← Back to Distinction 10

Dist. 10, Art. 3, Q. 2

Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 10

Textus Latinus
p. 271

Quaestio II. Utrum eadem locutio possit esse a Deo et ab Angelo.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum eadem locutio possit esse a Deo et Angelo. Et quod sic, videtur.

Fundamenta. 1. Apocalypsis primo1: Loquens per Angelum suum servo suo Ioanni etc.; sed quandocumque aliquis artifex agit per instrumentum, eadem est actio agentis et instrumenti, sicut cum quis incidit per securim, eadem est incisio: ergo eadem est locutio Dei et Angeli.

2. Item, cum loquitur Deus nobis per prophetam, locutio illa dicitur esse Dei et Spiritus sancti, et similiter locutio illa est ipsius prophetae; sed constat, quod non est nisi unica: ergo pari ratione, cum Deus loquitur nobis per Angelos.

3. Item, quando audita fuit vox illa: Hic est Filius meus dilectus, Lucae tertio2, constat, quod illa fuit locutio Dei, quia nullus poterat hoc vere dicere nisi Deus; sed illa locutio successionem habuit et variationem: ergo fuit ab aliqua creatura spirituali: ergo videtur, quod una et eadem locutio possit esse Dei et Angeli.

4. Item, videtur, quod nulla locutio sensibilis possit esse Dei, quin etiam sit Angeli. Locutio enim sensibilis fit mediantibus organis; ergo sicut Deus per se non potest currere, quia cursus fit mediantibus organis corporalibus, quae non habet Deus, ergo similiter nec per se ipsum sensibiliter loqui: ergo saltem locutio sensibilis Dei sic est Dei, quod Angeli3.

Contra: Ad oppositum. 1. Diversarum substantiarum agentium diversi sunt actus4; sed Deus et Angelus omnino sunt diversi agentes: ergo diversas faciunt locutiones.

2. Item, locutio Dei non est aliud quam Verbum Dei; sed Verbum Dei et verbum Angeli est omnino aliud et aliud: ergo locutio Dei et locutio Angeli est omnino alia et alia.

3. Item, nullus actus, qui per se et proprie convenit Deo ut subiecto, si dicatur de creatura, est idem, prout dicitur de Deo et creatura — sicut patet; aliud enim est intelligere hominis, aliud intelligere Dei — ergo pari ratione alia erit locutio Angeli, et alia locutio Dei.

4. Item, cum Deus loquitur mentibus nostris, loquitur animae quantum ad supremam partem; cum vero Angelus loquitur, suggerit ab inferiori5: ergo non videtur, quod eadem possit esse locutio Dei et Angeli.

Quaestio incidens 1. Iuxta hoc quaeritur, cum Angelus appareat et loquatur in persona Dei, utrum similiter possit adorari in persona Dei. — Quaestio incidens 2. Quaeritur etiam, utrum apparitiones omnes in subiecta creatura, quibus Deus apparuit, et locutiones etiam factae sint mediantibus Angelis.

Conclusio

Locutio intellectualis ad mentem est solius Dei, locutiones per signum sensibile vel etiam imaginarium possunt esse et Angeli et Dei, sed Dei ut imperantis, Angeli ut exsequentis.

Respondeo: Triplex visio, auditio et locutio. Dicendum, quod sicut tripliciter dicimur videre Deum, videlicet visione corporali, imaginaria et intellectuali6 — et visione intellectuali videtur Deus in se ipso lucens, visione autem imaginaria et corporali videtur Deus in subiecta creatura apparens — sic etiam tripliciter dicimur audire7: aut per aliquod signum, exterioribus auribus oblatum, sicut pluries auditus fuit et in veteri et in novo Testamento; aut per aliquod signum, in interiori sensu vel in interiori imaginatione formatum,

p. 272

aut per aliquod inspirationis verbum, nostris mentibus instillatum. Et sicut tripliciter auditur, ita etiam tripliciter loqui dicitur, secundum quod in nobis triplicem excitat auditum. Sicut igitur sensum nostrum ad sui ipsius apprehensionem excitat mediante signo sensibili, in quo apparet Angelus ex persona Dei, vel Deus apparet ex ministerio Angeli, mentem autem nostram per semetipsum informat, ut ipsum videat et cognoscat; sic in locutione intelligendum est.

Quis triplicis locutionis auctor. Nam locutio illa, qua Deus nobis loquitur per signum sensibile, sive exterius sive interius, aut semper aut frequenter fit per Angelum, sicut dicit Gregorius in Moralibus8. Ait enim: « Cum loquitur Deus nobis per Angelum, aliquando voluntatem suam rebus indicat, aliquando imaginibus oculis cordis ostensis, aliquando imaginibus ante corporeos oculos ex aere assumtis, aliquando substantiis caelestibus, aliquando terrenis, aliquando simul caelestibus et terrenis »; et de omnibus exemplificat. — Locutio vero, qua Deus inspirat aliquid mentibus nostris, etsi possit fieri per Angelum excitantem ab inferiori, sicut dicit Gregorius9, quod « nonnunquam Deus humanis cordibus ita per Angelum loquitur, ut ipse mentis obtutibus praesentetur »: fit tamen principaliter ab ipso Deo.

Conclusio 1. Primus igitur et secundus loquendi modus et Angeli est et Dei, sed Dei tanquam imperantis, Angeli vero tanquam exsequentis, ita quod sermo exsequentis referatur ad personam imperantis. Hoc autem potest esse dupliciter: vel cum Angelus loquitur in persona Dei, sicut cum formavit illam vocem, Lucae tertio10: Hic est Filius meus dilectus; sive sicut locutus est ad Moysen, Exodi tertio; vel cum loquitur ut nuntius Dei, proferens illud verbum quasi a Deo, per quem etiam modum dicitur Dominus loqui per Prophetas. Conclusio 2. Tertius vero loquendi modus est proprius ipsius Dei; et ita non potest eadem esse locutio Dei et Angeli secundum modum illum.

Ex his patet responsio ad quaestionem, et pro magna parte ad obiecta. Nam rationes, quae probant, quod eadem locutio possit esse Dei et Angeli, procedunt secundum eum modum loquendi, secundum quem Deus loquitur per ministerium Angeli; et tunc eadem est locutio, sicut eadem est operatio et principaliter11 moventis et instrumenti, quamvis sit ibi diversa relatio; et omnes illae rationes hac via procedunt, ut patet, et ideo concedendae sunt.

Solutio oppositorum. 1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod diversarum substantiarum agentium diversi sunt actus; dicendum, quod illud intelligitur de actu primo et immediato respectu virtutis agentis12. Notandum. Si enim intelligatur de opere operato, sic non habet veritatem simpliciter, maxime, quando plura agentia nata sunt concurrere ad unum effectum; et sic est in proposito. Nam locutio Angeli sic est ab Angelo, ut non excludat, sed includat operationem Dei; actio tamen Dei, quae est idem quod ipse Deus, non potest esse eadem cum locutione Angeli; sed istius locutionis effectus et Dei et Angeli esse potest.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod locutio Dei non est aliud quam Verbum Dei; dicendum, quod sicut prius dictum est, sicut est loqui interius et exterius, ita est sermo interior et exterior. Et sermo sive Verbum interius non potest esse idem cum sermone vel verbo Angeli, sed sermo exterior potest. Sermo enim interior Dei sive Verbum eius est ipse Deus, sermo vero exterior est illius Verbi effectus.

3. Ad aliud dicendum, quod loqui, prout Deus dicitur loqui per Angelum, non comparatur ad Deum sicut ad subiectum, sed sicut ad causam. Non enim dicitur illa locutio esse Dei, quia sit Dei dispositio, sed quia est ab eius imperio. Ipse autem obiicit de locutione interna et increata, de qua nihil ad propositum.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ex alia et alia parte loquitur Deus et Angelus; dicendum, quod obiectio illa procedit de locutione secundum tertium modum.

Ad quaest. incid. 1. Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum similiter debeat adorari ex persona Dei, sicut competit ei ex persona Dei apparere et loqui; dicendum, quod sicut sermo, quem format Angelus in subiecta creatura, dupliciter potest referri ad Deum: aut mediate, aut immediate — immediate, cum Angelus pronuntiat, tanquam si Deus pronuntiaret; mediate, quando Angelus pronuntiat ut nuntius Dei — sic intelligendum est in apparitione sensibili, quia forma illa aut principaliter ducit in Angelum, qui est nuntius Dei, aut principaliter ducit in Deum; et primo modo potest adorari dulia, et secundo modo potest adorari latria, sicut adoravit Abraham13.

p. 273

Ad quaest. incid. 2. Ad illud quod ultimo quaeritur, utrum huiusmodi apparitiones et locutiones sensibiles fiant semper mediante ministerio Angeli; de hoc dubie respondet Augustinus in libro tertio de Trinitate14; magis tamen hanc partem innuit, quod omnes fiant mediante angelico ministerio, sive fuerint in veteri Testamento, sive in novo. Sed Gregorius expressius hoc affirmat, quod omnes fiant mediante rationali aliqua creatura. Ait enim sic in Moralibus15: « Per Angelum loquitur Dominus, cum supernae revelationis verba audiuntur, sicut dicitur Ioannis duodecimo: Clarificavi, et iterum clarificabo. Neque enim Deus, qui sine tempore, vi intimae impulsionis clamat, in tempore vocem suam per substantiam edidit, quam circumscriptam tempore per humana verba distinxit; sed de caelestibus loquens, verba sua, quae audiri ab hominibus voluit, rationali administrante creatura formavit ». De his autem apertius habitum est in primo libro, distinctione decima sexta16, ubi habitum est de apparitione sive visibili missione.

Scholion

I. Haec quaestio servit, ut recte intelligantur locutiones et apparitiones Dei, quae in s. Scriptura commemorantur (cfr. etiam supra d. 8. p. I. dub. 1.). Quoad principia hic adhibita vide I. Sent. d. 16. de missione visibili et apparitionibus, et ibid. d. 45. a. 2. q. 1. 2, infra d. 37. a. 1. q. 1. de causalitate Dei ad actiones creaturarum concurrente. Alii Scholastici plerumque in genere loquuntur de apparitionibus Dei in corporalibus formis, quin de hac speciali quaestione explicite tractent. Apud solum Alexandrum Hal. eandem praecise quaestionem invenimus.

II. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 27. m. 2. a. 2. — S. Thom., II. Sent. d. 8. q. unica, a. 6; S. I. q. 43. a. 7. ad 5. 6. — Petr. a Tar., II. Sent. d. 8. q. unica, a. 4. — Richard. a Med. (ex parte), hic a. 2. q. 1. — Aegid. R., II. Sent. d. 8. q. 2. a. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

---

English Translation

Question II. Whether the same locution can be from God and from an Angel.

Secondly it is asked whether the same locution can be from God and from an Angel. And that [it can], thus it seems.

The grounds. 1. The Apocalypse, chapter one1: Speaking through his Angel to his servant John etc.; but whenever some craftsman acts through an instrument, the action of the agent and of the instrument is the same — just as, when one cuts with an axe, the cutting is the same: therefore the locution of God and of the Angel is the same.

2. Likewise, when God speaks to us through a prophet, that locution is said to be of God and of the Holy Spirit, and likewise that locution is the prophet's own; but it is established that it is only a single one: therefore by parity of reasoning [it is so] when God speaks to us through the Angels.

3. Likewise, when that voice was heard, This is my beloved Son, in Luke chapter three2, it is established that that was the locution of God, because no one could say this truly except God; but that locution had succession and variation: therefore it was from some spiritual creature: therefore it seems that one and the same locution can be of God and of an Angel.

4. Likewise, it seems that no sensible locution can be of God without being also of an Angel. For a sensible locution comes about by the mediation of organs; therefore, just as God cannot of himself run, because running comes about by the mediation of corporeal organs, which God does not have — so likewise neither [can he] of himself speak sensibly: therefore at least a sensible locution of God is so [a locution] of God that [it is] also [a locution] of an Angel3.

On the contrary: To the opposite. 1. The acts of diverse acting substances are diverse4; but God and an Angel are altogether diverse agents: therefore they make diverse locutions.

2. Likewise, the locution of God is nothing other than the Word of God; but the Word of God and the word of an Angel are altogether one thing and another: therefore the locution of God and the locution of an Angel are altogether one and another.

3. Likewise, no act which belongs through itself and properly to God as to a subject is, if it be said of a creature, the same insofar as it is said of God and of a creature — as is plain; for the understanding of a man is one thing, the understanding of God another — therefore by parity of reasoning the locution of an Angel will be one thing, and the locution of God another.

4. Likewise, when God speaks to our minds, he speaks to the soul as to its highest part; but when an Angel speaks, he suggests from below5: therefore it does not seem that the locution of God and of an Angel can be the same.

Incidental question 1. Alongside this it is asked: since an Angel appears and speaks in the person of God, whether he can likewise be adored in the person of God. — Incidental question 2. It is also asked whether all the apparitions in a subject creature by which God appeared, and the locutions also, were made by the mediation of Angels.

Conclusion

Intellectual locution to the mind is of God alone; locutions through a sensible or even an imaginary sign can be both of an Angel and of God — but of God as the one commanding, of the Angel as the one carrying out.

I respond: A threefold seeing, hearing, and locution. It must be said that, just as we are said to see God in three ways — namely by corporeal, by imaginary, and by intellectual vision6 (and by intellectual vision God is seen shining in himself, but by imaginary and corporeal vision God is seen appearing in a subject creature) — so too we are said to hear in three ways7: either through some sign offered to the exterior ears, as [a voice] was many times heard both in the Old and in the New Testament; or through some sign formed in the interior sense or in the interior imagination;

p. 272

or through some word of inspiration instilled into our minds. And just as one hears in three ways, so also is one said to speak in three ways, according as he stirs up a threefold hearing in us. As, therefore, he stirs up our sense to the apprehension of itself by the mediation of a sensible sign — in which an Angel appears in the person of God, or God appears through the ministry of an Angel — but informs our mind through his very self, that it may see and know him: so it is to be understood in locution.

Who is the author of the threefold locution. For that locution by which God speaks to us through a sensible sign, whether exterior or interior, comes about either always or frequently through an Angel, as Gregory says in the Morals8. For he says: «When God speaks to us through an Angel, he sometimes indicates his will by things, sometimes by images shown to the eyes of the heart, sometimes by images taken from the air before the bodily eyes, sometimes by heavenly substances, sometimes by earthly, sometimes by heavenly and earthly together»; and he gives examples of all [these]. — But the locution by which God inspires something into our minds — although it can come about through an Angel stirring [it] up from below, as Gregory says9, that «sometimes God so speaks to human hearts through an Angel that [the Angel] himself is presented to the gaze of the mind» — nevertheless comes about principally from God himself.

Conclusion 1. The first and the second manner of speaking, therefore, is both of an Angel and of God — but of God as the one commanding, of the Angel as the one carrying out, so that the speech of the one carrying out is referred to the person of the one commanding. And this can be in two ways: either when an Angel speaks in the person of God, as when he formed that voice, in Luke chapter three10: This is my beloved Son; or as he spoke to Moses, in Exodus chapter three; or when he speaks as a messenger of God, bringing forth that word as it were from God — in which manner also the Lord is said to speak through the Prophets. Conclusion 2. But the third manner of speaking is proper to God himself; and so the locution of God and of an Angel cannot be the same according to that manner.

From these things the reply to the question is plain, and for the most part to the objections. For the arguments which prove that the same locution can be of God and of an Angel proceed according to that manner of speaking by which God speaks through the ministry of an Angel; and then the locution is the same, just as the operation of the principal mover and of the instrument is the same11, although there is there a diverse relation; and all those arguments proceed by this way, as is plain, and therefore are to be conceded.

The solution of the opposing arguments. 1. But to that which is objected on the contrary — that the acts of diverse acting substances are diverse — it must be said that this is understood of the first and immediate act with respect to the acting power12. Note. For if it be understood of the work done, then it does not hold true simply — especially when several agents are fitted by nature to concur to one effect; and so it is in the matter at hand. For the locution of the Angel is so from the Angel as not to exclude, but to include, the operation of God; the action of God, however, which is the same as God himself, cannot be the same as the locution of the Angel; but the effect of that locution can be both of God and of the Angel.

2. To that which is objected — that the locution of God is nothing other than the Word of God — it must be said that, as was said before, just as there is a speaking interior and exterior, so there is a speech interior and exterior. And the interior speech, or Word, cannot be the same as the speech or word of an Angel, but the exterior speech can. For the interior speech of God, or his Word, is God himself, but the exterior speech is the effect of that Word.

3. To the other [argument] it must be said that to speak, insofar as God is said to speak through an Angel, is not compared to God as to a subject, but as to a cause. For that locution is not said to be God's because it is a disposition of God, but because it is from his command. But [the objector] objects concerning the internal and uncreated locution, of which nothing [pertains] to the matter at hand.

4. To that which is objected — that God and an Angel speak from one side and another — it must be said that that objection proceeds concerning locution according to the third manner.

To incidental question 1. To that which is asked — whether [an Angel] ought likewise to be adored in the person of God, just as it befits him to appear and to speak in the person of God — it must be said that, just as the speech which an Angel forms in a subject creature can be referred to God in two ways, either mediately or immediately (immediately, when the Angel pronounces [it] as though God were pronouncing [it]; mediately, when the Angel pronounces [it] as a messenger of God), so it is to be understood in a sensible apparition, because that form either leads principally to the Angel, who is the messenger of God, or leads principally to God; and in the first way dulia can be adored, and in the second way latria can be adored, as Abraham adored13.

p. 273

To incidental question 2. To that which is asked last — whether apparitions and sensible locutions of this kind always come about by the mediation of an Angel's ministry — to this Augustine responds doubtfully in the third book On the Trinity14; he nonetheless rather intimates this side: that all come about by the mediation of angelic ministry, whether they were in the Old Testament or in the New. But Gregory affirms this more expressly — that all come about by the mediation of some rational creature. For he says thus in the Morals15: «The Lord speaks through an Angel when the words of a supernal revelation are heard, as it is said in John chapter twelve: I have glorified [it], and again I will glorify [it]. For God, who without time cries out by the force of an inmost impulsion, did not in time put forth his voice through a substance which he marked off, circumscribed by time, by means of human words; but, speaking of heavenly things, he formed his words, which he willed to be heard by men, by the administration of a rational creature». But of these things it has been treated more openly in the first book, distinction sixteen16, where treatment was made of apparition or visible mission.

Scholion

I. This question serves toward the right understanding of the locutions and apparitions of God which are commemorated in sacred Scripture (cf. also above, d. 8, part I, doubt 1). As to the principles employed here, see I Sent. d. 16, on visible mission and apparitions, and the same [book], d. 45, a. 2, q. 1, 2, [and] below, d. 37, a. 1, q. 1, on the causality of God concurring to the actions of creatures. The other Scholastics for the most part speak in general of the apparitions of God in corporeal forms, without treating explicitly of this special question. In Alexander of Hales alone do we find precisely the same question.

II. Alexander of Hales, Summa part II, q. 27, m. 2, a. 2. — S. Thomas, II Sent. d. 8, the sole question, a. 6; Summa I, q. 43, a. 7, ad 5, 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, II Sent. d. 8, the sole question, a. 4. — Richard of Middleton (in part), here, a. 2, q. 1. — Giles of Rome, II Sent. d. 8, q. 2, a. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. 2.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vers. 1. Vulgata: Mittens pro Loquens. — De relatione artificis ad instrumentum cfr. Aristot., VII. Moral. Eudem. c. 11. (c. 9.) et II. de Anima, text. 10. (c. 1.).
    [Apocalypse 1,] v. 1. The Vulgate [reads] Mittens ["sending"] for Loquens ["speaking"]. — On the relation of a craftsman to an instrument cf. Aristotle, Eudemian Ethics VII, c. 11 (c. 9), and On the Soul II, text 10 (c. 1).
  2. Vers. 22. — De ipsa probatione cfr. supra pag. 53, nota 7.
    [Luke 3,] v. 22. — On the proof itself cf. above, p. 53, note 7.
  3. Codd. Y aa bene quod et Angeli.
    Codices Y, aa rightly [read] quod et Angeli ["that [it is] also of an Angel"].
  4. Cfr. tom. 1. pag. 81, nota 14.
    Cf. volume 1, p. 81, note 14.
  5. Vide August., XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 2. et supra a. 2. q. 2. et d. 8. p. II. q. 2.
    See Augustine, On the City of God XI, c. 2, and above, a. 2, q. 2, and d. 8, part II, q. 2.
  6. De hac triplici visione agit August., XI. de Gen. ad lit. c. 33. n. 43. et ibid. XII. per totum.
    Of this threefold vision Augustine treats, On Genesis according to the Letter XI, c. 33, n. 43, and the same [work], XII, throughout.
  7. Cod. M dicimur Deum audire, cod. bb eum dicimur audire. Mox Vat. auditum fuit pro auditus fuit.
    Codex M [reads] dicimur Deum audire, codex bb eum dicimur audire. Soon after, the Vatican edition [reads] auditum fuit for auditus fuit.
  8. Libr. XXVIII. c. 1. n. 2: Cum vero per Angelum voluntatem suam Dominus indicat, aliquando eam verbis, aliquando rebus demonstrat, aliquando simul verbis et rebus, aliquando imaginibus cordis oculis ostensis, aliquando imaginibus et ante corporeos oculos ad tempus ex aere assumtis etc.
    [Morals,] book XXVIII, c. 1, n. 2: But when the Lord indicates his will through an Angel, he sometimes demonstrates it by words, sometimes by things, sometimes by words and things together, sometimes by images shown to the eyes of the heart, sometimes by images taken for a time from the air, even before the bodily eyes etc.
  9. Loc. cit.: Nonnunquam vero etiam per Angelum humanis cordibus ita loquitur Deus, ut ipse quoque Angelus mentis obtutibus praesentetur. — Non pauci codd. cum ed. 1 quod si nunquam pro quod non nunquam.
    In the place cited: But not infrequently God so speaks to human hearts through an Angel that the Angel himself also is presented to the gaze of the mind. — Not a few codices, with edition 1, [read] quod si nunquam for quod non nunquam.
  10. Vers. 22. — Sequens textus est Exodi 3, 2. seqq., ubi agitur de apparitione Domini in rubo ardente.
    [Luke 3,] v. 22. — The following text is Exodus 3, 2 ff., where there is treatment of the apparition of the Lord in the burning bush.
  11. Plures codd. cum ed. 1 principalis.
    Several codices, with edition 1, [read] principalis.
  12. Sive de actu, prout convenit virtuti agenti sicut subiecto, non autem de actu, prout idem est ac effectus (opus operatum).
    That is, of the act insofar as it belongs to the acting power as to a subject — but not of the act insofar as it is the same as the effect (the work done).
  13. Gen. 18, 2. — Paulo superius post in Deum cod. I subiungit auctorem.
    Genesis 18, 2. — A little above, after in Deum, codex I adds auctorem.
  14. Cap. 10. seq. Cfr. etiam ibid. IV. c. 21. n. 30. seq.
    [On the Trinity III,] c. 10 and following. Cf. also the same [work], IV, c. 21, n. 30 ff.
  15. Libr. XXVIII. c. 1. n. 4, ubi post audiuntur textus originalis prosequitur: sicut dicente Domino: Pater, clarifica Filium tuum, ut et Filius tuus clarificet te (Ioan. 17, 1.); protinus respondetur: Clarificavi, et iterum clarificabo (Ioan. 12, 28.).
    [Morals,] book XXVIII, c. 1, n. 4, where after audiuntur the original text continues: as, when the Lord said: Father, glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee (John 17, 1); forthwith the answer is given: I have glorified [it], and again I will glorify [it] (John 12, 28).
  16. Quaest. 1.
    [I Sent. d. 16,] question 1. ---
← Dist. 10, Art. 3, Q. 1Dist. 10, Dubia→