Dist. 1, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 2
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 1
QUAESTIO II. Utrum natura spiritualis dignitate naturae praecellat compositam ex spirituali et corporali.
Secundo quaeritur de ordine rerum ad invicem. Nam hunc tangit Magister in littera1, utrum videlicet natura spiritualis dignitate naturae praecellat compositam ex spirituali et corporali. Certum enim est, quod utraque praecellit corporalem. Et quod sic, videtur.
1. In omni genere «nobilius est illud propter quod est alterum, sicut finis eo quod est ad finem2»; sed homo est propter Angelum — nam, sicut dicunt Sancti, et Magister recitat in littera, homo factus est ad reparationem angelicae ruinae — ergo etc.
2. Item, spirituale, simpliciter loquendo, nobilius est corporali: ergo nobilius est illud quod pure est spiritus, nihil habens de corpore, quam quod est spirituale et coniunctum corpori: ergo nobilior angelica natura quam humana.
3. Item, in quolibet genere immortale et incorruptibile nobilius est mortali et corruptibili; sed Angelus per naturam est immortalis et incorruptibilis, homo vero e contrario: ergo etc.
4. Item, «quod similius est meliori est melius, si non sit similius in ridiculosioribus, ut simia homini quam equus3»; sed Angelus est Deo similior et deiformior quam homo; hoc manifestum est; et non in ridiculosis, sed in optimis: ergo simpliciter melior est natura spiritualis quam composita.
Contra:
1. Augustinus4: «Mente humana solus Deus est maior». Unde in libro de Trinitate undecimo et in libro Octoginta trium Quaestionum dicit, «quod immediate ipsa mens a prima veritate formatur», et «inter ipsam et Deum nihil cadit medium»: ergo Angelus non est supra mentem humanam:
ergo per se adeo bona est, ut Angelus. Sed anima propter coniunctionem sui cum corpore non deterioratur, immo maius bonum est, cum corpus sit bonum: ergo simpliciter totus homo est Angelo melior.
2. Item, in omni genere quod tenet rationem finis, illud est melius; sed in genere creaturarum homo tenet rationem finis, non Angelus. Unde Remigius dicit et Philosophus5 quod «nos sumus finis quodammodo omnium quae sunt»; hoc non dicitur de Angelo: ergo etc.
3. Item, si «optimum in uno genere est melius optimo in alio, et simpliciter hoc illo melius6»; sed optimus in genere hominum est melior optimo in genere Angelorum, ut patet, quia Christus: ergo etc. Si tu dicas, quod non in quantum homo, sed in quantum Deus; obiicitur de beata Virgine, quae est pure femina, et tamen domina Angelorum.
4. Item, maior est qui recumbit, quam qui ministrat, teste Domino, Lucae vigesimo secundo7; sed Angelus ministrat homini, ad Hebraeos primo: Omnes sunt administratorii spiritus: ergo etc.
Conclusio. Angelus et homo quoad ordinem in finem, qui est beatitudo, sunt pares; quoad naturae dignitatem Angelus est creatura homine superior.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod cum quaeritur de ordine spiritus rationalis sive uniti ad spiritum angelicum vel separatum, de duplici ordine potest intelligi: aut de ordine quantum ad finem, aut quantum ad naturae dignitatem. — Si quantum ad finem; sic dico, quod sunt pares. Nam ad eundem finem, scilicet ad aeternam beatitudinem, immediate ordinantur; et eadem est mensura hominis, quae et Angeli, nec homo8 propter Angelum, nec Angelus propter hominem. Tamen sicut lex caritatis facit in membris corporalibus et concivibus civitatis, quod unum membrum supplet indigentiam alterius — ut patet, quia oculus videt viam sibi et pedi, et pes fert se ipsum et oculum, et in civibus terrenae civitatis similiter contingit — similiter intelligendum est in homine et Angelo, qui sunt cives civitatis supernae. Nam homo habet habilitatem ad labendum frequenter, et possibilitatem ad resurgendum; Angelus vero stans perpetuitatem in stando, et cadens impossibilitatem in resurgendo: ideo Angelus stans sustentat hominem sive infirmitatem humanam, et homo resurgens reparat ruinam angelicam; ideo quodam modo Angelus propter hominem, et quodam modo homo propter Angelum: et ideo in hoc ordine pares sunt.
Si autem loquamur de ordine quantum ad naturae dignitatem, dicendum, quod, simpliciter loquendo, Angelus est creatura superior homine. Natura enim angelica, sicut patet ex multis locis Scripturae9, nobilior est humana et in superiori gradu consistit.
Concedendae igitur sunt rationes manifestantes, quod Angelus naturae dignitate praecellit hominem, praeter primam, ad quam solutum est.
1. Quod ergo obiicitur in contrarium, quod nihil cadit medium inter mentem et Deum; dicendum, quod est medium secundum dignitatem naturae, vel secundum causalitatem influentiae. Primo modo cadit medium, secundo modo, non. Nam Deus immediate influit in mentem, et ipsa mens immediate a prima veritate formatur10.
2. Quod obiicitur secundo, quod homo tenet rationem finis; dicendum, quod aliquid, propter quod res est, aut est ad supplendum indigentiam, sicut domus propter hominem, et calceus propter pedem; aut ad suscipiendum eius influentiam, sicut homo propter Deum. Quod ultimo modo habet rationem finis, nobilius est; quod primo modo, non. Quia enim homo omnibus indiget, Angelus nullo nisi Deo; ideo omnia propter hominem, non omnia propter Angelum. In cuius rei signum Angelus conditus est in principio, homo vero in die sexto11.
3. Quod obiicitur de optimo, intelligendum est
per se et praecise. Sed nec beata Virgo nec Christus excedunt Angelos pure ratione naturae, sed ratione multiplicis gratiae.
4. Quod ultimo obiicitur de ministerio, infra12 melius patebit; ad praesens tantum sufficiat dicere, quod alicui ministratur dupliciter: aut propter se, sicut regi et domino, et talis est nobilior; aut propter alium, sicut ministrat miles garcioni13 regis; et per hoc solvendum. Angelus enim ministrat homini propter Deum, sicut dives pauperi, et fortis aegrotanti.
De hac quaestione explicite hoc loco non tractant alii Commentatores praeter Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2; et Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 4, qui testatur, aliquos magistros illa aetate aliter ac S. Bonaventura opinatos esse. Dionys. Carth. (hic q. 10.) exscribit tantum verba nostri Doctoris.
---
QUESTION II. Whether spiritual nature surpasses in dignity of nature [that which is] composed of spiritual and corporeal.
Secondly, inquiry is made concerning the order of things to one another. For the Master touches on this in the littera1 — namely whether spiritual nature surpasses in dignity of nature [that which is] composed of spiritual and corporeal. For it is certain that each surpasses the corporeal. And that it is so, it seems:
1. In every genus «that is nobler on account of which the other is, as the end [is nobler] than that which is ordered to the end2»; but man is for the sake of the Angel — for, as the Saints say, and the Master relates in the littera, man was made for the repair of the angelic ruin — therefore etc.
2. Again, the spiritual, absolutely speaking, is nobler than the corporeal: therefore that which is purely spirit, having nothing of body, is nobler than that which is spiritual and joined to body: therefore the angelic nature is nobler than the human.
3. Again, in every genus the immortal and incorruptible is nobler than the mortal and corruptible; but the Angel by nature is immortal and incorruptible, man on the contrary: therefore etc.
4. Again, «that which is more like the better is better, provided it be not more like in more ridiculous respects, as the ape [is more like] man than the horse3»; but the Angel is more like and more God-formed than man; this is manifest; and not in ridiculous respects, but in the best: therefore the spiritual nature is absolutely better than the composite.
To the contrary:
1. Augustine4: «Than the human mind God alone is greater». Whence in the eleventh book On the Trinity and in the book Of Eighty-Three Questions he says «that the mind itself is immediately formed by the first truth», and «between it and God nothing falls as a medium»: therefore the Angel is not above the human mind:
therefore it is of itself as good as the Angel. But the soul is not made worse by its conjunction with the body — rather it is a greater good, since the body is good: therefore the whole man is absolutely better than the Angel.
2. Again, in every genus that which holds the account of the end is the better; but in the genus of creatures man holds the account of the end, not the Angel. Whence Remigius says, and the Philosopher5, that «we are in a certain way the end of all things that are»; this is not said of the Angel: therefore etc.
3. Again, if «the best in one genus is better than the best in another, and absolutely this is better than that6»; but the best in the genus of men is better than the best in the genus of Angels, as is clear, because Christ: therefore etc. If you say that [this is] not insofar as he is man, but insofar as he is God; the objection is raised about the blessed Virgin, who is purely a woman, and yet the mistress of the Angels.
4. Again, greater is he who reclines [at table] than he who serves, by the Lord's testimony, Luke twenty-two7; but the Angel serves man, to the Hebrews chapter one: They are all ministering spirits: therefore etc.
Conclusion. The Angel and man, as regards the order to the end, which is beatitude, are equals; as regards dignity of nature the Angel is a creature superior to man.
I respond: It must be said that, when inquiry is made about the order of the rational spirit — whether united or separate — to the angelic spirit, it can be understood of a twofold order: either of the order as regards the end, or as regards dignity of nature. — If as regards the end, thus I say that they are equals. For they are immediately ordered to the same end, namely to eternal beatitude; and the measure of man is the same as that of the Angel, neither [is] man8 for the sake of the Angel, nor the Angel for the sake of man. Yet just as the law of charity brings it about, among the bodily members and among fellow-citizens of a city, that one member supplies the need of another — as is clear, because the eye sees the way for itself and for the foot, and the foot carries itself and the eye, and likewise it happens among the citizens of an earthly city — so likewise it is to be understood in man and Angel, who are citizens of the supernal city. For man has a proneness to falling frequently, and a possibility of rising again; the Angel, however, [has] when standing a perpetuity in standing, and when falling an impossibility of rising again: therefore the standing Angel sustains man, that is, human infirmity, and the rising man repairs the angelic ruin; therefore in a certain way the Angel [is] for the sake of man, and in a certain way man [is] for the sake of the Angel: and therefore in this order they are equals.
But if we speak of the order as regards dignity of nature, it must be said that, absolutely speaking, the Angel is a creature superior to man. For the angelic nature, as is clear from many places of Scripture9, is nobler than the human and stands in a higher grade.
The reasons that show that the Angel surpasses man in dignity of nature are therefore to be granted, except the first, to which a solution has been given.
1. To what is therefore objected on the contrary, that nothing falls as a medium between the mind and God; it must be said that there is a medium according to dignity of nature, or according to causality of influence. In the first way a medium falls [between], in the second way, not. For God immediately flows into the mind, and the mind itself is immediately formed by the first truth10.
2. To what is objected secondly, that man holds the account of the end; it must be said that something on account of which a thing is, either is for supplying a need, as a house [is] for the sake of man, and a shoe for the sake of the foot; or for receiving its influence, as man [is] for the sake of God. That which in the latter way has the account of the end is the nobler; that which [has it] in the former way, not. For since man needs all things, the Angel nothing except God; therefore all things [are] for the sake of man, not all things for the sake of the Angel. In sign of which thing the Angel was created in the beginning, but man on the sixth day11.
3. To what is objected about the best, it is to be understood
in itself and precisely. But neither the blessed Virgin nor Christ exceed the Angels purely by reason of nature, but by reason of manifold grace.
4. To what is objected lastly about ministry, it will be made clearer below12; for the present let it suffice to say that one is ministered to in two ways: either for his own sake, as a king and a lord, and such a one is nobler; or for the sake of another, as a soldier serves the king's garcio [page-boy]13; and by this [the objection] is to be solved. For the Angel ministers to man for the sake of God, as a rich man [to] a poor man, and a strong man [to] a sick man.
On this question the other Commentators do not treat explicitly in this place, except Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. 3, a. 2, sub-question 2; and Richard of Mediavilla, here, a. 5, q. 4, who testifies that some masters of that age held opinions other than St. Bonaventure. Dionysius the Carthusian (here, q. 10) merely transcribes the words of our Doctor.
---
- Hic c. 6. in fine.Here, c. 6 [of the Master's littera], at the end.
- Aristot., I. Rhetor. c. de Bono maiore et utili maiore; III. Topic. c. 1. et I. Magn. Moral. c. 3. (c. 2.). Verba Magistri mox citata vide hic c. 5, ubi etiam in nota a nobis adiecta allegatur Augustinus pro hac sententia, de qua etiam cfr. Anselm., I. Cur Deus homo, c. 18.Aristotle, Rhetoric I, c. On the greater good and the greater useful; Topics III, c. 1, and Magna Moralia I, c. 3 (c. 2). The words of the Master cited shortly [after], see here, c. 5, where also, in a note added by us, Augustine is alleged for this opinion, on which cf. also Anselm, Why God [Became] Man I, c. 18.
- Aristot., III. Topic. c. 2: Et [melius est] quod meliori eorum est similius... Considerandum autem, si et in ridiculosioribus sit simile, ut simia homini quam equo, cum non sit similis; non enim est simia melior, similior tamen est homini.Aristotle, Topics III, c. 2: And [the better is] that which is more like the better of them... But it must be considered whether [the likeness] also be in more ridiculous respects, as the ape [is more like] man than the horse, although it is not [really] like; for the ape is not better, yet it is more like man.
- In multis locis v. g. I. de Lib. Arb. c. 10. n. 21; XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 2; libr. 83 Qq. q. 54; XIV. de Trin. c. 14. n. 20. — Textus seq. est loc. cit. c. 5. n. 8: «Sed illa sola [creatura est imago Dei], qua superior ipse solus est. Ea quippe de illo prorsus exprimitur, inter quam et ipsum nulla interiecta natura est». Codd. et edd. allegant librum XV. de Trin., ubi tamen c. 27. n. 49. solum dicitur, quod mente humana non est superior nisi Deus. In libro 83 Qq. q. 31. n. 1. legitur: Quae [mens], nulla interposita substantia, ab ipsa veritate formatur. Cfr. de Vera Relig. c. 55. n. 113; de Gen. ad lit. (liber imperf.) c. 16. n. 60; Enarrat. in Ps. 118. Serm. 18. n. 1; de Spiritu et anima, c. 10. seq.In many places, e.g. On Free Choice I, c. 10, n. 21; On the City of God XI, c. 2; the book Of 83 Questions, q. 54; On the Trinity XIV, c. 14, n. 20. — The following text is from the place cited, c. 5, n. 8: «But that alone [creature is the image of God], than which he alone is superior. For it is expressed wholly from him, [the creature] between which and him no interposed nature stands». The codices and editions allege the fifteenth book On the Trinity, where however, c. 27, n. 49, it is only said that nothing is superior to the human mind except God. In the book Of 83 Questions, q. 31, n. 1, one reads: Which [mind], with no interposed substance, is formed by the truth itself. Cf. On True Religion c. 55, n. 113; On Genesis to the Letter (the unfinished book) c. 16, n. 60; Enarration on Psalm 118, Sermon 18, n. 1; On the Spirit and the Soul, c. 10 seq.
- Aristot., II. Phys. text. 24. (c. 2.). — Quis sit laudatus Remigius, indagare non potuimus. Probabiliter autem est idem ac ille, qui scripsit quendam librum de Anima. Nam Ioan. a Rupella, Sum. de Anima, p. 1. c. 2. dicit: «Secundum hoc definitur in libro de Anima a Remigio: Anima est substantia incorporea, regens corpus». Et B. Albert., I. p. II. tr. 12. q. 69. m. 1. eandem definitionem attribuit ipsi Remigio. — Fabricius (Biblioth. mediae et inf. latinit.) praeter notissimum Remigium Episc. Remensem († 533) tres alios Remigios, ante S. Bonaventuram viventes, recenset, scil. Remigium Antissiodorensem O.S.Bened. (in fine saec. 9.), multorum librorum auctorem, Remigium, Episc. Lugdunensem (ab a. 852), et Remigium, Abbatem monasterii Mediolanensis (?) Trevirensis dioecesis. Sed nulli horum attribuitur liber de Anima. Neque nos in aliis libris antiquis de anima tractantibus v. g. in libris Honorii Augustodunensis (sub initio saec. 12.), praedictos locos invenire potuimus.Aristotle, Physics II, text 24 (c. 2). — Who the praised Remigius is, we have not been able to track down. Probably, however, he is the same as the one who wrote a certain book On the Soul. For John of La Rochelle, Summa on the Soul, p. 1, c. 2, says: «According to this it is defined in the book On the Soul by Remigius: The soul is an incorporeal substance, governing the body». And Bl. Albert, I, p. II, tr. 12, q. 69, m. 1, attributes the same definition to Remigius himself. — Fabricius (Library of Middle and Lower Latinity), besides the well-known Remigius Bishop of Reims († 533), enumerates three other Remigii living before St. Bonaventure, namely Remigius of Auxerre O.S.B. (at the end of the 9th century), author of many books, Remigius, Bishop of Lyons (from the year 852), and Remigius, Abbot of the monastery of Mediolanum (?) of the diocese of Trier. But to none of these is the book On the Soul attributed. Nor have we been able to find the aforesaid passages in other old books treating of the soul, e.g. in the books of Honorius of Autun (at the beginning of the 12th century).
- Aristot., III. Topic. c. 2. — Paulo inferius cod. W pura creatura pro pure femina.Aristotle, Topics III, c. 2. — A little below, codex W reads pura creatura ("a pure creature") for pure femina ("purely a woman").
- Vers. 27: Nam quis maior est, qui recumbit, an qui ministrat? nonne qui recumbit? — Sequens textus est Hebr. 1, 14.Verse 27: For which is greater, he who reclines [at table] or he who serves? is it not he who reclines? — The following text is Hebrews 1:14.
- In cod. N additur est.In codex N, est ("is") is added.
- Psalm. 8, 6: Minuisti eum paulo minus ab Angelis.Psalm 8:6: Thou hast made him a little less than the Angels.
- Cfr. I. Sent. d. 3. p. I. q. 3. ad 1. de statu innocentiae; et hic d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. ad 6. — Vat. et propterea ipsa mens pro et ipsa mens.Cf. I Sent. d. 3, p. I, q. 3, ad 1, on the state of innocence; and here, d. 3, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, ad 6. — The Vatican ms. reads et propterea ipsa mens ("and therefore the mind itself") for et ipsa mens ("and the mind itself").
- Vide infra d. 2. p. I. a. 2. q. 3, et d. 13. a. 2. q. 1. seq.See below, d. 2, p. I, a. 2, q. 3, and d. 13, a. 2, q. 1 seq.
- Dist. II. a. 1. q. 1.Distinction 2, a. 1, q. 1.
- Garciones pro famulis, maxime iis, qui castra sequuntur. Du Cange, Glossarium.Garciones [is used] for servants, especially those who follow the camp. Du Cange, Glossary.