546 DE AUGMENTIS SCIENTIARUM 



haereticam procudet, et philosophiam phantasticam et super- 

 stitiosam. 



Secus est quod ad Angelorum et Spirituum naturam atti- 

 net, quae nee inscrutabilis est nee interdicta ; ad quam etiam, 

 ex affinitate quam habet cum anima humana, aditus magna 

 ex parte est patefactus. Praecipit certe Sacra Scriptura, 

 Nemo vos decipiat in sublimitate sermonum, et religione Ange- 

 lorum, ingerens se in ea quce non novit. 1 Attamen si hoc 

 monitum diligenter perpend as, duo duntaxat in eo vetita repe- 

 ries ; adorationem scilicet, qualis Deo debetur, angelorum ; et 

 fanaticas de iis opiniones, vel ultra creaturae sortem eos effe- 

 rentes, vel ampliorem de iis cognitionem quam quis revera 

 adeptus sit venditantes. Caeterum sobria circa illos inquisitio, 

 quae vel per rerum corporearum scalam ad eorum naturam per- 

 noscendam ascendat, vel in anima humana veluti in speculo earn 

 intueatur, neutiquam prohibetur. Idem de Spiritibus statuen- 

 dum Immundis, qui a statu suo deciderunt. 2 Consortium cum 

 iis atque usus operae eorum illicitus est ; multo magis qualiscun- 

 que cultus vel veneratio. At contemplatio et cognitio illorum 

 naturae, potestatis, illusionum, non solum ex locis Scripturae 

 Sacrae, sed ex ratione aut experientia, haud postrema pars est 

 sapientiae spiritualis. Sic certe Apostolus, Stratagematum ejus 

 non ignari sumus. 3 Ac non minus Daemonum naturam investi- 

 gare in Theologia Naturali conceditur, quam venenorum in 



1 Coloss. ii. 4. and 1 8. 



2 The theory of angels and that of fallen spirits form a large and not very profitable 

 chapter in every scholastic Summa Theologise. The dogmatic basis of these specula- 

 tions consists chiefly of spiritualising interpretations (sanctioned by the Fathers and 

 especially by S. Augustin) of certain texts of Scripture and of the supposed visions of 

 Dionysius the Areopagite. The theory of the angelic nature (both in its first and in 

 its fallen state) which the ingenuity of the schoolmen elaborated from these data, is a 

 most remarkable instance of metaphysical creation ; being no less than a determination 

 of the conditions of thought and volition which exist -among intelligences of a higher 

 order than our own. That all such determinations are utterly unsatisfactory, both 

 from the want of data and from the inherent and insurmountable difficulty of the 

 problem to be solved, is not however to be denied. 



I am not concerned to defend what the schoolmen have said upon the subject ; but 

 I may be allowed to mention in connexion with it an instance of the flippant ignorance 

 with which they are often spoken of. It is said in the history of Martinus Scriblerus 

 that they discussed the question whether angels know things best in the morning. 

 The assertion is of course founded on an absurd mistake of the meaning of the 

 inquiry, "utrum matutina cognitio potior sit quam vespertina." The doctrine of 

 matutinal and vespertinal cognition the schoolmen derive from S. Augustin, and 

 though neither its subtilty nor the eloquence with which it is expressed can prevent 

 its being censured as an unauthorised speculation, yet no wise man will think it a 

 matter to be jested with. I may refer with respect to it to Buonaventura's commen- 

 tary on the second book of the Sentences of Peter Lombard : Distinctio 4 : Quastio 2. 

 The "conclusio" is, " Angelus bonus habet cum matutina vespertinam quoque cogni- 

 tionem, quae non temporis sed dignitatis inter se habent ordinem." 



3 2 Corinth, ii. 11. 



