D. 11 - Angelic guardianship

Division of the first part of the text

After he has examined certain acts that follow on all the orders, namely, to attend and to minister, here he considers the act to which a single order is specially deputed, namely to guard men. This is divided into two parts.

In the first, he considers the angels with regard to the office of guardianship.

In the second, he considers them with regard to the outcome that follows upon the aforementioned office, at moreover, it is fitting to consider. (Sent. II, 11.2(57).1.)

Concerning the first, he does two things.

First, he determines the truth.

Second, he raises a question concerning what he has determined, at but it is usual to ask whether single angels are assigned to watch over or test individual human beings, or one angel to many human beings. (Sent. II, 11.1(57).3.)

There he does three things.

First, he raises the question.

Second, he rules out the second part, at but since there are as many elect as good angels, it is clear that there are more men, good and evil together, than there are good angels. (Sent. II, 11.1(56).3.)

Third, he rules out the remainder and explains it, at and so it is fitting to say that one and the same angel, good or evil, is assigned to watch over or test many human beings. (Sent. II, 11.1(56).4.)

Question 1

The office of angelic guardianship

Concerning the guardianship of the angels, here five questions arise:

first, whether the angels are deputed to men for guardianship;

second, to which order it belongs to guard;

third, to which men it belongs to be guarded;

fourth, whether the guardian angels always guard the men to whom they are deputed, or whether they sometimes leave them;

fifth, since the angels rejoice at the salvation of men, whether conversely they are saddened at their damnation.

Article 1

Whether the angels guard men

To the first we proceed as follows. (Parallel text: ST I.113.1.) It seems that angels do not guard men.

Obj. 1: For God is the guardian of men, as is said in Job 7:17–20. But a guardian who is sufficient by himself for guardianship is more perfect than one who guards by the mediation of others. Therefore, since everything that is most perfect must be attributed to God, it seems that he does not guard us through angels.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, men are guarded and preserved by grace. But God infuses grace into the soul immediately, and not through angels. Therefore, it seems that it does not belong to angels to guard us.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, one effect claimed for the angels’ guardianship is that they bear our prayers to God. But this seems altogether superfluous, since God knows everything. Therefore, it seems useless to posit angels as the guardians of men.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, a guardian is given to someone either because of weakness, so that he may be aided and defended, or because of ignorance, so that he may be instructed. For example, teachers and pedagogues are given to women and children. But man by himself can know those things that are to be done or avoided through the natural law imprinted on his heart. He can also carry them out due to the freedom of his will. Therefore, it seems that he does not need the guardianship of the angels.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, the role of a guardian is to hold back the one guarded from those things that are harmful to him. But the angels do not hold men back from sins, since we can see that many men fall into sins. Therefore, it seems that the angels are not guardians of men.

Obj. 6: Furthermore, a guardian should instruct the one guarded in his own mode. But the mode of man is to receive knowledge from sensible things. Therefore, it seems that they would have to instruct us by visible apparitions. But they do not do this, except in rare cases. Therefore, it seems that either they do not guard us, or they are negligent in their task of guarding us.

On the contrary, Psalm 91 [90]:11 says: he will give his angels charge of you, to guard you in all your ways.

Furthermore, God is more inclined to have mercy than to punish. But God gave demons to men for their training, as Scripture says: we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places (Eph 6:12). Therefore, it seems that all the more has he given angels to guard men.

I answer that, according to Boethius, (Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy, bk. 4, prose 6 (CCSL 94; PL 63:813).) God carries out his providence over all things by the mediation of other causes. As it was said in Book I, (In I Sent., d. 39, q. 2, a. 2.) however, although he has providence over all things, rational substances are subject to his providence in a special way, inasmuch as they were born to obtain the end of the divine goodness in a way higher than other things and to do this through a higher principle, namely, the will. Therefore, since the angelic nature is a mean between God and men, and in accord with the law of his wisdom it has been ordained that he provides for lower things through higher things, the angels themselves carry out God’s providence concerning human salvation. They do this by helping men tend toward their end and by freeing them from the things that impede progress toward the end. This carrying out of the divine providence for men through angels is called the “guardianship” of the angels.

Reply Obj. 1: God is the first and principal guardian, with whom resides the highest providence. It is not due to any insufficiency on his part that he exercises his providence over men through angels, but it is rather on account of the ordering of his wisdom. This is both because it befits the angels, namely, so that the dignity of leading men on their journey to God will not be denied to them (and in this they imitate God in a certain way, inasmuch as they work together with God in leading men back to their end). It is also because it befits men, who are in a state of imperfection, which the Apostle compares to childhood (1 Cor 13:11). Hence to them, as to children, guardians are assigned until what is perfect comes and what is partial passes away.

Reply Obj. 2: In art-related activities, the instruments in a certain way dispose for the form, as fire disposes by softening iron and a mallet disposes by flattening it out, though the form of a dagger is introduced by the artisan through the likeness of the art that he possesses. In a similar way God, who is the first guardian, introduces the ultimate perfection, the one that joins man to the end and so preserves him, that is, grace and glory. But it belongs to the angels to prepare men for the reception of grace through illuminations and other such things.

Reply Obj. 3: They are not said to bear our prayers to God as if teaching him about them, but rather as praying to him for us, as a priest also offers to God the prayer of the people inasmuch as he procures the effect of their prayers by his intervention.

Reply Obj. 4: The light of natural knowledge is imperfect, especially as regards directing us toward things that exceed nature. The will, too, can on many occasions be inclined to evil. Thus, he provides for men the protection of the angels.

Reply Obj. 5: Just as it belongs to divine providence to impede evils in such a manner that the condition of nature is still preserved, so it belongs to the guardianship of angels. Thus, the angels’ role is not by guarding men to compel them to virtue and withdraw them from vices, for in this case the freedom of the will and the account of merit would be lost.

Reply Obj. 6: These kinds of visible apparitions of angels, because they are above the course of nature, strike one with a kind of stupor and in a certain way violently elicit consent. In this, a good of man regarding the condition of his nature is lost, namely, the inquiry of reason. Hence apparitions of this sort do not happen for all. But they have occurred for some for the confirmation of faith in the many, as with miracles. Nonetheless, the angels instruct us in accord with our own mode by enlightening the phantasms, by strengthening the light of our intellect, and by stirring us to consider something more rightly.

Article 2

Whether it pertains to all the orders of the third hierarchy to guard men

To the second we proceed as follows. (Parallel texts: ST I.113.3; SCG III.80.) It seems that to guard pertains to all the orders of the third hierarchy.

Obj. 1: For, according to Dionysius, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 9 (PG 3:259).) it is proper to the third hierarchy to receive the divine light by way of accommodation to our hierarchy, that is, as proportioned for immediate transfer to us. But an angel who immediately illuminates a man is called his “guardian.” Therefore, it seems that to guard pertains to all of them.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, a guardian angel defends a man from the assault of an invisible enemy. But according to Gregory, (Gregory the Great, Homilies on the Gospels, bk. 2, homily 34, para. 10 (CCSL 141; PL 76:1251).) to constrain pertains to the powers. Therefore, it seems that it befits this order in particular to guard.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, sending is ordered to guardianship. But the angels of five orders are sent to fulfill a ministry externally, as has been said. (Above: d. 10, q. 1, a. 2.) Therefore, it befits all of them to guard.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, different offices are found among men. But the orders of angels are distinguished on the basis of different offices, to which likenesses are found in human offices, as Gregory says, (Gregory the Great, Homilies on the Gospels, bk. 2, homily 34, para. 10 (CCSL 141; PL 76:1251).) showing the manner in which men are taken up into the orders of the angels. Therefore, it seems that all the orders are deputed for ministry.

On the contrary, Gregory says (Gregory the Great, Homilies on the Gospels, bk. 2, homily 34, para. 10 (CCSL 141; PL 76:1251).) that the angels are those who announce lesser matters. But lesser matters are those that pertain to individual persons. For the more common a good is, the more divine it is, according to the Philosopher. (Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics 1.1.) Therefore, it seems that those who are set over individual men are only from the order of angels.

Furthermore, Bernard says in his On Consideration: we believe that they are called ‘angels’ who are set over individual men and sent for ministry on behalf of those who receive the inheritance of salvation. (Bernard of Clairvaux, On Consideration, bk. 5, ch. 4 (PL 182:792).) Therefore, the same seems to follow as before.

I answer that those angels are called “guardians” of men who immediately illuminate them, have limited acts concerning human offices, and procure what specifically pertains to them. The fact that they immediately illuminate men excludes attending angels from guardianship. The fact that they have limited acts for the direction of human offices excludes the middle hierarchy, which has unlimited power over human offices. Finally, the fact that through guardianship is procured what pertains to certain determinate persons, which is the last and lowest among the acts of the angels, means that guardianship is assigned to the last order, which is the order of angels.

Reply Obj. 1: The entire third hierarchy receives illuminations proportionate to human acts and offices, though not with respect to this or that person. Rather, this belongs to the angels. Thus, it befits them to guard individual men while it befits others to guard individual provinces or kingdoms.

Reply Obj. 2: The lower angels participate in the power of the higher inasmuch as they are illuminated by them, as, according to Dionysius, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 13 (PG 3:299).) a lower angel is said to have purged Isaiah through fire by the power of the seraphim. So, too, the lower angels restrain demons by the power of the powers. Likewise, by the power of the other higher orders they can carry out various things that pertain to them concerning determinate persons.

Reply Obj. 3: All guardian angels are sent, but not all the angels who are sent are guardians. Rather, the last alone guard, as has been said, (Above: resp.) since the higher carry out what pertains to many, and the broader the scope, the higher the order. Thus, the virtues are the highest among those who carry out ministries, since their acts extend not only to human affairs, but even to natural affairs, as is clear in their working of signs. Next are the powers, whose acts extend not only to men but to demons. Then are the principalities, whose activity concerns an entire multitude. Last, there are the angels who carry out activities concerning determinate persons. But the archangels are in the middle, since they have something in common with the orders on either side, as was said before. (Above: d. 9, q. 1, a. 3, resp.)

Reply Obj. 4: All human offices that pertain to individual persons, no matter the orders to which they bear a likeness, are directed by the last order inasmuch as they participate in the powers of the higher orders, as has been said. But the offices that pertain to a multitude are directed by principalities or archangels. Thus, a man in authority is illuminated by an angel of the lower order concerning what pertains to the state of his person, but by a prince of the angels concerning the things respecting the government of the multitude.

Article 3

Whether there are angels assigned to the guardianship of all men

To the third we proceed as follows. (Parallel text: ST I.113.4, 5.) It seems that there are not angels assigned to the guardianship of all men.

Obj. 1: For the guardianship of the angels helps men avoid dangers and enlighten their ignorance. But Adam was free from both of these in his original state. Therefore, he did not have a guardian angel.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, in certain men confirmed grace makes it so that they cannot sin mortally, as is clear in the case of those sanctified in the womb. But the guardianship of the angels has principally been ordained against the impediment to salvation that arises from sin. Therefore, it seems that such men do not need it.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, the sacraments of salvation cannot be conferred on a child before birth from the womb. But salvation is precisely what a guardian angel intends to foster in a man. Therefore, the guardianship of the angels is not due to an animated unborn child before birth.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, the way angels guard is that they instruct men by illuminating them. But children are not capable of being taught before the age of maturity. Therefore, it seems that they lack the guardianship of the angels.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, Scripture says (2 Thess 2:9) that every act of the Antichrist will be based on Satan’s working. But the angels’ guardianship is ordained against the temptations of evil spirits. Therefore, it seems that the Antichrist would be guarded by an angel to no purpose.

On the contrary (6), it seems that even Christ had a guardian angel. First, this is because Dionysius says (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 4 (PG 3:182).) that he was subject to the Father’s ordinances through the mediation of angels. But, as was said, (Above: d. 11, q. 1, a. 1, resp.) guardianship is the carrying out of a divine ordinance for men through angels. Therefore, it seems that Christ had a guardian angel.

Furthermore (7), it is said: and there appeared to him an angel from heaven, comforting him (Luke 22:43). (RSV reads strengthening instead of comforting.) Therefore, since comforting is one act of guardianship, it seems that he had a guardian angel.

I answer that, as was said in Book I, (In I Sent., d. 39, q. 2, a. 1.) providence is properly for conferring what leads to the end, and for removing what impedes it. But the last among these aids is that which joins to the end itself, and this is only from God. Thus, the guardian angels, who carry out divine providence concerning individual persons, provide certain preparatory aids to the attainment of the last end. Now, one who prepares will work on nothing but what is ordered to the end prior to the end being attained. Thus, guardianship is due to all men from the infusion of the rational soul, through which they are ordered to the end of salvation, up till death, when the path of progress to the goal is ended, either through their becoming incapable of penitence, as are the damned, or through their obtaining the end of glory, like the blessed.

Reply Obj. 1: Although Adam was in no danger of any corruption of the flesh inciting him to evil, there was still the danger arising from the potential to sin and from the demon’s assault. Likewise, he had weaker knowledge than an angel. Thus, he needed the protection of a guardian angel.

Reply Obj. 2: Even if those confirmed in grace cannot sin, they can still make progress and their progress can be impeded. For this reason they need the angels’ guardianship to advance them in the good and to remove impediments.

Reply Obj. 3: Children in their mother’s womb do not receive the sacraments of the Church because they are not subject to the acts of her ministers. But they are subject to the activities of God and of the angels. Thus, from the time of the infusion of the rational soul a guardian angel is assigned to them to prevent demonic power from harming them and to ward off the many impediments by which a child’s constitution can be worsened such that it becomes more prone to sinning, or even that its very life is lost. In this regard angels also help infants who have been born, though they do not illuminate them.

Reply Obj. 4: Hence the reply to the fourth objection is clear.

Reply Obj. 5: Even the Antichrist will have a guardian angel. For a universal law should not be changed on account of a single person. In this way, too, his punishment will also appear as more just, because he will not have been deprived of the benefits provided to the whole of human nature. Nor is such guardianship altogether in vain, since, even though he will not be converted to the good, he will desist from many evils, having been drawn away from them by his guardian angel. For an angel always obtains at least this effect through its guardianship of any obstinate person.

Reply Sed Contra 6: Christ did not have a guardian angel both because his soul was superior to all angels, since it was illuminated immediately by the Word united to it, and also because he was a true comprehensor. Hence his good could neither be impeded nor assisted. But he is said to be subject to the ordinances of the Father through angels in a certain way indirectly, inasmuch as the angels instructed Joseph and his mother about what was to be done concerning the child, as Matthew 2 relates.

Reply Sed Contra 7: An angel is said to have comforted him, not by impressing anything on him, but rather by way of ministry inasmuch as the angel congratulated him on his strength, just as a man suffering tribulation is naturally comforted by the presence of his friends. Thus, just as there had been true sadness, so there was a true comforting, and not only an apparent comforting, as some allege.

Article 4

Whether an angel ever leaves the man to whom it is deputed

To the fourth we proceed as follows. (Parallel text: ST I.113.6.) It seems that an angel sometimes leaves the man to whom it is deputed as guardian.

Obj. 1: This is first from what is said in Jeremiah: we would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed. Let us forsake her (Jer 51:9). But this is said in the person of the angels, as a gloss states. (See Origen, Homilies on Jeremiah, homily 21, para. 12 (PG 13:541); and Selections on Jeremiah, ch. 51, n. 9, (PG 13:602).) Therefore, it seems that the angel leaves a man when he does not accept correction to avoid sin.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, in Isaiah 5:5 it is said: I will remove its hedge, and it shall be devoured. A gloss explains that the hedge is the guardianship of the angels. (Hervé de Bourg-Dieu (ca.1080–1150 AD), Commentary on Isaiah, bk. 1, ch. 5, at verse 6 (PL 181:72).) Therefore, the same as before.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, God guards a man more efficaciously than an angel does. But God sometimes leaves a man, as Psalm 22:1 [21:2] says: why have you forsaken me? Therefore, all the more does an angel leave a man.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, it says in Zachariah 4:1 that the angel who had been speaking to him returned. This likewise happens in Daniel 10. But no one returns unless he has departed. Therefore, it seems that an angel sometimes leaves a man.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, the angels are sometimes in the empyrean heaven. But according to Damascene, when they are there they are not around us. Therefore, it seems that at times they leave us.

Obj. 6: Furthermore, a wise physician leaves a sick person who is without hope. But the guardian angels can know by revelation that someone is foreknown and can see that someone is obstinate in his sins. Now, such a person is like a sick person without hope. Therefore, it seems that an angel, too, who is like a spiritual physician, leaves such a person.

On the contrary, the good angels are more ready to help than the wicked are to harass. But the wicked angels never cease from harassing. Therefore, neither do the good cease guarding.

Furthermore, we must not despair of anyone as long as he is in the wayfaring state. But a sick person is only left by a physician because the physician has despaired. Therefore, it seems that an angel does not abandon a man, no matter how great a sinner he may be.

I answer that, since the angels’ guardianship is a certain carrying out of divine providence, we must judge the same way for both. But divine providence never wholly leaves a man, since then he would altogether return to nothingness, although it is true that God provides more or less for different people in accord with their condition. Thus, it is written: the eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous, and his ears toward their cry (Ps 34:15 [33:16]). For the just are those for whom God so perfectly provides that he makes all things work together for their good, as it is said (Rom 8:28). But in a certain way he abandons the wicked, inasmuch as he permits them to be subjected to tribulations and—what is worse—even permits them to rush on into sins. Hence: God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct (Rom 1:28). Similarly, the angels are said to abandon some men in a qualified sense, namely, inasmuch as men are exposed to tribulations or even by God’s just judgment are not withdrawn from a sin. But they never so leave them that there is no longer any effect of their guardianship, inasmuch as they continue to restrain them from some evil and move them to some good.

Reply Obj. 1: This is understood to be the voice of the angels departing from a sinner in the hour of his death, since that is the first point at which his salvation can be despaired of. Or it may be said that they abandon him in a qualified sense, as has been said, (Above: resp.) as God also does.

Reply Obj. 2–3: Hence the reply to the second and third objections is clear.

Reply Obj. 4: The angel had departed from him with regard to an effect of guardianship, that is, because it had not illuminated him concerning future things. But it had not departed with regard to every effect of guardianship.

Reply Obj. 5: Whenever an agent makes a strong impression, the impression remains in the recipient for some time, even when the agent is absent, as is clear in the case of violent motions. Thus, I say that at a single action of an angel on a man, the man can receive a good disposition that remains in him for some time, as is clear when someone prays devoutly a single time and from then on remains more devout for several days. Thus, an angel, though not always present, can always guard inasmuch as its effect remains after its action.

Reply Obj. 6: No one in the wayfaring state is so obstinate that he cannot be converted through penitence. Hence we must not despair of him. And if an angel knew that he was foreknown, it could still impede many evils in him, as was said of the Antichrist in the preceding article.

Article 5

Whether the angels grieve over the damnation of the men they guard

To the fifth we proceed as follows. (Parallel text: ST I.113.7.) It seems that the angels grieve over the damnation of the men they guard.

Obj. 1: For outward mourning is a sign of interior pain. But in Isaiah 33:7 it is said, the angels of peace weep bitterly. (RSV reads envoys instead of angels.) Therefore, it seems that they grieve.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, it belongs to friends to suffer with one another in their needs. But the angels love us with the most fervent charity. Therefore, it seems that they are saddened and suffer with compassion at the damnation of men.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, a wise man grieves over things that lessen his joy. But the damnation of men lessens the joy that the angels would have had over their conversion, concerning which it says in Luke 15:10, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents. Therefore, they grieve over the damnation of men.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, everything that is contrary to what is willed and incompatible with the end is saddening. But damnation is contrary to the salvation that they will and procure through their office of guardianship. Therefore, the damnation of men saddens them.

On the contrary, Revelation 21:4 says that in the heavenly Jerusalem there is neither weeping nor mourning. But the angels are citizens of this city. Therefore, they grieve over nothing.

Furthermore, perfect beatitude is incompatible with misery. But all sadness pertains to misery and is to be avoided, as the Philosopher says in the Ethics 7. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 7.13, 1153b1–4.) Therefore, the blessed angels cannot be sad.

I answer that, since the angels are blessed in the continuous contemplation of the divine will, to which they are most perfectly conformed, nothing can be contrary to their will, just as nothing can be contrary to God’s will, though something can occur apart from their will. But even such a thing, inasmuch as it is permitted by God, is willed by them as it is willed by God. Thus, nothing can happen over which the angels grieve, just as nothing can happen over which God grieves. Thus, we must say simply that they are not saddened at the sins of men or at their damnation. Rather, in both cases they rejoice at God’s just permission and punishment.

Reply Obj. 1: In the literal sense, this is understood of the messengers of Hezekiah, whom he sent to seek peace from the Assyrians and who, when they heard the blasphemies of Rabshakeh, wept with rent garments. But allegorically it is explained in the Gloss as referring to the apostles. (Glossa ordinaria, at Isaiah 33:2, 4.297 (PL 113:1276).) But if it is referred to the angels, then we must understand their grief not properly, but rather metaphorically, in the same way that grief is frequently attributed to God in the Scriptures.

Reply Obj. 2: One who is not passible (Passibilis (like the noun form passibilitas) does not neatly translate into English by a single word; the sense is “able to suffer,” or more generally, “capable of being changed.”) cannot suffer with others. Thus, the reason that the angels cannot grieve with others is their impassibility, not a lack of charity.

Reply Obj. 3: The joy of the angels is not lessened by the damnation of men, since the number of the elect cannot be lessened. Or it may be said that they always rejoice over their own good works that they performed as guardians, even when the one guarded is not saved.

Reply Obj. 4: The angels will the salvation of a man with antecedent will, just as God does. But with consequent will, they will a man to be damned, if he has so merited it. Hence, as a consequence, they do not grieve over his damnation.

Exposition of the first part of the text

And an evil one to train the soul. (Sent. II, 11.1(56).2.) This seems to be an injustice in the case of man because demons are much stronger than men. For there is no power on earth to compare with theirs, as is said in Job 41. Therefore, it is not just to establish a conflict between a man and a demon.

We must say that, since a free will cannot be compelled to sin, a man can resist no matter how strong a demon is. Hence it is said that an enemy is weak who can only conquer the willing. (Hugh of Saint-Cher, OP (ca. 1200–1263 AD), Postilla ‘Aser pinguis’ in Apocalypsi, ch. 12, at Revelations 12:10; Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, bk. 5, ch. 22 (CCSL 143A; PL 75:702); Bernard of Siena, Quadragesimale de christiana religione, sermon 19, “Feria secunda post II dominicam in quadragesima,” a. 3, ch. 2.) In addition to this, a man has on his side an angel’s protection and God’s assistance if he is willing to receive them.

Division of the second part of the text

Here the Master inquires whether the angels progress in merit or reward while they continue in the office of guardianship. This is divided into two parts.

First, he lays out two opinions.

Second, he chooses the second of them, at but what those others said above seems more probable. (Sent. II, 11.2(57).8.)

The first is divided into two parts, following two opinions.

The second of these begins at but others say that the angels, in their confirmation, were endowed with such love and knowledge of the divinity that they have not made and will not make any further progress in these. (Sent. II, 11.2(57).7.)

Concerning the first, he does three things.

First, he puts forth the opinion.

Second, he confirms it by authority, at and they confirm with the testimonies of the saints that the angels make progress in knowledge and, through this, in blessedness. (Sent. II, 11.2(57).3.)

Third, he resolves a contradiction, at but Augustine appears to contradict this. (Sent. II, 11.2(57).4.)

But what those others said above seems more probable. (Sent. II, 11.2(57).8.) Here he chooses the second opinion. Concerning this, he does two things.

First, he chooses the first opinion.

Second, he responds to certain contrary authorities, at but the words of some authorities appear to contradict what was said. (Sent. II, 11.2(57).9.)

Question 2

The merit of angelic guardianship

Here six questions arise:

first, whether the angels progress in the knowledge of God, which is the essential reward;

second, whether they progress in the knowledge of other things through the illumination of higher angels;

third, whether any knowledge accrues to them by mutual locution;

fourth, whether they learned of the mystery of the Incarnation through the Church;

fifth, whether there is conflict and contradiction among them;

sixth, whether the distinction of orders will remain after the judgment day.

Article 1

Whether the angels progress in the vision of God

To the fifth we proceed as follows. (Parallel text: ST I.62.9.) It seems that the angels progress in the vision of God.

Obj. 1: For perfection of virtue does not take away but rather increases one’s power to merit. But the blessed angels have perfect charity, which is the root of all merit, and this charity informs all their acts. Therefore, it seems that they are always meriting more and more that the divine vision be increased in them.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, according to Avicenna, every action of a created thing results in some benefit to the agent; hence he says that pure liberality is proper to God alone. But the angels are created. Therefore, something accrues to them from their acts concerning us. Thus, it seems that their good is always increasing more and more.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, the clearer the intellect, the more perspicaciously it perceives. But the lower angels are continuously illuminated by the higher. Therefore, it seems that they always contemplate God with greater lucidity.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, if they cannot progress in the vision of God, this is either because they have arrived at the height of perfection, or because they are not capable of greater perfection. But the first cannot be, because the height of perfection belongs to God alone, since he sees himself comprehensively. Likewise, the second cannot be, since in this case men would be more capable than the lower angels because men, as has been said, (Above: d. 9, q. 1, a. 8.) can arrive at the mode of contemplation of the higher orders. Therefore, it seems that the angels can also progress in divine contemplation.

On the contrary, the Master said above (See Sent. II, 4.1(19).1, 5–6; 5.6(25).1–2.) that the perfection of glorified nature is when it possesses whatever it was born to possess. But the angels are glorified. Therefore, they possess the entirety of what they were born to possess.

Furthermore, at the terminus of motion, motion does not occur. But the angels are not in the wayfaring state, to which motion belongs, but rather at their term. Therefore, it seems that they cannot progress, since progress is a sort of motion.

I answer that, according to the Philosopher, activity and motion differ. For activity is the act of the perfect, such as the shining of a light, and the understanding of an intellect in act. But motion is the act of the imperfect and tending to perfection. Thus, what is in its ultimate perfection has activity without motion, as God does. But what is at a distance from its ultimate perfection has an activity joined to a motion, since to progress in beatitude there is a certain motion of a nature tending to perfection. Thus, whenever an angel or a man is established in his ultimate perfection, his activity is neither meritorious nor makes progress.

But with respect to the question of when an angel is in its ultimate perfection, there are two opinions. One the Master approves, namely, that it will be on judgment day. The other he touches on in the text, (Sent. II, 11.2(57).1.) namely, that it was at the beginning of their confirmation. This seems more probable to me. First, because the ultimate perfection of a thing is at the terminus of its way, and the terminus of the angels’ way was their confirmation, for they are not now called “wayfarers,” unless perhaps in a qualified sense inasmuch as they carry out operations concerning wayfarers. Second, because the same judgment applies to men after death and to angels after their confirmation or fall. But the ultimate perfection of a man is conferred on him immediately after death, unless perhaps a further need of purgation delays this, and which is not deferred to judgment day, as the Greeks erroneously say. Thus, we say that the angels at their confirmation obtained the ultimate perfection of beatitude and henceforth do not progress in the vision of God, in which their beatitude essentially consists.

Reply Obj. 1: The perfection of a virtue that includes the end takes away the account of merit and of motion, which is incompatible with the end. But while on the way to the end, it increases the efficacy of merit.

Reply Obj. 2: Every activity of a created thing is ordered to its perfection. Now, sometimes an activity is not directed toward another end, but is, rather, itself the end, as is said in the Ethics 1. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1.1, 1094a1–5.) In this case I say that it is the angels’ dignity to illuminate those who are lower, since in this they most of all obtain likeness to God. Thus, it is not necessary that they merit anything through activities of this sort.

Reply Obj. 3: As has been said, (Above: d. 9, q. 1, a. 2.) one angel does not illuminate another about those things that pertain to the essence of beatitude, but rather about other things. Thus, it is not necessary that they therefore see God with greater lucidity, but rather that they see those things about which they are illuminated.

Reply Obj. 4: The angels do not attain to the highest degree of contemplation. But they are said not to be able to progress for the reason that their whole capacity is full. Nor can the capacity of the angels be expanded through merit, as it can in the case of men who are in the wayfaring state.

Article 2

Whether the lower angels are illuminated by the higher

To the second we proceed as follows. (Parallel texts: above, d. 9. a. 2; ST I.106.1, 3, and 4; On Truth, q. 9. aa. 1–2, 5; Compendium theologiae, ch. 126.) It seems that the lower angels do not progress in the knowledge of things or divine effects through the illumination of the higher.

Obj. 1: For every activity of an angel either pertains to its nature or to its reward. But they do not progress in the natural knowledge that they received all at once at their creation, nor do they progress in merit or reward. Therefore, it seems that the knowledge of divine effects does not grow in them.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, God is the cause of things through his essence. Therefore, in the fact that his essence is seen, he himself is known to be the cause. But when something is known precisely as a cause, its effect is also known. Therefore, since the blessed angels see the divine essence, it seems that they also know its effects in it. And so, they do not grow in the knowledge of divine effects.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, there is nothing whose account is not contained in God’s knowledge, that is, in his Word, which is his art full of living accounts, as Augustine says. (Although Augustine does not use this exact expression, see Book of Eighty-Three Different Questions, q. 16 (CCSL 44A; PL 40:15); City of God, bk. 11, ch. 10 (CCSL 48; PL 41:326–27); In Iohannis evangelium tractatus, tract. 1, paras. 16–17 (CCSL 36; PL 35:1387–88).) But the blessed angels see the Word of God. Therefore, they know all divine effects. And so, the same follows as before.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, one who sees a mirror necessarily sees the forms reflected in the mirror, unless variance among the parts of the mirror impedes this, such that when he looks at one part of the mirror he does not see the forms reflected in the other part. But the Word of God, which is begotten wisdom, is a mirror without blemish, as is said in Wisdom 7:26, in which all the natures of things are clearly reflected. Therefore, since the Word is indivisible, the angels by perceiving the Word know all things in it. And so, the same follows as before.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, according to the Philosopher, (Aristotle, On the Soul 3.4, 429b3.) the intellect, when it understands difficult things, does not understand lower things less but rather more. But the highest intelligible thing is the divine essence, and the angels see it. Therefore, it seems that they can know all other things. Thus, their knowledge does not grow.

On the contrary, Dionysius says at the end of the Celestial Hierarchy (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 15 (PG 3:163).) that many accounts of the mysteries are hidden to the heavenly essences, that is, angels. But someone can progress to greater knowledge of whatever things are hidden to him. Therefore, the angels can progress in knowledge.

Furthermore, in chapter 6 of the same book (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 6 (PG 3:199).) he says that the lower angels are purged of unknowing through the higher. But no one is freed from unknowing except by acquiring knowledge. Therefore, it seems that the angels progress in acquiring knowledge.

I answer that the angels progress in the knowledge of divine effects through illuminations coming down to the lower from the higher. This is clear in the following way. Since God is the most universal cause of all beings, in the vision of his essence not all his effects are known of necessity, unless the intellect comprehends the entirety of his power. To the degree that an intellect sees it with greater lucidity, the more things it can know in it, just as with first speculative principles, one who has a more perspicacious intellect can see more conclusions in them. Thus, the higher angels know more effects in the divine essence than the lower, and the higher can illuminate and instruct the lower about them. Even so, there are some effects that they all perceive immediately in the vision of the divine essence, though even these are known more perfectly by the higher angels, just as they also perceive the divine essence more clearly. Each order receives its name and account from what is ultimate in its power to gain knowledge of things immediately in the vision of the divine essence.

Reply Obj. 1: Revelations of divine effects pertain to the reward—not the essential reward, but the incidental reward. “Incidental reward” means that to which merits are not directly ordered, but that is added over and above, due to the liberality of the one who rewards.

Reply Obj. 2: Algazel proves by this argument that God has knowledge of created things inasmuch as he knows his own essence. (Algazel, The Incoherence of the Philosophers, problem 3.) But it does not then follow that one who sees his essence knows all things, unless he comprehends it with perfect knowledge. And this is not true of the angels.

Reply Obj. 3: In this way, the reply to the third objection is clear. For even though they see the Word, they do not see it after the mode of the thing known, but rather after the mode of the ones knowing, that is, their own mode. Thus, it is not necessary that they know everything that is in the Word.

Reply Obj. 4: As Boethius says in On the Trinity, (Boethius, De Trinitate, ch. 2 (PL 64:1250).) in divine matters we should not allow ourselves to be misled by the imagination. Hence we must not imagine that the accounts of things are reflected in the eternal mirror as visible forms are in a material mirror, but rather as the accounts of caused things preexist in their cause, as Dionysius says in On the Divine Names. (Pseudo-Dionysius, On the Divine Names, ch. 4 (PG 3:867).) Now, as has been said, it is not necessary that one knows all the accounts of the effects in a cause by the very fact of seeing the cause. Thus, the argument does not proceed.

Or we may say, as is commonly said, that the eternal mirror is voluntary, since in it is seen only what it wishes to show. But it is otherwise in the case of a material mirror, which by a necessity of nature represents the forms reflected in it.

Reply Obj. 5: Because our knowledge begins from the senses, we arrive at things more known by nature from things less known. Thus, the most manifest things of nature are known to us last and are the most difficult things to know, namely, immaterial realities, like God and the angels. But in angels the converse is true. For the things that are more known simply are also better known to them. Thus, granted that they know the divine essence most of all, it does not then follow from this that they know all other things. Rather, to the extent that they see it more perfectly, they can proceed from it to knowledge of more effects.

Article 3

Whether the angels know anything through mutual locution

To the third we proceed as follows. (Parallel texts: ST I.107.1, 2, and 5; On Truth, q. 9, aa. 4, 5, 7; Commentary on 1 Corinthians, ch. 13, lect. 1.) It seems that the angels do not receive knowledge of anything through mutual locution.

Obj. 1: For Basil says, if we lived with an exposed and uncovered soul, the thoughts of our hearts would be opened to one another by our merely wishing it so. (Basil the Great, Homilies, homily 6, on Deuteronomy 15:9 (CCSL 20A).) But the angels have an intellect that is not obscured by a body. Therefore, one sees the thoughts of another. Thus, they do not require mutual locution.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, in every locution there must be a sign that expresses the mind’s hidden concept. But in the angels such a sign is unable to be sensible, for they do not have sense knowledge. Nor again can it remain in the intellect alone because this would be just as unknown as the other concept of the mind that was supposed to be manifested. Therefore, it seems that in the angels there cannot be manifestation by way of locution.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, in every locution there must be a medium through which the intention of the speaker is borne to the hearer. But no such medium can be found in the angels. Therefore, neither can there be locution.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, in bodily speech, a sound reaching the ears stimulates the hearer to being attentive. But in the angels we can posit no such stimulus, since there is nothing in one that then produces anything in another. Yet stimulation would be necessary for gaining attention if there were speech, since one angel is not always considering another. Therefore, there is no locution in them.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, something is received from the speaker in the hearer. But the higher angels receive nothing from the lower. Therefore, it seems at least that the lower cannot speak to the higher.

On the contrary, it says in 1 Corinthians 13:1: if I speak in the tongues of men and of angels. But locution is an act of the tongue. Therefore, the angels speak.

Furthermore, an angel is naturally more powerful than a man. But one man can express his thought to another by speaking. Therefore, all the more can an angel.

I answer that in the angels there is a kind of locution, one that differs from illumination in two ways.

The first regards the things they concern. For illumination properly concerns those things that a higher angel apprehends in the light of the divine essence that a lower angel does not see there. Hence it is necessary for the lower angel to know these things in the light of the higher angel as more determined and limited than the divine light. But locution concerns movements of free will that one does not see in another. For these are the two ways something can be known to one angel and unknown to another.

The second regards the mode whereby each is perfected, which differs in accord with the two things required for intellectual vision after the likeness of bodily vision, namely, the thing itself proposed to the intellect, and the light under which it is seen. Therefore, illumination occurs by the fact that the light of one angel’s intellect is strengthened by the stronger light of a higher angel with regard to the knowledge of things. But locution occurs through the fact that things previously hidden are proposed as to be known, without strengthening the power of the knower. This is clear in the recitations of histories in which someone comes to know what he previously did not without his intellect receiving greater clarity.

Now, similarity to our own locution makes it clear how something can be proposed to an angel to be known by it. For there is something in man that another man can naturally perceive of him, such as what is subject to his external senses. But there is also something that cannot be seen, such as the interior concepts of the mind. Therefore, species conceived interiorly, insofar as they remain in the simple conception of the intellect, have the account only of what is intelligible. But insofar as they are ordered by the one who understands so as to be manifested to another, they have the account of a word, which is called a “word of the heart.” And insofar as they are adapted, and in a certain manner ordered, by externally apparent signs, then if the signs are visible, they are called “indications,” and if they are audible, this is properly called “vocal locution.” For these two senses are capable of teaching. Likewise, in the angels an interior mental concept subject to free will cannot be seen by another. Therefore, when an angel ordains a conceived species to being manifested to another, it is called a “word of the heart.” But when the angel coordinates it with something that one angel can naturally see in another, that which is naturally knowable becomes a sign expressive of the interior concept. Such an expression is called “locution,” not vocal locution, but rather locution expressed by intellectual signs. And their power of expression is called their “tongue.”

Reply Obj. 1: Basil intends to deny that a separated soul needs vocal locution. But he does not intend to exclude spiritual locution of the sort said to be in the angels. This is how we should explain many similar texts that can be adduced on this point.

Reply Obj. 2: What one angel naturally knows in another is like a sign of its hidden interior thinking, not a sensible sign, but an intellectual one.

Reply Obj. 3: The angels should not be thought of as distant with respect to location, in the way that we say that two bodies or points are distant, since what position does in bodily things, order does in spiritual things, as Augustine says. (Albert the Great, Commentary on Sentences II, dist. 2, a. 7.) Hence there is no need of a medium through which a locution would be borne from one to another. Rather, the order of one’s intention to manifest to the other suffices for this.

Or we may say that they are all conveyed in the radiation of the divine light, either natural or added over and above, as has been said. (Resp.; a. 2.) This does not occur as one numerically in all of them, but rather comes from a single principle and is directed to a single end, received in an ordered way in different angels. Hence through this light one knows the locution of another, just as it knows its essential attributes.

Reply Obj. 4: An angel, especially a blessed one, is always actually considering itself, and consequently those things that pertain to it, and it itself is the account under which all of these are known. For nothing prevents more than one thing from being understood at the same time if these are known under a single account. But as soon as one angel orders its locution to another, its locution becomes one of the things that pertain to that angel and thus is known by it. Thus, it is clear how one angel can hear several who speak to it, and how one saint can hear several who invoke him.

Reply Obj. 5: A lower angel can speak to a higher, but it cannot illuminate it. For the speaker does not infuse anything into the hearer, but only proposes something to it as knowable.

Article 4

Whether the angels learned of the mystery of the Incarnation through men

To the fourth we proceed as follows. It seems that the angels learned of the mystery of the Incarnation through men.

Obj. 1: This is first of all because of what we find in Ephesians 3:10: through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, it belongs to one who is higher to illuminate and instruct the lower. But some men are higher than some angels. This is proved from what is said in 1 Corinthians 6:3: do you not know that we are to judge angels?—By comparison with what has been done better, (Peter Lombard, Commentary on 1 Corinthians, at 1 Corinthians 6:3 (PL 191:1576).) according to a gloss. Therefore, angels can be illuminated and instructed by men.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, those who receive knowledge directly from God instruct others. But the apostles were directly instructed about the mysteries of the Church by the Son of God. Therefore, it seems that they can also instruct the angels about this.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, Paul is said to have been caught up to the third heaven (2 Cor 12:2–4). The Gloss explains the third heaven as the third hierarchy of the angels. (See Glossa ordinaria, at 2 Corinthians 12:2, 6.447 (PL 114:568); William of Auxerre, Summa aurea, bk. 2, tract. 37, ch. 1.) But those who are in the third hierarchy by ascending, that is, at the highest point, illuminate the lower angels. Therefore, it seems that Paul could have illuminated the lower angels.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, angels receive knowledge of some things both through illumination and through locution. But the lower can also speak to the higher. Therefore, it seems that the angels can receive knowledge from men, even though they are lower.

On the contrary, Dionysius says (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 4 (PG 3:182).) that the angels were instructed about the Nativity of Christ first and that this knowledge came down to men through them. Therefore, they did not learn of it from men.

Furthermore, the mystery of the Incarnation was announced in advance by the prophets. But the revelations made to the fathers in the prophets came forth from God through the mediation of angels, as the saints commonly say. Therefore, it seems that the angels themselves foreknew the mystery of the Incarnation and did not learn of it from men.

I answer that on this matter there seems to be a controversy among Jerome, Augustine, and Dionysius. For Jerome (Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians, ch. 3 (CCSL 77A; PL 26:483).) posits two things. First, that the angels did not know of the mystery of Christ’s humanity before the Incarnation; and Augustine (Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, bk. 5, ch. 19 (CSEL 28.1:161; PL 34:334).) seems to oppose him on this, saying that they knew of it from of old, that is, from the beginning of the world. Second, Jerome posits that they learned about it through men; and Dionysius (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 4 (PG 3:182).) seems to disagree with this, holding instead that men were instructed about this by angels according to the inviolably established order of the divine law.

Now, in order to know how each position has some truth, as regards the first position we must distinguish between two ways that the mystery of the Incarnation can be considered. For it can be considered either with regard to the substance of the fact, and in this way, they all knew of it from the beginning, namely, the fact of the Incarnation, Passion, and so forth. Or it can be considered with regard to the conditions surrounding the fact, namely, that it would take place under such a governor, or at such an hour, and so forth. And this they did not know from the beginning. And in these ways the prophets and evangelists relate the events differently. For the prophet announced the substance of the fact, whereas the evangelist recounts the manner of its fulfillment as well.

With regard to the second position, we must also distinguish between two ways the angels receive knowledge of things. Either it is through illumination, and in this way, the angels receive nothing from men. Rather, the lower are illuminated by the higher and the higher immediately by God, and in this way, they are instructed in many accounts of the Church’s mysteries. Or it is after the manner of the fulfillment of things, and in this way, they know future contingents when they are actually accomplished, by the fact that their causes are determined to the effects such that they can be known in them. Thus, they did not know certain things concerning the mystery of the Incarnation, but came to know them when they were fulfilled by the preaching of the apostles, though even then they were not instructed by the apostles.

Reply Obj. 1: As is said in a gloss on the same passage, (See Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, bk. 9, ch. 18 (CSEL 28.1:293; PL 34:407); Peter Lombard, Commentary on Ephesians, ch. 3 (PL 192:189–90).) Augustine would have it that the modifying phrase through the Church does not modify the phrase made known, but rather the preceding phrase, namely, to illuminate all. Thus, the sense would be that the grace of illuminating all through the Church was given to the Apostle, that is, illuminating all of the Church. However, Jerome is of the opinion that it modifies the phrase made known. (Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians, ch. 3 (PL 26:483); Glossa ordinaria, at Ephesians 3:10, 6.542 (PL 114:593); Peter Lombard, Commentary on Ephesians, ch. 3 (PL 192:189–90).) Then we must understand it in the aforementioned way.

Or it can be understood as referring to the Church of the angels, where the first Church was and where our Church is ultimately to be gathered together. Thus, the sense would be that the mystery of the Incarnation was hidden in God such that from the ages it was known to the princes through the Church, that is, within the heavenly Church. Augustine gives this explanation in On Genesis. (Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, bk. 5, ch. 19 (CSEL 28.1:161; PL 34:334).)

Reply Obj. 2: According to the condition of their state, any given angel is, simply speaking, greater than any given wayfaring man. Hence Matthew 11:11 says that he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he, referring to John the Baptist, yet among those born of women no one has arisen greater than he. But with regard to a particular case, it can be said in a qualified sense that a man is greater than an angel, inasmuch as through the grace that he possesses he merits a rank higher than some angels.

Reply Obj. 3: The apostles were immediately instructed by the incarnate Word, but they did not immediately see the essence of the Word, which nonetheless the lower angels saw; and thus they learned many more things from the Word than even the apostles themselves.

Reply Obj. 4: When he was caught up, Paul participated in the state of comprehensors in a certain respect, yet he was not perfected by such glory as to be able to transfuse light to the angels. For, as it is said, he was made a participant in that glory miraculously with regard to the act, not with regard to the habit that is the light of glory.

Reply Obj. 5: An angel can receive knowledge of certain things from a man through locution, namely, of those things that are subject to the man’s free will. But the mysteries of the Incarnation are not such things.

Article 5

Whether there can be conflict among the angels

To the fifth we proceed as follows. (Parallel texts: In IV Sent., d. 45, q. 3, a. 3, ad 3; ST I.113.8.) It seems that there cannot be conflict among the angels.

Obj. 1: For all discord and conflict is incompatible with the unity of charity. But the angels are perfected in charity. Therefore, there cannot be conflict among them.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, all those who offer their support to contrary causes are so related that one of them is defending an unjust cause. But this cannot be true of the holy angels, since their confirmed righteousness allows for no injustice. Therefore, it seems that they cannot be said to be in conflict by backing contrary causes.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, wherever there is ordered preeminence, there cannot be conflict or contrariety. For it is contrary to the account of preeminence that one who is lower resist one who is higher. But the angels are all ordered as higher and lower, as has been said before. (Above, d. 9, q. 1, a. 3.) Therefore, it seems that one is not in conflict with another.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, since no angel undertakes anything that does not seem right to it, it seems that if angels undertake contrary endeavors they would have contrary opinions. But one of two contrary opinions would be false. Therefore, an angel will have a false opinion. But this is false, since according to the Philosopher in the Metaphysics 4, (Aristotle, Metaphysics 4.5, 1009a7–14, b1–7, 1010b1–12.) falsity in us is appropriated to the imagination, which the angels lack. Therefore, there cannot be conflict among them.

On the contrary, Daniel 7:2 relates that the four winds of heaven were in conflict, which, according to Jerome’s gloss on the same passage, (Jerome, Commentaria in Danielem, ch. 10 (PL 25:527).) we can understand as four angelic powers set over chief kingdoms. Therefore, angels are in conflict with one another.

Furthermore, this is expressly related in Daniel, where an angel speaking to him said: the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days (Dan 10:13). Therefore, it seems that they even have long struggles against one another.

I answer that these words of Daniel, from which the whole doubt arises, are explained by the saints in various ways. Jerome says (Jerome, Commentaria in Danielem, ch. 10 (PL 25:555).) that the prince of the Persians who resisted the liberation of people was a wicked angel set over the Persians. For just as to each man two angels are given for his training, one good and the other wicked, so also two spirits are given to each individual nation, one good and the other wicked. But on this point there is no small doubt. For it is obvious that the angel speaking to Daniel was a good angel. Now, how a wicked angel could resist the good angel effectively for so many days, unless it had a just cause, no one can say. And if it did have a just cause, it would also be all the more possible for a good angel to offer such resistance.

Thus, we must say with Gregory that both angels were good. (Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, bk. 17, ch. 12 (CCSL 143A; PL 76:19).) This also agrees more with the text, which in the same discourse identifies the prince of the Persians and then Michael as the prince of the Jews, who is obviously a good angel. However, this conflict must be understood in the following way, according to Gregory. For since the judgments of God are a great abyss, the angels cannot comprehend the profundity of his judgments. Thus, they do not always understand what is due to each nation or man according to the divine ordinance, unless this is revealed to them. But it occurs sometimes that in different nations differing merits are found, and on the basis of this difference it seems that one nation should be subject to another or freed from its dominion, as was the case at that time among the Jews. For the prayer of Daniel, in and of itself, merited the liberation of the people. But the sins of the people, as well as the benefit that the Jews afforded the kingdom of the Persians, favored the contrary, since through them knowledge of God was being disseminated. Because each angel, in keeping with its own office, referred the merits of its subjects to the consideration of the divine knowledge, the referral of contrary merits made by different angels as they awaited the divine sentence, is called a “conflict” between the angels. Their harmony consists in the perception of divine illumination, through which they are instructed about the divine will. For they all harmoniously will what they perceive that God wills. Hence Job 25:1 says of God that he makes harmony in his highest places.

Reply Obj. 1: According to the Philosopher in the Ethics 9, (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 9.6, 1167a21–25.) a difference of opinions is not incompatible with friendship or harmony, but only a difference of wills. Hence such a conflict as regards judgments based on different merits does not create an obstacle to the unity of charity, since their will is one, namely, that the divine providence be fulfilled.

Reply Obj. 2: It is not a problem if each of two contrary causes has some justice to it. Accordingly, each can be defended by one who is good, especially by awaiting the divine sentence.

Reply Obj. 3: The order of preeminence among the angels is brought to perfection through divinely received illuminations. Thus, when such an illumination has been received, one angel does not oppose another.

Reply Obj. 4: Although angels cannot hold false opinions, they can still not know some things due to the fact that their intellect, because of the admixture of potentiality, is not completely terminated in a single thing. Insofar as there are things they do not know, they look for knowledge from God or higher angels, which in the Scripture is called “asking.” And yet, because they do not adhere by a judgment to what they do not know, they cannot be mistaken. Rather, contrarieties between the angels are mentioned on the basis of the contrariety between things that come under the divine judgment.

Article 6

Whether the orders will remain after judgment day

To the sixth we proceed as follows. (Parallel texts: In IV Sent., d. 47, q. 1, a. 2, resp.; ST I.108.7; Commentary on 1 Corinthians, ch. 15, lect. 3.) It seems that the orders will not remain after judgment day.

Obj. 1: For 1 Corinthians 15:24 says that when Christ has handed over the kingdom to his God and Father, every principality and power will be brought to naught. But this will happen at the resurrection. Therefore, it seems that for the same reason the other orders will be brought to naught.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, certain orders have as their proper act the carrying out of divine ministries, for example, the princes, who are set over kingdoms and provinces, and angels, who guard men. But these ministries will cease after judgment day. Therefore, the orders will cease too.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, greater perfection will be in the angels than in lower bodies. But there will not be action in bodies after judgment day, since the motion of the first-moved will cease, which will occur on account of the perfection of the universe. Therefore, much less will there be action among the angels. But a hierarchy consists in knowledge and action. Therefore, there will not be hierarchies and orders after judgment day.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, after judgment day the angels will not progress in knowledge. But the lower progress in knowledge through the purification and illumination of the higher, as has been said. (Above: d. 9, q. 1, a. 2.) Therefore, there will not be illumination and purification. Thus, there will not be the distinction among hierarchies and orders.

On the contrary, men are taken up into the orders of the angels. But being taken up in such a distinct and ordered way would be in vain if, when the number of the elect is completed, ordered distinction would cease to be. Therefore, it seems that the orders will remain after judgment day.

Furthermore, two things come together for the distinction of orders: the ranking of nature and the distance of grace. But both will remain after judgment day. Therefore, the distinction of orders will also remain.

I answer that the distinction of heavenly orders and hierarchies can be considered either with regard to the essential properties of a hierarchy and order, and in this way, it will always exist, since distinct ranks of nature and differing lots of glory, as well as hierarchical actions, will always remain among the angels, since one will illuminate, purify, and perfect another. Or it can be considered with regard to the consequent act, insofar as by the mediation of the angelic orders men are guided to God. In this regard, the preeminence of the orders will cease with the cessation of the wayfaring state.

Reply Obj. 1: In this way, the reply to the first objection is clear. For the authority is understood in this last way.

Reply Obj. 2: The essential act of the orders consists principally in the reception of the divine light and consequently in its transfusion to lower angels. But the fact that this is ordered to the guidance of wayfaring men is incidental to the orders themselves. Hence with the cessation of the wayfaring state it is not necessary for the distinction of orders to cease. Yet even so, the mode of receiving the divine light will remain that would be proportionate to the guidance of those in the wayfaring state, if there were any.

Reply Obj. 3: The action of bodies through motion will be taken away because motion will cease and every imperfection will pass away. But action without motion will remain. For the sun will always illuminate the lower atmosphere. So too, the hierarchical actions, which are without motion, will remain after judgment day.

Reply Obj. 4: In this way, the reply to the fourth objection is clear. For even if there is not illumination and purification ordered to the knowledge of new things by way of progress and particular motion, there will still be a continuation of illumination insofar as the lower angels will know the accounts of the divine secrets in the light of the higher.

Exposition of the second part of the text

For Isaiah, speaking in the person of the angels . . . says, ‘who is this who comes from Edom, with dyed garments from Bosra?’ (Sent. II, 11.2(57).3, quoting Isaiah 63:1.) Dionysius says (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 7 (PG 3:210).) that this is the question of the higher angels waiting to be illuminated by Christ about the hidden mysteries of his Incarnation. But they do not pose the question to Christ himself, but rather to one another, as a sign of their reverence for Christ, like students disputing among themselves as they await the determination of the teacher.

‘What is there which they do not know, since they know the one who knows all things?’ (Sent. II, 11.2(57).10, quoting Gregory the Great, Dialogorum libri quatuor, bk. 4, ch. 34 (PL 77:576).) This, as the Master says, can be understood of those things that pertain to beatitude, or even because there is nothing for the knowledge of which that medium, namely, the divine essence, is insufficient. Hence it is not by any deficiency in the divine essence that something remains hidden to one who sees it. Rather, it is due to a deficiency in the one seeing, since he does not comprehend it perfectly. But the more perspicacious the intellect of the one seeing, the more things he can see in it. Now, one reaches a higher level of perspicacity only by the gift of God himself who is seen. This is not communicated of necessity, but rather voluntarily. Thus, that mirror is said to be voluntary, since only what it wills to show can be seen in it.