Dist. 4, Art. 3, 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-a3-q1
----------------------------------------
### ARTICLE III. *On the morning and evening knowledge of the Angels.*

Next, in the third place, it is asked whether the Angels were created illumined with morning knowledge. And concerning this two [things] are asked. The first is, whether they had morning knowledge in their very creation. The second is, whether [they had] the evening [knowledge] after glorification.

### QUESTION I. *Whether the Angels had morning knowledge in their very creation.*

Concerning the first one proceeds thus, and it is shown that in their very creation they had morning knowledge.

1. First, through Augustine. For Augustine, throughout almost the whole [of his work] on Genesis, so pursues those seven days that by this he understands a sevenfold conversion of the Angels upon things; and he says «that all things were made at the same time in time and known by the Angels». If therefore every day has a morning and an evening, and those days were from the beginning of the angelic condition, every Angel had morning and evening knowledge from the first beginning of his creation.

2. Likewise, the same Augustine, fourth [book] *On the Literal Meaning of Genesis*: «The angelic mind, cleaving with pure charity to the Word of God, after it was created in that order, so as to precede all things, first saw in the Word of God the things to be made which were made». If therefore all things were created at the same time, it is necessary that the Angel had this knowledge from the instant of creation; but knowledge in the Word is morning knowledge: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, Dionysius says that «the Angels are lights», therefore [it follows] that what an Angel sees in himself he sees in the light: therefore if morning knowledge is for that very reason called morning, because it is in the light, since the Angels had this from their creation, it is clear etc.

4. Likewise, the Angels before the fall, in the beginning of their condition, had no impurity of sin nor obscurity of mind: therefore it seems that their knowledge was clear knowledge: therefore it seems [that it was] morning [knowledge]; and so from the instant of creation they were perfected with morning knowledge.

**On the contrary:** 1. Morning knowledge is the knowledge by which one knows in the Word itself; but in the Word no one can see anything unless he sees the Word, and the Word no one can see except the Blessed: if therefore the Angels in the beginning of their condition were not blessed, as was proved above, therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the light made evening and morning; but «light denotes the formed angelic nature», as Augustine says both *On Genesis* and *On the City of God*; but it was formed through grace and glory. Since therefore the Angels had neither grace nor glory in the beginning of [their] condition — for [otherwise] they would not have fallen: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, if in the beginning of [their] condition they had morning knowledge, since the demons have given to them intact and most splendid [endowments], especially those that pertain to knowledge, then they would still have morning knowledge: but morning knowledge is in the Word and in the eternal reasons: therefore the demons would still have that knowledge; which is against Augustine *On the City of God*, who says of Christ that «he became known to the demons not through that which is life and unchangeable light, but through certain effects of light».

4. Likewise, as is evident from the text, evening precedes morning; whence it is said: *It was evening* etc., therefore evening knowledge [precedes] morning [knowledge]; but evening knowledge follows the existence of things, as is said *On the Literal Meaning of Genesis* book four, where Augustine says: «Unless that which is known first exists, it cannot be known»: therefore morning knowledge follows the evening [knowledge]: therefore it must be after the existence of things: therefore it was not con-created with the Angels from the beginning.

There is, then, a question: if all things were created at the same time, how could the Angel know the things to be made [as distinct] from the things first created? — *Again,* if morning knowledge is glorious, how could it be in the Angels from their first beginning, since they were all equal, as Augustine seems to wish [in his work] to Orosius, and the Master says in the text?

> **Conclusion.** The Angels from their creation did not have morning knowledge, unless this be understood in the broader sense.

**I respond:** It must be said that concerning this there are diverse positions, which arise from the diversification of Augustine's words in this matter.

For some, attending to the words of Augustine *On the Literal Meaning of Genesis,* say that when it is asked whether the Angels from the beginning of their creation had *morning* knowledge, a force [of distinction] must be applied: for either it is asked of *all,* or of *some.* If of *all;* thus they answer that not all had [it]. For lucifer never had morning knowledge, because he never saw the divine light in itself, as was shown in what precedes. But if it is asked of *some;* thus they say that they had [it], because they were at the same time created in time and converted to God through glory, and in the same instant were formed and divided from the darkness, and in the same [instant] knew all things according to their order and connection, and this in the Word itself. Which things, although in the same instant and at the same time with the Angels they were created, yet by the condition of the Angels and their conversion to God are posterior in nature and dignity; and therefore it is said that the Angels in the Word knew the things to be made. And the words of Augustine in the fourth [book] *On the Literal Meaning of Genesis,* near the end, seem expressly to sound this.

But since Augustine in the eleventh [book] *On the City of God* expressly seems to feel the contrary — for there he says that there was a delay between the creation and the fall, and that before the fall neither were the good [Angels] foreknowing of blessedness, nor the evil [ones] of misery, nor was there light for those, nor darkness for these — therefore, lest he seem to contradict himself, some distinguish *morning* knowledge in two ways. For Augustine calls *morning* knowledge the knowledge in the Word. But in the Word [Angels] are said to know in two ways: in *one* way perfectly, namely by *speculating* and gazing upon the Word itself and in it the other things, and this knowledge makes [them] Blessed; in *another* way by *receiving illumination* from the Word and in that reception knowing other things, and this knowledge was innate to the Angels, because God implanted in them the species of all things, and also spread a light over the minds of the Angels, by which they would know things done and to be done. And this is the *morning* knowledge of which Augustine speaks *On the Literal Meaning of Genesis*; and this was in the Angels. And by this they resolve the contrariety on both sides. This also they say remained in the demons, but obscured on account of fault; therefore it is not to be called *morning.* — And just as they distinguish in *knowledge,* so also they distinguish in *light* and in *darkness:* that in *one* way the Angels are called *light* on account of the irradiation proceeding from that supernal light according to the state of *nature,* by which they know things in their proper kind by the knowledge which is called *evening;* and they refer [them] to God, and so it is called *morning.* And *darkness* by the opposite is called the ignorance which is excluded from the Angels; whence they are said to have been filled with wisdom. — In *another* way the Angel himself is called *light* on account of the irradiation proceeding from the highest light according to the fullness of consummated grace or glory, by which the Angels are said to be «illumined, that they might live blessedly and wisely»; and in this state morning knowledge is properly so called, which was never except in the blessed Angels. — And so Augustine speaks in diverse ways.

From these the reasons on both sides are clear, because the reasons for the first part are understood of morning knowledge broadly spoken, namely in the first way. But the reasons to the opposite are understood of morning knowledge properly spoken, which namely is through glory. — And this is more courteous to say than to say that Augustine says contrary [things], and, as though unstable, now says this, now the contrary. For unless a distinction be made, what is said *On Genesis* rightly seems to contradict what is said in the eleventh [book] *On the City of God.* Yet whatever may be [the case] concerning Augustine's opinion on the production of things — since below it is determined, as he seems to contradict the other Saints — it is nevertheless not to be believed that so great a man contradicts himself, especially in those [matters] which he does not retract. But however his words be understood, one must rather stand by those [things] which are said in the book *On the City of God,* where he speaks by asserting, than [by] *On the Literal Meaning of Genesis,* where he himself protests that he speaks by inquiring. Since therefore there he says that there was truly some delay between the creation and the fall of the Angel, and through this between the glorification and the creation, and morning knowledge properly [taken] is glorious; it must be held that they did not have it from their condition.

To the authorities, then, to the contrary, either it must be resolved that he spoke by inquiring and opining; or certainly the answer must be given by a distinction, as was said before.