (nullum enim animal tale est); et hoc quidem accidit in compositis, quorum definitio ex diversis sumitur, quorum unum est materiale ad aliud. Sed intelligendo quidditates simplices, ut dicitur in IX Metaphys., non est falsitas, quia vel totaliter non attinguntur, et nihil intelligimus de eis; vel cognoscuntur ut sunt. Sic igitur per se non potest esse falsitas aut error aut deceptio in intellectu alicuius Angeli; sed per accidens contingit. Alio tamen modo quam in nobis. Nam nos componendo et dividendo quandoque ad intellectum quidditatis pervenimus, sicut cum dividendo vel demonstrando definitionem investigamus. Quod quidem in Angelis non contingit; sed per quod quid est rei cognoscunt omnes enuntiationes ad illam rem pertinentes. Manifestum est autem quod quidditas rei potest esse principium cognoscendi respectu eorum quae naturaliter conveniunt rei vel ab ea removentur, non autem eorum quae a supernaturali Dei ordinatione dependent. Angeli igitur boni, habentes rectam voluntatem, per cognitionem quidditatis rei non iudicant de his quae naturaliter ad rem pertinent, nisi salva ordinatione divina. Unde in eis non potest esse falsitas aut error. Daemones vero, per voluntatem perversam subducentes intellectum a divina sapientia, absolute interdum de rebus iudicant secundum naturalem conditionem. Et in his quae naturaliter ad rem pertinent, non decipiuntur. Sed decipi possunt quantum ad ea quae supernaturalia sunt, sicut si considerans hominem mortuum, iudicet eum non resurrecturum; et si videns hominem Christum, iudicet eum non esse Deum.	I answer that, The truth of this question depends partly upon what has gone before. For it has been said (4) that an angel understands not by composing and dividing, but by understanding what a thing is. Now the intellect is always true as regards what a thing is, just as the sense regarding its proper object, as is said in De Anima iii, text. 26. But by accident, deception and falsehood creep in, when we understand the essence of a thing by some kind of composition, and this happens either when we take the definition of one thing for another, or when the parts of a definition do not hang together, as if we were to accept as the definition of some creature, "a four-footed flying beast," for there is no such animal. And this comes about in things composite, the definition of which is drawn from diverse elements, one of which is as matter to the other. But there is no room for error in understanding simple quiddities, as is stated in Metaph. ix, text. 22; for either they are not grasped at all, and so we know nothing respecting them; or else they are known precisely as they exist. So therefore, no falsehood, error, or deception can exist of itself in the mind of any angel; yet it does so happen accidentally; but very differently from the way it befalls us. For we sometimes get at the quiddity of a thing by a composing and dividing process, as when, by division and demonstration, we seek out the truth of a definition. Such is not the method of the angels; but through the (knowledge of the) essence of a thing they know everything that can be said regarding it. Now it is quite evident that the quiddity of a thing can be a source of knowledge with regard to everything belonging to such thing, or excluded from it; but not of what may be dependent on God's supernatural ordinance. Consequently, owing to their upright will, from their knowing the nature of every creature, the good angels form no judgments as to the nature of the qualities therein, save under the Divine ordinance; hence there can be no error or falsehood in them. But since the minds of demons are utterly perverted from the Divine wisdom, they at times form their opinions of things simply according to the natural conditions of the same. Nor are they ever deceived as to the natural properties of anything; but they can be misled with regard to supernatural matters; for example, on seeing a dead man, they may suppose that he will not rise again, or, on beholding Christ, they may judge Him not to be God.
Iª q. 58 a. 5 ad 1 Et per hoc patet responsio ad ea quae utrinque obiiciuntur. Nam protervitas Daemonum est secundum quod non subduntur divinae sapientiae. Nescientia autem est in Angelis, non respectu naturalium cognoscibilium, sed supernaturalium. Patet etiam quod intellectus eius quod quid est semper est verus, nisi per accidens, secundum quod indebite ordinatur ad aliquam compositionem vel divisionem.	From all this the answers to the objections of both sides of the question are evident. For the perversity of the demons comes of their not being subject to the Divine wisdom; while nescience is in the angels as regards things knowable, not naturally but supernaturally. It is, furthermore, evident that their understanding of what a thing is, is always true, save accidentally, according as it is, in an undue manner, referred to some composition or division.
Iª q. 58 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Angelis non sit vespertina neque matutina cognitio. Vespere enim et mane admixtionem tenebrarum habent. Sed in cognitione Angeli non est aliqua tenebrositas; cum non sit ibi error vel falsitas. Ergo cognitio Angeli non debet dici matutina vel vespertina.	Objection 1. It would seem that there is neither an evening nor a morning knowledge in the angels; because evening and morning have an admixture of darkness. But there is no darkness in the knowledge of an angel; since there is no error nor falsehood. Therefore the angelic knowledge ought not to be termed morning and evening knowledge.
Iª q. 58 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, inter vespere et mane cadit nox; et inter mane et vespere cadit meridies. Si igitur in Angelis cadit cognitio matutina et vespertina, pari ratione videtur quod in eis debeat esse meridiana et nocturna cognitio.	Objection 2. Further, between evening and morning the night intervenes; while noonday falls between morning and evening. Consequently, if there be a morning and an evening knowledge in the angels, for the same reason it appears that there ought to be a noonday and a night knowledge.
Iª q. 58 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, cognitio distinguitur secundum differentiam cognitorum, unde in III de anima dicit philosophus quod scientiae secantur quemadmodum et res. Triplex autem est esse rerum, scilicet in verbo, in propria natura, et in intelligentia angelica, ut Augustinus dicit, II super Gen. ad Litt. Ergo, si ponatur cognitio matutina in Angelis et vespertina, propter esse rerum in verbo et in propria natura; debet etiam in eis poni tertia cognitio, propter esse rerum in intelligentia angelica.	Objection 3. Further, knowledge is diversified according to the difference of the objects known: hence the Philosopher says (De Anima iii, text. 38), "The sciences are divided just as things are." But there is a threefold existence of things: to wit, in the Word; in their own natures; and in the angelic knowledge, as Augustine observes (Gen. ad lit. ii, 8). If, therefore, a morning and an evening knowledge be admitted in the angels, because of the existence of things in the Word, and in their own nature, then there ought to be admitted a third class of knowledge, on account of the existence of things in the angelic mind.
Iª q. 58 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus, IV super Gen. ad Litt., et XI de Civ. Dei, distinguit cognitionem Angelorum per matutinam et vespertinam.	On the contrary, Augustine (Gen. ad lit. iv, 22,31; De Civ. Dei xii, 7,20) divides the knowledge of the angels into morning and evening knowledge.
Iª q. 58 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod hoc quod dicitur de cognitione matutina et vespertina in Angelis, introductum est ab Augustino, qui sex dies in quibus Deus legitur fecisse cuncta, Gen. I, intelligi vult non hos usitatos dies qui solis circuitu peraguntur, cum sol quarto die factus legatur; sed unum diem, scilicet cognitionem angelicam sex rerum generibus praesentatam. Sicut autem in die consueto mane est principium diei, vespere autem terminus, ita cognitio ipsius primordialis esse rerum, dicitur cognitio matutina, et haec est secundum quod res sunt in verbo. Cognitio autem ipsius esse rei creatae secundum quod in propria natura consistit, dicitur cognitio vespertina, nam esse rerum fluit a verbo sicut a quodam primordiali principio, et hic effluxus terminatur ad esse rerum quod in propria natura habent.	I answer that, The expression "morning" and "evening" knowledge was devised by Augustine; who interprets the six days wherein God made all things, not as ordinary days measured by the solar circuit, since the sun was only made on the fourth day, but as one day, namely, the day of angelic knowledge as directed to six classes of things. As in the ordinary day, morning is the beginning, and evening the close of day, so, their knowledge of the primordial being of things is called morning knowledge; and this is according as things exist in the Word. But their knowledge of the very being of the thing created, as it stands in its own nature, is termed evening knowledge; because the being of things flows from the Word, as from a kind of primordial principle; and this flow is terminated in the being which they have in themselves.
Iª q. 58 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod vespere et mane non accipiuntur in cognitione angelica secundum similitudinem ad admixtionem tenebrarum; sed secundum similitudinem principii et termini. Vel dicendum quod nihil prohibet, ut dicit Augustinus IV super Gen. ad Litt., aliquid in comparatione ad unum dici lux, et in comparatione ad aliud dici tenebra. Sicut vita fidelium et iustorum, in comparatione ad impios, dicitur lux, secundum illud Ephes. V, fuistis aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in domino; quae tamen vita fidelium, in comparatione ad vitam gloriae, tenebrosa dicitur, secundum illud II Petri I, habetis propheticum sermonem, cui bene facitis attendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco. Sic igitur cognitio Angeli qua cognoscit res in propria natura, dies est per comparationem ad ignorantiam vel errorem, sed obscura est per comparationem ad visionem verbi.	Reply to Objection 1. Evening and morning knowledge in the angelic knowledge are not taken as compared to an admixture of darkness, but as compared to beginning and end. Or else it can be said, as Augustine puts it (Gen. ad lit. iv, 23), that there is nothing to prevent us from calling something light in comparison with one thing, and darkness with respect to another. In the same way the life of the faithful and the just is called light in comparison with the wicked, according to Eph. 5:8: "You were heretofore darkness; but now, light in the Lord": yet this very life of the faithful, when set in contrast to the life of glory, is termed darkness, according to 2 Pt. 1:19: "You have the firm prophetic word, whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place." So the angel's knowledge by which he knows things in their own nature, is day in comparison with ignorance or error; yet it is dark in comparison with the vision of the Word.
Iª q. 58 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod matutina et vespertina cognitio ad diem pertinet, idest ad Angelos illuminatos, qui sunt distincti a tenebris, idest a malis Angelis. Angeli autem boni, cognoscentes creaturam, non in ea figuntur, quod esset tenebrescere et noctem fieri; sed hoc ipsum referunt ad laudem Dei, in quo sicut in principio omnia cognoscunt. Et ideo post vesperam non ponitur nox, sed mane, ita quod mane sit finis praecedentis diei et principium sequentis, inquantum Angeli cognitionem praecedentis operis ad laudem Dei referunt. Meridies autem sub nomine diei comprehenditur, quasi medium inter duo extrema. Vel potest meridies referri ad cognitionem ipsius Dei, qui non habet principium nec finem.	Reply to Objection 2. The morning and evening knowledge belong to the day, that is, to the enlightened angels, who are quite apart from the darkness, that is, from the evil spirits. The good angels, while knowing the creature, do not adhere to it, for that would be to turn to darkness and to night; but they refer this back to the praise of God, in Whom, as in their principle, they know all things. Consequently after "evening" there is no night, but "morning"; so that morning is the end of the preceding day, and the beginning of the following, in so far as the angels refer to God's praise their knowledge of the preceding work. Noonday is comprised under the name of day, as the middle between the two extremes. Or else the noon can be referred to their knowledge of God Himself, Who has neither beginning nor end.
Iª q. 58 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod etiam ipsi Angeli creaturae sunt. Unde esse rerum in intelligentia angelica comprehenditur sub vespertina cognitione, sicut et esse rerum in propria natura.	Reply to Objection 3. The angels themselves are also creatures. Accordingly the existence of things in the angelic knowledge is comprised under evening knowledge, as also the existence of things in their own nature.
Iª q. 58 a. 7 arg. 1 Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod una sit cognitio vespertina et matutina. Dicitur enim Gen. I, factum est vespere et mane dies unus. Sed per diem intelligitur cognitio angelica, ut Augustinus dicit. Ergo una et eadem est cognitio in Angelis matutina et vespertina.	Objection 1. It would seem that the morning and the evening knowledge are one. For it is said (Genesis 1:5): "There was evening and morning, one day." But by the expression "day" the knowledge of the angels is to be understood, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. iv, 23). Therefore the morning and evening knowledge of the angels are one and the same.
Iª q. 58 a. 7 arg. 2 Praeterea, impossibile est unam potentiam simul duas operationes habere. Sed Angeli semper sunt in actu cognitionis matutinae, quia semper vident Deum et res in Deo, secundum illud Matth. XVIII, Angeli eorum semper vident faciem patris mei et cetera. Ergo, si cognitio vespertina esset alia a matutina, nullo modo Angelus posset esse in actu cognitionis vespertinae.	Objection 2. Further, it is impossible for one faculty to have two operations at the same time. But the angels are always using their morning knowledge; because they are always beholding God and things in God, according to Mt. 18:10. Therefore, if the evening knowledge were different from the morning, the angel could never exercise his evening knowledge.
Iª q. 58 a. 7 arg. 3 Praeterea, apostolus dicit, I Cor. XIII, cum venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est. Sed si cognitio vespertina sit alia a matutina, comparatur ad ipsam sicut imperfectum ad perfectum. Ergo non poterit simul vespertina cognitio esse cum matutina.	Objection 3. Further, the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 13:10): "When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." But, if the evening knowledge be different from the morning, it is compared to it as the less perfect to the perfect. Therefore the evening knowledge cannot exist together with the morning knowledge.
Iª q. 58 a. 7 s. c. In contrarium est quod dicit Augustinus, IV super Gen. ad Litt., quod multum interest inter cognitionem rei cuiuscumque in verbo Dei, et cognitionem eius in natura eius, ut illud merito pertineat ad diem, hoc ad vesperam.	On the contrary, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. iv, 24): "There is a vast difference between knowing anything as it is in the Word of God, and as it is in its own nature; so that the former belongs to the day, and the latter to the evening."
Iª q. 58 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, cognitio vespertina dicitur, qua Angeli cognoscunt res in propria natura. Quod non potest ita intelligi quasi ex propria rerum natura cognitionem accipiant, ut haec praepositio in indicet habitudinem principii, quia non accipiunt Angeli cognitionem a rebus, ut supra habitum est. Relinquitur igitur quod hoc quod dicitur in propria natura, accipiatur secundum rationem cogniti, secundum quod subest cognitioni; ut scilicet cognitio vespertina in Angelis dicatur secundum quod cognoscunt esse rerum quod habent res in propria natura. Quod quidem per duplex medium cognoscunt, scilicet per species innatas, et per rationes rerum in verbo existentes. Non enim, videndo verbum, cognoscunt solum illud esse rerum quod habent in verbo; sed illud esse quod habent in propria natura; sicut Deus per hoc quod videt se, cognoscit esse rerum quod habent in propria natura. Si ergo dicatur cognitio vespertina secundum quod cognoscunt esse rerum quod habent in propria natura, videndo verbum; sic una et eadem secundum essentiam est cognitio vespertina et matutina, differens solum secundum cognita. Si vero cognitio vespertina dicatur secundum quod Angeli cognoscunt esse rerum quod habent in propria natura, per formas innatas; sic alia est cognitio vespertina et matutina. Et ita videtur intelligere Augustinus, cum unam ponat imperfectam respectu alterius.	I answer that, As was observed (6), the evening knowledge is that by which the angels know things in their proper nature. This cannot be understood as if they drew their knowledge from the proper nature of things, so that the preposition "in" denotes the form of a principle; because, as has been already stated (55, 2), the angels do not draw their knowledge from things. It follows, then, that when we say "in their proper nature" we refer to the aspect of the thing known in so far as it is an object of knowledge; that is to say, that the evening knowledge is in the angels in so far as they know the being of things which those things have in their own nature. Now they know this through a twofold medium, namely, by innate ideas, or by the forms of things existing in the Word. For by beholding the Word, they know not merely the being of things as existing in the Word, but the being as possessed by the things themselves; as God by contemplating Himself sees that being which things have in their own nature. If, therefore, it be called evening knowledge, in so far as when the angels behold the Word, they know the being which things have in their proper nature, then the morning and the evening knowledge are essentially one and the same, and only differ as to the things known. If it be called evening knowledge, in so far as through innate ideas they know the being which things have in their own natures, then the morning and the evening knowledge differ. Thus Augustine seems to understand it when he assigns one as inferior to the other.
Iª q. 58 a. 7 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut numerus sex dierum, secundum intellectum Augustini, accipitur secundum sex genera rerum quae cognoscuntur ab Angelis; ita unitas diei accipitur secundum unitatem rei cognitae, quae tamen diversis cognitionibus cognosci potest.	Reply to Objection 1. The six days, as Augustine understands them, are taken as the six classes of things known by the angels; so that the day's unit is taken according to the unit of the thing understood; which, nevertheless, can be apprehended by various ways of knowing it.
Iª q. 58 a. 7 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod duae operationes possunt simul esse unius potentiae, quarum una ad aliam refertur; ut patet cum voluntas simul vult et finem et ea quae sunt ad finem, et intellectus simul intelligit principia et conclusiones per principia, quando iam scientiam acquisivit. Cognitio autem vespertina in Angelis refertur ad matutinam, ut Augustinus dicit. Unde nihil prohibet utramque simul esse in Angelis.	Reply to Objection 2. There can be two operations of the same faculty at the one time, one of which is referred to the other; as is evident when the will at the same time wills the end and the means to the end; and the intellect at the same instant perceives principles and conclusions through those principles, when it has already acquired knowledge. As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. iv, 24), the evening knowledge is referred to the morning knowledge in the angels; hence there is nothing to hinder both from being at the same time in the angels.
Iª q. 58 a. 7 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, veniente perfecto, evacuatur imperfectum quod ei opponitur, sicut fides, quae est eorum quae non videntur, evacuatur visione veniente. Sed imperfectio vespertinae cognitionis non opponitur perfectioni matutinae. Quod enim cognoscatur aliquid in seipso, non est oppositum ei quod cognoscatur in sua causa. Nec iterum quod aliquid cognoscatur per duo media, quorum unum est perfectius et aliud imperfectius, aliquid repugnans habet, sicut ad eandem conclusionem habere possumus et medium demonstrativum et dialecticum. Et similiter eadem res potest sciri ab Angelo per verbum increatum, et per speciem innatam.	Reply to Objection 3. On the coming of what is perfect, the opposite imperfect is done away: just as faith, which is of the things that are not seen, is made void when vision succeeds. But the imperfection of the evening knowledge is not opposed to the perfection of the morning knowledge. For that a thing be known in itself, is not opposite to its being known in its cause. Nor, again, is there any inconsistency in knowing a thing through two mediums, one of which is more perfect and the other less perfect; just as we can have a demonstrative and a probable medium for reaching the same conclusion. In like manner a thing can be known by the angel through the uncreated Word, and through an innate idea.