← Back to Distinction 2

Dist. 2, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 4

Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 2

Textus Latinus
p. 82

Quaestio IV. Utrum plures Angeli sint simul in eodem loco.

Quarto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum plures Angeli simul possint esse in eodem loco primo. Et quod sic, videtur ratione multiplici.

1. Et prima est haec: Angelus non est in loco corporaliter, sed spiritualiter: ergo cum dicat Philosophus tertio de Anima1, quod «anima est locus specierum», in quo scilicet sunt spiritualiter, similis est modus existendi Angelum in loco et speciem in anima. Sed in anima simul possunt esse plures species, ita quod una non est in alia: ergo pari ratione plures Angeli in uno loco corporali.

2. Item, Angelus non est minoris simplicitatis quam punctus; sed duo puncta possunt esse simul: ergo et plures Angeli. Probatio minoris: Philosophus2 dicit, quod «contigua sunt, quorum ultima sunt simul»: et dicit, quod «simul sunt quaecumque in eodem loco primo sunt»: ergo cum contingat lineas contiguari, et ita ultima esse simul: ergo duo indivisibilia sunt simul.

p. 83

3. Item, per aliud simile: quia «Angeli sunt lumina spiritualia», sicut dicit Dionysius3; «sed lumina corporalia», quae sunt minoris simplicitatis et magis dependent a loco corporali, «simul sunt», sicut dicit Dionysius, et plures species in eodem medio simul sunt, sicut patet: ergo pari ratione, immo fortiori, plures Angeli in uno loco.

4. Item, rationalis anima magis appropriat sibi corpus, in quo toto est, quam Angelus locum, quia maiori nexu illi unitur: sed daemon potest obsidere et esse in eodem corpore cum anima: ergo etc.

5. Item, Sancti dicunt et infra4 habebitur, quod corpus glorificatum pertransit per non glorificatum: ergo possunt simul esse duo corpora, ergo multo fortius duo spiritus. Si dicas, quod non valet in spiritibus, quia unus non est materialis respectu alterius, sicut corpus non glorificatum respectu glorificati; obiicitur tunc: sint simul duo corpora animata, quorum unum sit glorificatum et alterum non; constat, quod duae animae sunt simul; et tamen una non est materialis respectu alterius: ergo pari ratione duo spiritus.

6. Item, spiritus rationalis non occupat locum; intelligamus enim, quod locus sit vacuus a corpore, et ponatur ibi spiritus, nihilominus erit vacuus sicut prius, et natus tantum recipere, quantum prius: ergo cum aeque bene possit ibi esse corpus, sicut si non esset5 spiritus, pari ratione videtur, quod et alius spiritus.

Contra:

1. Strabus dicit et habetur in littera6: «quod statim, cum empyreum est factum, repletum est sanctis Angelis»: sed non est repletum quoad vacuitatem, ergo quoad ornatus totalitatem: ergo loca distincta et diversa habent in empyreo: ergo si eos ita produxit Deus, sicut nati sunt esse, non ergo in eodem loco nati sunt esse, sed in diversis.

2. Item, Augustinus de Fide ad Petrum7: «Inest singulis spiritibus naturalis terminus, quo a se invicem distinguuntur, et unus in altero non est»: ergo si distincti sunt per terminos naturales, impossibile est, eos esse simul et in eodem loco simul existere.

3. Item, locus dicitur ad locatum relatione essentiali: ergo cum, multiplicato uno relativorum, multiplicatur alterum8, quot sunt locata, tot sunt loca, eodem modo, quo locus dicitur ad locatum: ergo cum locus Angeli dicatur ad locatum non per modum mensurantis, sed per modum definientis9, ergo quot sunt Angeli definiti, tot sunt loca definientia.

4. Item, sicut se habet locus ad locatum, ita e converso10, ergo sicut unum locatum ad plura loca, ita unus locus ad plura locata; sed unum locatum, ut Angelus, non potest esse in pluribus locis11: ergo unus locus non potest esse plurium Angelorum: manifestum est ergo etc.

Conclusio

Propter ordinem universi servandum duo Angeli non possunt esse in eodem loco primo.

Respondeo: Ad praedictam quaestionem dixerunt aliqui, quod Angeli poterant esse plures simul, nullo repugnante, et hoc propter suam simplicitatem et propter hoc, quod locum non replent ratione suae spiritualitatis. Unde nec minuunt loci capacitatem, quemadmodum nec lumina nec idola in medio, nec species in anima, quae in eodem et secundum idem sunt in multitudine; nec tamen ponitur idolum in idolo, nec lumen in lumine; sic dicunt se habere in proposito. Nec cogit obiectio de repletione caeli, quia hoc dictum est propter spirituum multitudinem; nec de virtute sive loco spirituali, quia semper distinguuntur propria virtute et natura, nec unus illabitur alteri12; nec de relatione, quia unius ad alterum non est habitudo nec dependentia necessitatis, sed solum cuiusdam congruitatis.

Alii dixerunt, quod quamvis Angelus spiritualiter sit in loco, tamen plures Angeli in eodem loco simul esse non possunt, repugnante habitudine distinctionis, quae est loci ad Angelum. Sicut enim duae species albedinis in eadem anima esse non possunt, non propter hoc, quod repugnet repletio, sed propter hoc, quod repugnat ipsius animae informatio, quia informata specie albedinis, non potest iterum consimili specie informari13: similiter in proposito locus definiens aliquid non potest aliud,

p. 84

quod eodem modo est in loco, definire; unde sicut unum corpus non potest perfici a duabus animabus, sic nec unus locus primus deputari duobus spiritibus.

Sed melius istam quaestionem terminare possumus, si respiciamus ad rationem, ob quam Angelos ponimus in loco corporali; hoc enim non est propter indigentiam Angeli, quia, omni corporali loco destructo, posset spiritualis substantia permanere. Nec hoc etiam est propter indigentiam loci, quia per praesentiam Angeli nulla removetur indigentia loci; sed hoc est propter ordinem universi. Quoniam igitur Angelus locum non occupat, Angelus indigentiam loci corporalis non terminat, nec simpliciter nec in parte; quantum est de spirituali natura eius et loci, nihil prohiberet14, plures spiritus simul esse, sicut plura idola, vel species in anima. Sed quoniam ordo universi ita tollitur per omnimodam indistantiam, sicut per distantiam infinitam: sicut non patitur ordo universi, ut Angelus infinite distet ab Angelo, immo omnes intra unam circumferentiam caeli ultimi clauduntur; sic non patitur, quod Angelus in eodem loco primo simul sit cum Angelo. Et ex his patent obiecta.

1. 2. 3. Quod enim obiicitur de speciebus in anima et punctis et luminaribus, patet responsio, quod non est simile, pro eo quod diversae species diversas indigentias animae complent; non sic plures Angeli indigentiam loci. Amplius, non sic attenditur ordo in illis quantum ad existentiam in loco, sicut in Angelis.

4. 5. Similiter sequentia15 duo non valent, quia nihil est ibi, quod repugnet ordini universi16, quia daemon et anima sunt in corpore diverso modo essendi, et corpus non glorificatum est materiale respectu glorificati.

6. Ultimum vero concludit a parte naturae Angeli; sed aliud est, quod impedit.

Scholion

I. Scotus responsionem affirmativam praefert; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. aliique vero negativam, si quaestio intelligitur de loco formali adaequato, et de Angelo per modum causae principalis virtutem suam applicante. Huic sententiae suffragatur etiam S. Bonav. cum Richardo a Med., sed aliis ductus rationibus. Putat autem, ex parte naturae Angeli et etiam loci nihil obstare, quominus plures Angeli possint esse in eodem loco.

II. Scot., hic q. 8. — S. Thom., 1. Sent. d. 37. q. 3. a. 3; S. I. q. 32. a. 3. — B. Albert., 1. Sent. d. 37. a. 25. — Petr. a Tar., 1. Sent. d. 37. q. 4. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., 1. Sent. d. 37. a. 2. q. 4.

---

English Translation

Question IV. Whether several Angels are at once in the same place.

Fourthly and last it is asked whether several Angels can at once be in the same primary place. And that [they] can [be] so, it seems by a manifold reason.

1. And the first is this: an Angel is not in a place corporeally, but spiritually: therefore, since the Philosopher says in the third [book] On the Soul1 that «the soul is the place of species», in which namely they are spiritually, the mode of an Angel's existing in a place and of a species [existing] in the soul is similar. But in the soul several species can be at once, so that one is not in another: therefore by parity of reason several Angels [can be] in one corporeal place.

2. Likewise, an Angel is not of less simplicity than a point; but two points can be at once: therefore also several Angels. Proof of the minor: the Philosopher2 says that «those things are contiguous whose extremities are together»: and he says that «whatever things are in the same primary place are together»: therefore since it happens that lines are made contiguous, and so their extremities are together: therefore two indivisibles are together.

p. 83

3. Likewise, by another similar [argument]: because «the Angels are spiritual lights», as Dionysius says3; «but corporeal lights», which are of less simplicity and depend more on a corporeal place, «are together», as Dionysius says, and several species in the same medium are together, as is plain: therefore by parity of reason, indeed by a stronger [one], several Angels [are] in one place.

4. Likewise, the rational soul appropriates to itself the body in whose whole it is more than an Angel [appropriates] a place, because it is united to it by a greater bond: but a demon can besiege and be in the same body with the soul: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, the Saints say, and it will be had below4, that a glorified body passes through a non-glorified [one]: therefore two bodies can be at once, therefore much more strongly two spirits. If you say that it does not hold in spirits, because one is not material with respect to the other, as a non-glorified body [is] with respect to a glorified [one]; it is then objected: let there be at once two animated bodies, of which one is glorified and the other not; it is established that the two souls are together; and yet one is not material with respect to the other: therefore by parity of reason two spirits.

6. Likewise, a rational spirit does not occupy a place; for let us understand that a place is empty of a body, and let a spirit be put there; nonetheless it will be empty as before, and born to receive only as much as before: therefore since a body can be there equally well, as if there were not5 a spirit, by parity of reason it seems [the same] also [for] another spirit.

On the contrary:

1. Strabus says, and it is had in the text6: «that as soon as the empyrean was made, it was filled with the holy Angels»: but it was not filled as to emptiness, therefore as to the totality of [its] adornment: therefore they have distinct and diverse places in the empyrean: therefore if God produced them so as they are born to be, then they were not born to be in the same place, but in diverse [ones].

2. Likewise, Augustine, On the Faith, to Peter7: «There is in each spirit a natural term by which they are distinguished from one another, and one is not in another»: therefore if they are distinct by natural terms, it is impossible that they be together and exist at once in the same place.

3. Likewise, a place is said toward what is located [there] by an essential relation: therefore since, one of the relatives being multiplied, the other is multiplied8, as many as the things located, so many the places, in the same mode in which a place is said toward what is located: therefore since the place of an Angel is said toward what is located not in the mode of measuring, but in the mode of defining9, therefore as many as the Angels defined, so many the defining places.

4. Likewise, as the place is related to what is located, so conversely10; therefore as one located thing [is related] to several places, so one place [is related] to several located things; but one located thing, like an Angel, cannot be in several places11: therefore one place cannot be of several Angels: it is manifest therefore etc.

Conclusion

For the order of the universe to be preserved, two Angels cannot be in the same primary place.

I respond: To the aforesaid question some said that the Angels could be several at once, nothing being repugnant, and this on account of their simplicity and on account of this, that they do not fill a place by reason of their spirituality. Hence they do not diminish the capacity of the place, just as neither [do] lights nor images in a medium, nor species in the soul, which are in the same [place] and according to the same [respect] in a multitude; nor however is an image posited in an image, nor a light in a light; so they say it is in the matter at hand. Nor does the objection from the filling of the heaven compel, because this was said on account of the multitude of spirits; nor [the objection] from the spiritual power or place, because they are always distinguished by [their] proper power and nature, nor does one slip into another12; nor [the objection] from relation, because of one to another there is no relation nor dependence of necessity, but only of a certain congruity.

Others said that although an Angel is in a place spiritually, yet several Angels cannot be at once in the same place, the relation of distinction which is of the place to the Angel being repugnant. For just as two species of whiteness cannot be in the same soul, not on account of this, that filling is repugnant, but on account of this, that the informing of the soul itself is repugnant, because, informed by the species of whiteness, it cannot again be informed by a like species13: similarly in the matter at hand a place defining one thing cannot define another,

p. 84

which is in the place in the same mode; whence just as one body cannot be perfected by two souls, so neither [can] one primary place be deputed to two spirits.

But we can better terminate this question if we look to the reason on account of which we posit the Angels in a corporeal place; for this is not on account of the need of the Angel, because, every corporeal place being destroyed, the spiritual substance could remain. Nor is this even on account of the need of the place, because by the presence of the Angel no need of the place is removed; but this is on account of the order of the universe. Since therefore the Angel does not occupy a place, the Angel does not terminate the need of the corporeal place, neither simply nor in part; as far as concerns the spiritual nature of it and of the place, nothing would prevent14 several spirits being together, like several images, or species in the soul. But since the order of the universe is removed by an utter lack of distance, just as by an infinite distance: just as the order of the universe does not allow that an Angel be infinitely distant from an Angel, indeed all are enclosed within one circumference of the ultimate heaven; so it does not allow that an Angel be at once with an Angel in the same primary place. And from these [things] the objections are clear.

1. 2. 3. For to what is objected concerning the species in the soul and the points and the luminaries, the response is clear, that it is not similar, for the reason that diverse species fill diverse needs of the soul; not so [do] several Angels [fill] the need of a place. Further, order is not so attended to in those as to existence in a place, as [it is] in the Angels.

4. 5. Likewise the following15 two [arguments] do not hold, because there is nothing there which is repugnant to the order of the universe16, because a demon and a soul are in a body by a diverse mode of being, and a non-glorified body is material with respect to a glorified [one].

6. But the last [argument] concludes from the part of the nature of the Angel; but it is another [thing] that prevents [it].

Scholion

I. Scotus prefers the affirmative response; but St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and others [prefer] the negative, if the question is understood of a formal adequate place, and of an Angel applying its power in the mode of a principal cause. To this opinion St. Bonaventure also gives suffrage, with Richard of Middleton, but led by other reasons. He thinks, however, that from the part of the nature of the Angel and also of the place nothing stands in the way but that several Angels could be in the same place.

II. Scotus, here q. 8. — St. Thomas, 1 Sent. d. 37, q. 3, a. 3; S. I, q. 32, a. 3. — Bl. Albert, 1 Sent. d. 37, a. 25. — Peter of Tarentaise, 1 Sent. d. 37, q. 4, a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, 1 Sent. d. 37, a. 2, q. 4.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Text. 6. (c. 4.). Cfr. etiam text. 38. (c. 8.).
    Text 6 (c. 4). Cf. also text 38 (c. 8).
  2. Libr. V. Phys. text. 22. seqq. (c. 3.) et VI. text. 1, ubi explicat, quid sit simul, contiguum, continuum etc.
    Book V Physics text 22 ff. (c. 3) and VI text 1, where he explains what together, contiguous, continuous are, etc.
  3. De Caelest. Hierarch. c. 3. § 2. nominat Angelos «specula clarissima et munda, receptiva principalis luminis»; de Div. Nom. c. 4. § 2. «luminaria clara», et ibid. § 22. «imago est Dei Angelus, manifestatio occulti luminis, speculum purum». Sequens textus habetur de Div. Nom. c. 2. § 4: Lumina lampadum... dum sunt in domo una, et tota in se invicem totis sunt, et diligentem a se invicem proprie substantem habent discretionem, unita discretione et unitate discreta. — Vocem species, quae infra in corp. quaest. vocantur idola, intellige formas seu qualitates in medio ab obiectis productas, quae repraesentant obiecta. — Codd. K T circa initium argumenti post per aliud simile subiungunt patet.
    On the Celestial Hierarchy, c. 3, § 2, names the Angels «most clear and pure mirrors, receptive of the principal light»; On the Divine Names, c. 4, § 2, «clear luminaries», and ibid. § 22, «the Angel is an image of God, a manifestation of the hidden light, a pure mirror». The following text is had in On the Divine Names, c. 2, § 4: The lights of lamps... while they are in one house, and are wholly in one another wholly, and have, distinguishing them from one another, a properly subsisting discreteness, [a discreteness] united by discreteness and a unity made discrete. — The word species, which below in the body of the question are called idola ["images"], understand [as] the forms or qualities produced in the medium by the objects, which represent the objects. — Codices K T, near the beginning of the argument, after per aliud simile subjoin patet.
  4. Libr. IV. Sent. d. 49. p. II. a. 2. sect. 3. q. 1.
    Book IV Sent. d. 49, p. II, a. 2, sect. 3, q. 1.
  5. Supple cum cod. aa ill[e].
    Supply, with codex aa, ill[e] ["that"].
  6. Hic c. 4.
    Here c. 4.
  7. Cap. 3. n. 30: Inest tamen singulis terminus naturalis, quo a se invicem discernuntur, quia nullus eorum est in alio. — In fine argumenti plures codd. ut F T aa bb omittunt esse simul et.
    Chapter 3, n. 30: Yet there is in each a natural term by which they are discerned from one another, because none of them is in another. — At the end of the argument several codices, as F T aa bb, omit esse simul et.
  8. Nam, ut ait Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Relatione, relativa videntur esse simul natura. — Paulo inferius codd. et edd. 1, 2, 3 dicatur ad locatum per modum mensurantis et per modum definientis pro dicatur ad locatum non per modum mensurantis, sed per modum definientis, quae lectio est in Vat. et a nobis retenta, quia concordat cum dictis q. 1. in corp.
    For, as Aristotle says, Categories, the chapter on Relation, relatives seem to be simultaneous by nature. — A little below the codices and editions 1, 2, 3 [read] dicatur ad locatum per modum mensurantis et per modum definientis for dicatur ad locatum non per modum mensurantis, sed per modum definientis, which reading is in the Vatican edition and retained by us, because it accords with the things said in q. 1 in the body.
  9. Cfr. supra pag. 80, nota 7.
    Cf. above p. 80, note 7.
  10. Ut supra q. 2. probatum est.
    As was proved above in q. 2.
  11. Intellige cum cod. T caeli empyrei. Tanguntur hic argg. in fundam.
    Understand, with codex T, caeli empyrei ["of the empyrean heaven"]. The arguments are touched on here in the fundamenta.
  12. Talis illapsus siquidem convenit soli Deo; cfr. infra d. 8. p. II. q. 2. — Plures codd. alii.
    Such an indwelling indeed belongs to God alone; cf. below d. 8, p. II, q. 2. — Several codices [read] alii.
  13. Cfr. infra d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. in corp.
    Cf. below d. 3, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, in the body.
  14. Vat. Ideo quantum. Mox plures codd. cum ed. 1 prohibet pro prohiberet, et dein codd. I Q bb vel plures species [vel species], ubi cod. T addit sunt.
    The Vatican edition [reads] Ideo quantum. Then several codices with ed. 1 [read] prohibet for prohiberet, and then codices I Q bb vel plures species [vel species], where codex T adds sunt.
  15. Non pauci codd. similia, codd. 1 aa alia.
    Not a few codices [read] similia, codices 1 aa alia.
  16. In codd. A 1 additur scilicet ordo universi.
    In codices A 1 is added scilicet ordo universi. ---
← Dist. 2, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 3Dist. 2, Part 1, Dubia→