Dist. 4, Art. 2, Q. 1
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/2/d/4/q/bon-sent-II-d4-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### ARTICLE II. *On the Angels with respect to the foreknowledge of the future outcome.*

Next, concerning the second [head], two [things] are asked. The first is, whether the future perseverance ought to have been revealed to the good [Angels]. The second is, whether their damnation could have been revealed to the evil [ones].

### QUESTION I. *Whether the future perseverance ought to have been revealed to the good Angels.*

First, then, it is asked — since to none was glory given at creation, and to none also was grace given — whether to some was given a foreknowledge of future glorification. And that [it was], it seems.

1. God from the instant of their condition created the Angels filled with knowledge of worldly things; but it pleases God more that his servants have knowledge of those things which pertain *to salvation:* if therefore the foreknowledge of future salvation lifts up the mind and delights [it], therefore, since some were to be saved, it seems that at least such a foreknowledge ought to have been given to them; for it is established that he could [give it].

2. Likewise, if they were not certain of [their] salvation, then they could reasonably doubt and fear; but fear has punishment [in it]: therefore punishment before fault; but this is unfitting: therefore it seems that at least those ought to have been certified who were to be saved.

3. Likewise, the Angels were nearer to glory than we who are set in miseries, therefore they had at least as much certainty, or more, as we have; but we have the certainty of hope: therefore they had this or another. But they did not have this, since «hope is the certain expectation of future blessedness proceeding from grace and merits»: since therefore they did not have grace and merits, to hope with certainty would have been presumption for them: therefore they did not have the certainty of hope. But there is no other [certainty] to assign than the certainty of foreknowledge or of revelation: therefore it seems that to some at least it was given.

**On the contrary:** 1. It is more to give certainty of glory than to give grace — for to many God gives grace, to whom nevertheless he does not reveal their glory with certainty — therefore, since they did not have grace, as was proved above, it is clear that [they had] not the foreknowledge of stability either.

2. Likewise, the devil, or lucifer, did not have the foreknowledge of [his] state, because he was not going to remain: therefore if he was *full of wisdom and perfect in beauty* among all, it seems that no others had [it].

3. Likewise, it is shown by a deduction to a twofold unfitting [conclusion]. One unfitting [conclusion] is the *excuse of the devil* or of his sin. For he could in a certain way excuse himself concerning his sin, because he did not have the knowledge which God gave to the other Angels. The other unfitting [conclusion] seems to be an *accusation of God,* because he seems to have punished the evil [ones] before they were evil; and because he withdrew beforehand his grace, or the gift of knowledge, which he gave to others who did not surpass them either in merit of life or in dignity of nature.

> **Conclusion.** To no Angels was their future perseverance revealed.

**I respond:** Concerning this there was a twofold opinion, as the Master touches [on it] in the text.

For some wished to say that to the good [Angels], who were going to remain, was given the revelation or foreknowledge of their stability, and this in place of hope, by reason of which they were already in a certain way blessed. And they rely on that word of Augustine, which he says by way of opining, *On the Literal Meaning of Genesis*: «Perhaps God did not wish to reveal to the devil what he would do or suffer; but to the others he willed to reveal that they would remain in the truth».

Another is the position, that to none was given a foreknowledge of their state, because *to have certainty* concerning one's perseverance is a knowledge pertaining more to the state of reward than to the state of merit; and a sign of this is that God reveals to very few, or to none — however much beloved and friends — that they will with certainty be glorified. For this knowledge is rather expedient for rejoicing than for meriting. Whence, since the Angels were all in the state of merit, because they were not yet blessed, therefore to none was this knowledge given. — And this position is more reasonable and pleases the Master more and accords more with the words of Augustine, as is evident in the text and in the eleventh [book] *On the City of God,* where he says that the Angels were equal as to [their] conditions before the fall. Whence, if anywhere he seems to say the contrary, if one inspects the surrounding [text], he says [it] either by opining or by inquiring. And therefore this position is rather to be held.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that God gave the Angels foreknowledge of worldly things; it must be said that it is not similar, because knowledge of the universe pertains to *natural* knowledge, and perfect knowledge of the universe pertains to the perfection of natural knowledge; but the certain knowledge of one's state pertains to the perfection of *glory;* and therefore it ought to be given only when [one] is placed in such a state from which one cannot fall. And so that [objection] is clear.

2. To that which is objected, that if they were not certain, then it seems that they could reasonably doubt and fear; it must be said that there is a certainty on the part of the *cognitive* [power] and on the part of the *affective.* — The certainty on the part of the *cognitive* is twofold, one namely *infallible,* as when one so knows something that one cannot be deceived; the other *probable,* as when one has likely reasons for this, or for one part, such that for the opposite one has either none or few. And in the Angels there was certainty in the second way, not the first. For they could reasonably conjecture from those goods which they had received that they were prepared for blessedness, especially since they saw in themselves no stain. — The certainty on the part of the *affective* is twofold: one in *expecting,* the other in *holding.* To expect is of hope, but to *hold* is of comprehension. The second could not be in the Angels before the confirmation; the first was half-full, and less fully than in holy men, because in these [it is] from grace and merits, [while] in those it was from the affection of nature. — From these the objections are clear: because the certainty of probability, which had no reasons for the opposite, freed [them] both from doubt and from penal fear.

3. The last objection too is clear, because they had some certainty; but yet it is not necessary that it should be greater than the certainty of *hope.* And to that which is objected, that they were nearer; it must be said that [they were] nearer as to *state,* because they were midway between glory and misery. Yet they were further as to *merit,* because they did not yet have the *pledge* of glory nor the *first-fruits of the spirit*, as holy men have in this life, of whom the Apostle says to the Romans, chapter 5: *But hope does not confound, because the charity of God* etc.