|
Objection 1: It would seem that there is no love of choice in the
angels. For love of choice appears to be rational love; since choice
follows counsel, which lies in inquiry, as stated in Ethic. iii,
3. Now rational love is contrasted with intellectual, which is
proper to angels, as is said (Div. Nom. iv). Therefore there is
no love of choice in the angels.
Objection 2: Further, the angels have only natural knowledge
besides such as is infused: since they do not proceed from principles
to acquire the knowledge of conclusions. Hence they are disposed to
everything they can know, as our intellect is disposed towards first
principles, which it can know naturally. Now love follows knowledge,
as has been already stated (Article 1; Question 16, Article
1). Consequently, besides their infused love, there is only
natural love in the angels. Therefore there is no love of choice in
them.
On the contrary, We neither merit nor demerit by our natural acts.
But by their love the angels merit or demerit. Therefore there is
love of choice in them.
I answer that, There exists in the angels a natural love, and a love
of choice. Their natural love is the principle of their love of
choice; because, what belongs to that which precedes, has always the
nature of a principle. Wherefore, since nature is first in
everything, what belongs to nature must be a principle in everything.
This is clearly evident in man, with respect to both his intellect and
his will. For the intellect knows principles naturally; and from such
knowledge in man comes the knowledge of conclusions, which are known by
him not naturally, but by discovery, or by teaching. In like
manner, the end acts in the will in the same way as the principle does
in the intellect, as is laid down in Phys. ii, text. 89.
Consequently the will tends naturally to its last end; for every man
naturally wills happiness: and all other desires are caused by this
natural desire; since whatever a man wills he wills on account of the
end. Therefore the love of that good, which a man naturally wills as
an end, is his natural love; but the love which comes of this, which
is of something loved for the end's sake, is the love of choice.
There is however a difference on the part of the intellect and on the
part of the will. Because, as was stated already (Question 59,
Article 2), the mind's knowledge is brought about by the inward
presence of the known within the knower. It comes of the imperfection
of man's intellectual nature that his mind does not simultaneously
possess all things capable of being understood, but only a few things
from which he is moved in a measure to grasp other things. The act of
the appetitive faculty, on the contrary, follows the inclination of
man towards things; some of which are good in themselves, and
consequently are appetible in themselves; others being good only in
relation to something else, and being appetible on account of something
else. Consequently it does not argue imperfection in the person
desiring, for him to seek one thing naturally as his end, and
something else from choice as ordained to such end. Therefore, since
the intellectual nature of the angels is perfect, only natural and not
deductive knowledge is to be found in them, but there is to be found in
them both natural love and love of choice.
In saying all this, we are passing over all that regards things which
are above nature, since nature is not the sufficient principle
thereof: but we shall speak of them later on (Question 62).
Reply to Objection 1: Not all love of choice is rational love,
according as rational is distinguished from intellectual love. For
rational love is so called which follows deductive knowledge: but, as
was said above (Question 59, Article 3, ad 1), when treating
of free-will, every choice does not follow a discursive act of the
reason; but only human choice. Consequently the conclusion does not
follow.
The reply to the second objection follows from what has been said.
|
|