← Back to Distinction 10

Dist. 10, Dubia

Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 10

Textus Latinus
p. 273

Dubia circa litteram Magistri.

Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit in littera: Qui natura sunt spiritus aliquando angeli, id est nuntii fiunt. Cum enim non sint tantum boni Angeli, sed etiam mali, videtur, quod Deus non tantummodo mittat bonos spiritus, immo etiam malos. Et hoc videtur per illud quod dicitur tertii Regum ultimo1, ubi Dominus dixit ad spiritum mendacii: Egredere, et fac ita; videtur enim, quod Deus miserit angelum malum. Et expressius in Psalmo2 super illud: Immissiones per angelos malos; ibi dicit Glossa, quod « angeli mali mittuntur ». Et expressissime Matthaei octavo3: Mitte nos in porcos. — Ad oppositum est: quia, cum intentio malorum angelorum sit perdere omnes, et Dei intentio sit salvare; non videtur, quod debeat eos aliquo modo mittere, immo potius impedire. — Item, si hos mittit, tunc ergo sunt nuntii Domini: ergo debent dici angeli Domini; quod tamen non dicit Scriptura.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in exercitio, quo nos diabolus exercitat, duo considerantur: et potestas et usus. Potestas a Deo ei collata est, usus vero potestatis non est a Deo praecipiente, sed potius permittente. Quoniam igitur missio proprie dicit imperium et auctoritatem, ideo daemones non dicuntur proprie mitti a Deo, nec angeli4, sed potius dicuntur angeli diaboli, quia a suo principe diriguntur et ei obedire intendunt. — Ad omnes autem illas auctoritates respondendum est, quod intelliguntur non imperative, sed potius permissive.

Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod medii ordines praeceptum divinum a superioribus accipiunt et referunt ad inferiores. Ex hoc enim videtur, quod unus Angelus mittat alterum, cui concordat expositio Gregorii in Moralibus5, arguens ex eo quod legitur in Zacharia, quod unus Angelus dixit ad alium: Loquere ad puerum istum, ubi dicit ipse Gregorius: « Ad Prophetam Angelus Angelum mittit, et quem secum gaudere de Deo communiter conspicit, et docet et erudit ». — Hoc etiam per simile probatur tam in daemonibus quam in hominibus, ubi superiores mittunt inferiores. — Ad oppositum est: quia si Angeli mittuntur ab Angelis, ergo Angeli sunt nuntii Angelorum, et Angelus est minister Angeli, et Angelus habet auctoritatem super Angelum. Si ergo solus Deus est, penes quem residet auctoritas, et solius Dei dicuntur Angeli ministri et nuntii, sicut dicitur in Psalmo6: Qui facit Angelos suos spiritus, videtur, quod a solo Deo debeant mitti.

p. 274

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod mittere dicit auctoritatem; potest igitur dicere auctoritatem7 principalem; vel potest dicere potestatem aliquo modo vel auctoritatem subiectam auctoritati principali. Si mittere dicat primam et praecipuam auctoritatem: sic solius Dei est mittere Angelos, tam superiores quam inferiores; totum enim ministerium Angelorum ad divinam auctoritatem et eius complendam voluntatem refertur; et ideo dicuntur nuntii et ministri solius Dei. Si autem mittere dicat auctoritatem secundo modo; sic unus Angelus ab altero potest mitti, sicut dicit Gregorius, et ostendunt sequentes auctoritates8; et sic intelligitur illud verbum Magistri in littera.

Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Hi spiritus, qui mittuntur, percipiunt horum vocabulum, quorum gerunt officium; quod est verbum Dionysii9. Aut enim spiritus mittitur ad suum officium, aut ad non suum. Si ad suum, ergo cum denominetur a suo, non debet sortiri aliud nomen quam proprium. Si ad non suum, ergo usurpat sibi quod est alienum; et hoc est inordinatum.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod mitti ad suum officium est dupliciter: aut suum per veritatem, quia ad hoc deputatus est; aut suum per appropriationem. Primo modo omnis qui mittitur, mittitur ad suum officium, id est ad id ad quod est idoneus. Secundo modo mittitur aliquando Angelus ad perficiendum illius doni usum, quod sibi non appropriatur; ideo nec ab illo secundum primam impositionem nominis denominatur; nihilominus tamen sortitur nomen competens illi dono, ut ostendatur, ad quid mittatur10.

---

English Translation

Doubts concerning the text of the Master.

Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first there is inquiry concerning that which he says in the text: Those who by nature are spirits become at times angels, that is, messengers. For since there are not only good Angels, but also evil ones, it seems that God sends not only good spirits, but even evil ones. And this seems [so] through that which is said in the third [book] of Kings, the last [chapter]1, where the Lord said to the spirit of lying: Go forth, and do so; for it seems that God sent an evil angel. And more expressly in the Psalm2, upon that [verse]: Sendings-in through evil angels; there the Gloss says that «evil angels are sent». And most expressly in Matthew, chapter eight3: Send us into the swine. — To the opposite: because, since the intention of the evil angels is to destroy all, and God's intention is to save, it does not seem that he ought in any way to send them, but rather to hinder [them]. — Likewise, if he sends these, then they are messengers of the Lord: therefore they ought to be called angels of the Lord; which, however, Scripture does not say.

I respond: It must be said that in the exercising by which the devil exercises us, two things are considered: both the power and the use. The power has been conferred upon him by God, but the use of the power is not from God commanding, but rather permitting. Since, therefore, mission properly bespeaks command and authority, therefore the demons are not properly said to be sent by God, nor [are they called] angels4, but rather are called angels of the devil, because they are directed by their own prince and intend to obey him. — But to all those authorities the answer must be given that they are understood not imperatively, but rather permissively.

Doubt II.

Likewise there is inquiry concerning that which he says — that the middle orders receive the divine command from the higher ones and convey [it] to the lower. For from this it seems that one Angel sends another, with which the exposition of Gregory in the Morals5 agrees, arguing from that which is read in Zechariah, that one Angel said to another: Speak to that boy — where Gregory himself says: «An Angel sends an Angel to the Prophet, and him whom he beholds rejoicing in God in common with himself, [him] he both teaches and instructs». — This also is proved by a likeness, both in the demons and in men, where the higher send the lower. — To the opposite: because, if Angels are sent by Angels, then Angels are messengers of Angels, and an Angel is the minister of an Angel, and an Angel has authority over an Angel. If, then, God alone is [the one] with whom authority resides, and the Angels are said to be ministers and messengers of God alone — as it is said in the Psalm6: Who makes his Angels spirits — it seems that they ought to be sent by God alone.

p. 274

I respond: It must be said that "to send" bespeaks authority; it can therefore bespeak the principal authority7; or it can bespeak a power in some way, or an authority subject to the principal authority. If "to send" bespeak the first and chief authority: then it belongs to God alone to send the Angels, both the higher and the lower; for the whole ministry of the Angels is referred to the divine authority and to the fulfilling of its will; and therefore they are called messengers and ministers of God alone. But if "to send" bespeak authority in the second way: then one Angel can be sent by another, as Gregory says, and as the following authorities show8; and so that word of the Master in the text is understood.

Doubt III.

Likewise there is inquiry concerning that which he says: These spirits who are sent receive the appellation of those whose office they perform; which is a word of Dionysius9. For a spirit is sent either to his own office, or to one not his own. If to his own, then, since he is denominated from his own, he ought not to be allotted any name other than his proper one. If to one not his own, then he usurps for himself what is another's; and this is disordered.

I respond: It must be said that to be sent to one's own office is [taken] in two ways: either [an office] one's own through truth, because one has been appointed for this; or one's own through appropriation. In the first way, everyone who is sent is sent to his own office, that is, to that for which he is suited. In the second way, an Angel is sometimes sent to perfect the use of that gift which is not appropriated to him; therefore he is not denominated from it according to the first imposition of the name; nevertheless he is allotted a name befitting that gift, that it may be shown to what he is sent10.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vers. 22.
    [3 Kings 22,] v. 22.
  2. Psalm. 77, 49. — Glossam vide apud Lyranum ibid.
    Psalm 77, 49. — For the Gloss see in Lyra, at the same place.
  3. Vers. 31. Vulgata: Mitte nos in gregem porcorum.
    [Matthew 8,] v. 31. The Vulgate [reads] Mitte nos in gregem porcorum ["Send us into the herd of swine"].
  4. Supple: dicuntur. Vat. ut Angeli eius. — Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 36. m. 2; B. Albert., S. p. II. tr. 9. q. 34. m. 2.
    Supply: dicuntur ["are said"]. The Vatican edition [reads] ut Angeli eius ["as his Angels"]. — On this doubt cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa part II, q. 36, m. 2; B. Albert, Summa part II, tr. 9, q. 34, m. 2.
  5. Libr. XXVIII. c. 1. n. 9, ubi textus originalis substituit ei dirigit pro et erudit. — Textus s. Scripturae est Zachar. 2, 4.
    [Morals,] book XXVIII, c. 1, n. 9, where the original text substitutes ei dirigit for et erudit. — The text of sacred Scripture is Zechariah 2, 4.
  6. Psalm. 103, 4.
    Psalm 103, 4.
  7. Cod. aa potestatem.
    Codex aa [reads] potestatem [for auctoritatem].
  8. Cod. bb rationes. Vat. omittit sequentes. — Idem dubium solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 36. m. 1; B. Albert., S. p. II. tr. 9. q. 34. m. 1.
    Codex bb [reads] rationes [for auctoritates]. The Vatican edition omits sequentes. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, Summa part II, q. 36, m. 1; B. Albert, Summa part II, tr. 9, q. 34, m. 1.
  9. De Caelest. Hierarch. c. 13. § 3. Cfr. supra pag. 258, nota 10. et pag. 262, nota 5.
    [Dionysius,] On the Celestial Hierarchy c. 13, § 3. Cf. above, p. 258, note 10, and p. 262, note 5.
  10. Vide Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 36. m. 5; B. Albert., S. p. II. tr. 9. q. 34. m. 5.
    See Alexander of Hales, Summa part II, q. 36, m. 5; B. Albert, Summa part II, tr. 9, q. 34, m. 5. ---
← Dist. 10, Art. 3, Q. 2