Dist. 8
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 8
Distinctio VIII.
Pars I.
Cap. I. Utrum omnes Angeli corporei sint.
Solet etiam in quaestione versari apud doctos, utrum Angeli omnes, boni scilicet ac mali, corporei sint, id est, corpora habeant sibi unita. Opinio quorundam: Quod aliqui putant, innitentes verbis Augustini1, qui dicere videtur, quod Angeli omnes ante confirmationem vel lapsum corpora aerea habuerunt de puriore ac superiore aëris parte formata, ad faciendum habilia, non ad patiendum; et Angelis bonis, qui perstiterunt, talia conservata sunt corpora, ut in eis possint facere et non pati, quae tantae sunt tenuitatis, ut a mortalibus videri non valeant nisi supervestita aliqua grossiori forma, qua assumta videntur, depositaque videri desinunt; angelis vero malis mutata sunt in casu corpora in deteriorem qualitatem spissioris aëris. Sicut enim a loco digniori in inferiorem locum, id est in caliginosum aërem deiecti sunt, ita illa corpora tenuia transformata sunt in deteriora corpora et spissiora, in quibus possent pati a superiori elemento, id est ab igne. Et hoc Augustinus sensisse videtur super Genesim2 ita dicens: «Daemones dicuntur aerea animalia, quia corporum p. 208aëreorum natura vigent; nec per mortem dissolvuntur, quia praevalet in eis elementum aptius ad faciendum quam ad patiendum. Ad patiendum enim humor et humus, ad faciendum aër et ignis aptitudinem praebent». «Transgressores vero angeli cum principe suo nunc diabolo, tunc Archangelo, non mirum, si post peccatum in hanc caliginem detrusi sunt». «Neque etiam hoc mirum est, si conversi sunt ex poena in aëream qualitatem, qua possunt ab igne pati. Caliginosa tamen aëris tenere tantum permissi sunt, qui eis quasi carcer sit usque ad tempus iudicii». — Ecce his verbis videtur Augustinus3 id tradere quod quidam opinantur de corporibus Angelorum. Alii aliter Augustinum exponunt: — Hoc autem eum alii dixisse astruunt, non ita sentiendo, sed opinionem aliorum referendo, quod ex ipsius verbis diiudicare voluit. Augustinus: quibus ait: «Daemones dicuntur aerea animalia», non ait sunt4; ita enim quidam dicebant. De habitatione vero caliginosi aëris, in quem detrusi sunt, non opinando, sed rei veritatem asserendo eum tradidisse dicunt, quod ipsius locutionis distinctio ostendit. Dicunt quoque, plurimos catholicos tractatores in hoc convenisse atque id concorditer docuisse, quod Angeli incorporei5 sunt nec corpora habent sibi unita; assumunt autem aliquando corpora, Deo praeparante, ad impletionem ministerii sibi a Deo iniuncti, eademque post expletionem deponunt, in quibus corporibus hominibus apparuerunt atque locuti sunt. Et aliquando quidem locuti sunt ex persona Dei sine distinctione alicuius personae, aliquando ex persona Patris, vel Filii, sive Spiritus sancti.
Cap. II. De formis, quibus apparuit Deus, et de illis, in quibus Angeli apparent.
Nec dubitandum est, Deum in corporalibus formis apparuisse hominibus, sicut Augustinus in secundo libro de Trinitate6 ostendit, conferens diversa Scripturae testimonia, ex quibus Deum in corporeis figuris hominibus apparuisse probat, et aliquando ex persona Dei sine distinctione, aliquando sub distinctione personarum sermonem eis factum esse.
Cap. III. Quod Deus in specie, qua Deus est, nunquam apparuit mortalibus.
Sed ubi Deum hominibus in corporalibus imaginibus apparuisse asserit, perplexam quaestionem proponit, quam nec absolvit, quaerens, utrum in ipsis corporalibus apparitionibus creatura aliqua crearetur ad illud opus tantum, in qua Deus hominibus appareret; an Angeli, qui ante erant, ita mitterentur, manentes in suis spiritualibus corporibus, assumerent ex corpulenta inferiorum elementorum materia aliquam speciem corporalem, quam coaptatam quasi aliquam vestem mutarent in quaslibet species corporales, veras quidem; an corpus suum proprium verterent in species aptas actionibus suis, per virtutem sibi a Deo datam. Augustinus: Ait enim ita Augustinus in tertio de Trinitate7: «Quaerendum est in illis antiquis corporalibus formis et visis, utrum ad hoc opus tantum creatura formata sit, in qua Deus, sicut tunc oportuisse iudicavit, humanis ostenderetur aspectibus; an Angeli, qui iam erant, ita mittebantur, ut ex persona Dei loquerentur, assumentes corporalem speciem de creatura corporea in usum ministerii sui; an ipsum corpus suum, cui non subduntur, sed subditum regunt, mutantes atque vertentes in species, quas vellent, accommodatas atque aptas actionibus suis secundum attributam sibi a Creatore potentiam»? «Sed fateor8 excedere vires intentionis meae, utrum Angeli, manente spirituali sui corporis qualitate, per hanc occultius operantes assumant ex inferioribus elementis corpulentioribus corpus, quod sibi coaptatum quasi aliquam vestem mutent et vertant in quaslibet species corporales, et ipsas veras, sicut aqua vera in vinum verum conversa est a Domino; an ipsa propria corpora sua transforment in id quod volunt, accomodatum9 ad id quod agunt. Sed quod horum sit, quoniam homo sum, nullo experimento comprehendere valeo, sicut Angeli, qui hoc agunt». — Iudicium Magistri: Attende, lector, quia quaestionem propositam non solvit, sed indiscussam reliquit, utrum Angeli, qui mittebantur, servatis suis propriis spiritualibus corporibus, supervestirentur aliqua corpulentiori specie, in qua possent videri; an ipsum corpus mutarent et transformarent in quamcumque vellent speciem, in qua possent cerni. In quibus verbis videtur Augustinus attestari, Angelos esse corporeos ac propria et spiritualia habere corpora.
Deus in se mortali oculo non apparuit: Ceterum haec velut nimis profunda atque obscura relinquentes, illud indubitanter teneamus, quod Deus in specie essentiae suae nunquam mortalibus apparuit, sicut famulo suo Moysi dicit10: Non videbit me homo, et vivet. Et in Evangelio Ioannis legitur: Deum nemo vidit unquam. Dubium 1: «Visibile enim quidquam non est, quod non sit mutabile». Dubium 2: «Ideo substantia sive essentia Dei, quoniam nullo modo mutabilis est, nullo modo potest per se ipsam esse visibilis. Proinde illa omnia, quae patribus visa sunt, cum Deus illis praesentaretur, per creaturam facta esse manifestum est. Etsi nos latet, quomodo ea ministris Angelis fecerit Deus, per Angelos tamen facta esse dicimus». Dubium 3: «Audeo igitur fiducialiter dicere, nec Deum Patrem nec Verbum eius nec Spiritum eius, qui est unus Deus, per id quod est atque id ipsum est, ullo modo esse mutabilem, ac per hoc multo minus visibilem»11.
Pars II.
Cap. IV. Quomodo dicuntur daemones intrare in homines.
Illud etiam consideratione dignissimum videtur, utrum daemones, sive corporei sive incorporei sint, hominum substantialiter intrent corpora eorumque animabus illabantur; an ideo intrare dicantur, quia malitiae suae effectum ibi exercent Dei permissione, opprimendo atque vexando eas, vel in peccatum pro voluntate sua trahendo. — Quod in homines introeant atque ab eis expulsi exeant, Evangelium12 aperte declarat, commemorans daemonia in quosdam ingressa et per Christum eiecta; sed utrum secundum substantiam fuerint ingressa, an propter mali effectum dicantur ingressa, non adeo perspicuum est. De hoc autem Gennadius: Gennadius in Definitionibus ecclesiasticorum Dogmatum13 ait: «Daemones per energicam operationem non credimus substantialiter illabi animae, sed applicatione et oppressione uniri. Illabi autem menti illi soli possibile est, qui creavit, qui natura subsistens incorporeus capabilis est suae facturae». — Ecce hic videtur insinuari, quod substantialiter non illabantur daemones vel introeant corda hominum. Beda quoque super illum locum Actuum Apostolorum14, ubi Petrus ait Ananiae: Cur tentavit et implevit satanas cor tuum? dicit: «Notandum, quod mentem hominis iuxta substantiam nihil implere possit nisi creatrix Trinitas, quia tantummodo secundum operationem et voluntatis instinctum anima de his quae sunt creata, impletur. Implet vero satanas cor alicuius, non quidem ingrediens in eum et in sensum eius, neque introiens aditum cordis — siquidem potestas haec solius Dei est — sed callida et fraudulenta deceptione animam in effectum malitiae trahens per cogitationes et incentiva vitiorum, quibus plenus est. Implevit ergo satanas cor Ananiae non intrando, sed malitiae suae virus inserendo». Idem15: «Spiritus immundus, flamma virtutum de cordibus fidelium expulsus, doctoribus veritatis venenum persecutionis infundit». — His auctoritatibus ostenditur, quod daemones non substantialiter intrant corda hominum, sed propter malitiae effectum, de quibus pelli dicuntur, cum nocere non sinuntur.
---
Distinction 8.
Part I.
Cap. I. Whether all Angels are corporeal.
It is also wont to be debated among the learned, whether all Angels, namely both good and evil, are corporeal — that is, whether they have bodies united to themselves. The opinion of certain men: Some hold this, relying on the words of Augustine1, who seems to say that all Angels before their confirmation or fall had airy bodies formed from the purer and higher part of the air, fit for acting, not for suffering; and for the good Angels who stood firm, such bodies were conserved, so that in them they could act and not suffer, [bodies] which are of such tenuity that they cannot be seen by mortals unless overclothed with some grosser form, in which assumed they are seen, and when [the form is] laid aside they cease to be seen; but for the evil angels their bodies were changed in their fall into the worse quality of denser air. For just as they were thrown down from a more dignified place into a lower place — that is, into the murky air — so those tenuous bodies were transformed into worse and denser bodies, in which they could suffer from a higher element, that is, from fire. And Augustine seems to have meant this on Genesis2, thus saying: «Demons are called airy animals, because they thrive by the nature of airy p. 208bodies; nor are they dissolved by death, because in them the element prevails which is more fit for acting than for suffering. For to suffering, moisture and earth, [and] to acting, air and fire offer fitness». «But the angels who transgressed, with their prince — now the devil, then the Archangel — it is no wonder if after sin they were thrust down into this murk». «Neither indeed is it wonderful, if they were turned by their punishment into an airy quality, by which they can suffer from fire. Yet they have been allowed to keep only the murky [part] of the air, which to them is as a prison until the time of judgment». — Behold, by these words Augustine3 seems to hand down that which some hold concerning the bodies of Angels. Others expound Augustine otherwise: — But others maintain that he said these things not by holding so, but by reporting the opinion of others, which he wished to be judged by his own words. Augustine: He says: «Demons are called airy animals»; he does not say are4; for thus some were saying. But concerning the inhabiting of the murky air, into which they were thrust down, they say that he handed [it] down not by opining, but by asserting the truth of the matter, which the distinction of his own speech shows. They also say that very many catholic doctors have agreed in this and have concordantly taught that the Angels are incorporeal5 and have no bodies united to themselves; but that they sometimes assume bodies, God preparing them, for the fulfillment of the ministry enjoined upon them by God, and lay them aside again after the fulfillment — in which bodies they appeared to men and spoke. And sometimes indeed they spoke from the person of God without distinction of any [trinitarian] person; sometimes from the person of the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit.
Cap. II. Of the forms in which God appeared, and of those in which Angels appear.
Nor is it to be doubted that God appeared to men in bodily forms, as Augustine shows in the second book On the Trinity6, by comparing diverse testimonies of Scripture from which he proves that God appeared to men in bodily figures, and that sometimes speech was made [to them] from the person of God without distinction, sometimes under a distinction of persons.
Cap. III. That God in the species in which God is never appeared to mortals.
But where he asserts that God appeared to men in bodily images, he proposes a perplexing question, which he does not resolve, asking whether in those bodily appearances some creature was created for that work alone, in which God might appear to men; or whether Angels who existed before were so sent, [that] remaining in their own spiritual bodies, they assumed from the corpulent matter of the lower elements some bodily species, which fitted to them as a kind of garment they changed into whatever bodily species they would, true ones indeed; or whether they turned their own proper body into species fit for their actions, by virtue given to them by God. Augustine: For Augustine says thus in the third [book] On the Trinity7: «It must be asked, concerning those ancient bodily forms and visions, whether a creature was formed for this work only, in which God, as he then judged fitting, might be shown to human eyes; or whether the Angels who already were [in being] were so sent, that they spoke from the person of God, assuming a bodily species from a bodily creature for the use of their ministry; or [whether] their own body — to which they are not subjected, but [which] subjected they govern — they were changing and turning into the species they would, accommodated and fit for their actions, according to the power attributed to them by their Creator»? «But I confess8 it exceeds the powers of my intention [to determine] whether the Angels, the spiritual quality of their body remaining, by it operating more hiddenly, assume from the more corpulent lower elements a body which, fitted to themselves as a kind of garment, they change and turn into whatever bodily species [they will] — and those true ones, as true water was turned into true wine by the Lord —; or whether they transform their own proper bodies into that which they will, accommodated9 to that which they do. But which of these it is, since I am a man, I can by no experience comprehend, as the Angels, who do this, [can]». — The Master's judgment: Notice, reader, that he did not resolve the proposed question, but left it undiscussed, whether the Angels who were sent, retaining their own proper spiritual bodies, were overclothed with some more corpulent species in which they could be seen; or whether they changed and transformed the body itself into whatever species they would, in which they could be perceived. In these words Augustine seems to attest that the Angels are corporeal and have their own proper and spiritual bodies.
God in himself has not appeared to a mortal eye: But leaving these things as too deep and obscure, let us undoubtedly hold this, that God in the species of his own essence has never appeared to mortals, as he says to his servant Moses10: Man shall not see me, and live. And in the Gospel of John it is read: No one has ever seen God. Doubt 1: «For there is nothing visible which is not mutable». Doubt 2: «Therefore the substance or essence of God, since it is in no way mutable, can in no way be in itself visible. Hence all those things which were seen by the fathers, when God was being presented to them, it is manifest were made through a creature. And although it is hidden from us how God did these things through the ministering Angels, yet we say that they were done through Angels». Doubt 3: «I dare therefore confidently to say, that neither God the Father, nor his Word, nor his Spirit — who is one God — in respect of that which he is, and is the very same, is in any way mutable, and through this much less visible»11.
Part II.
Cap. IV. In what way demons are said to enter into men.
That also seems most worthy of consideration, whether demons — whether they be corporeal or incorporeal — substantially enter into the bodies of men and pour themselves into their souls; or whether they are said to enter [only] for this reason, that they exercise the effect of their malice there, by God's permission, oppressing and harassing them, or drawing them into sin by their own will. — That they do enter into men and, expelled by them, go out, the Gospel12 openly declares, recording the demons that entered into certain people and were cast out by Christ; but whether they entered according to substance, or are said to enter on account of the effect of evil, is not so clear. Concerning this, however, Gennadius: Gennadius in the Definitions of Ecclesiastical Dogmas13 says: «We do not believe that demons substantially flow into the soul by an energetic operation, but [that they] are united [to it] by application and oppression. To flow into the mind is possible to him alone who created [it], who, being by nature subsisting incorporeal, is capable of his own creation». — Behold, here it seems insinuated that demons do not substantially flow into or enter the hearts of men. Bede also, upon that passage of the Acts of the Apostles14, where Peter says to Ananias: Why has Satan tempted and filled your heart?, says: «It must be noted, that nothing can fill the mind of man according to substance except the Trinity which created [it], because only according to operation and the instinct of the will is the soul filled by those things which are created. But Satan fills the heart of someone, not indeed entering into him and into his senses, nor going in by the entrance of the heart — since this power belongs to God alone — but by a cunning and fraudulent deception dragging the soul into the effect of malice through the thoughts and incitements of the vices, with which he himself is full. Satan therefore filled the heart of Ananias not by entering, but by infusing the poison of his own malice». The same15: «The unclean spirit, a flame of vices driven from the hearts of the faithful, pours the poison of persecution into the teachers of the truth». — By these authorities it is shown that demons do not substantially enter the hearts of men, but on account of the effect of malice, on account of which they are said to be driven out, when they are not allowed to harm.
---
- Retract. I. c. 26. Cfr. Sermo 277. c. 8. n. 8, et praecipue Fulgent., de Trin. c. 9. — Paulo ante pro doctos codd. C E doctores. Paulo inferius pro conservata, quod ex codd. A C et edd. 1, 8 restituimus, Vat. cum aliquibus codd. et edd. observata.Augustine, Retractationes I, c. 26. Cf. Sermon 277, c. 8, n. 8, and especially Fulgentius, On the Trinity c. 9. — A little before, for doctos ['the learned'] codices C and E read doctores ['doctors']. A little below, for conservata ['conserved'] (which we have restored from codices A and C and editions 1 and 8), the Vatican edition with some codices and editions reads observata ['observed'].
- Libr. III. c. 10. n. 14. et 15, ubi et duo loci seqq. — Cod. Erf. ad hunc locum recte annotat: et est in Glossa Gen. — Producant aquae [v. 20.]. In originali: quapropter, etsi daemones aerea sunt animalia etc. In Glossa ponitur, ut hic, dicuntur. — Paulo superius post tenuia Vat. cum paucis tantum codd. interiicit mutata sunt et. In textu cit. Vat. cum nonnullis codd. qui corporum pro quia corporum.On Genesis [literally], book III, c. 10, nn. 14 and 15, where also the two following passages [are found]. — Codex Erf. rightly notes at this place: and it is in the Gloss on Genesis. — Let the waters bring forth [v. 20]. In the original: wherefore, even though demons are airy animals etc. In the Gloss it is put, as here, they are called. — A little above, after tenuous, the Vatican edition with only a few codices inserts they were changed and. In the text cited, the Vatican edition with several codices reads who of bodies in place of because of bodies.
- Cfr. etiam lib. VIII. de Civ. Dei, c. 16.Cf. also On the City of God, book VIII, c. 16.
- Sed cfr. supra pag. 207, nota 2.But cf. above, p. 207, note 2.
- Sola Vat. corporei, quae et paulo inferius cum cod. B E et nonnullis edd. voci ministerii adiungit sui.The Vatican edition alone reads corporei ['corporeal'] [for incorporei], and likewise a little below, with codices B E and several editions, adds sui ['his/its own'] to the word ministerii.
- Cap. 5, 6, 7, seqq.Chapters 5, 6, 7 ff.
- Cap. 1. n. 4. et II. c. 7. n. 13.Chapter 1, n. 4, and II, c. 7, n. 13.
- Ibid. (III. c. 1.) n. 5. Paulo inferius respicitur Ioan. 2.Ibid. (III, c. 1) n. 5. A little below, John 2 is referred to.
- Vat. sola accomodata. — Ad verba sequentia In quibus verbis videtur Augustinus attestari annotat cod. Erf.: Non hoc asserit August., quod hic asserit Magister... sicut patet XXI. de Civ. Dei, c. 10, quem librum posterius scripsit quam librum de Trin., sicut patet libro II. Retract.The Vatican edition alone reads accomodata [feminine]. — On the following words In these words Augustine seems to attest codex Erf. notes: Augustine does not assert this — what the Master here asserts — as is clear from XXI On the City of God c. 10, a book he wrote later than the book On the Trinity, as is clear from book II of his Retractationes.
- Exod. 33, 20; seq. loc. Evang. Ioan. 1, 18.Exodus 33, 20; the following passage [is from] the Gospel of John 1, 18.
- August., III. de Trin. c. 10. n. 21. Loc. sequens ibid. habetur c. 11. n. 21. 22, in quo textu pro potest... esse visibilis Vat. cum nonnullis aliis edd. visibilis est. Tertius locus est ibid. c. 10. n. 21. Post verba per id quod est edd. 1, 8 adiiciunt invariabile.Augustine, On the Trinity III, c. 10, n. 21. The following passage is found in the same [work], c. 11, nn. 21–22, in which text for can ... be visible the Vatican edition with several other editions reads is visible. The third passage is in the same place, c. 10, n. 21. After the words through that which is, editions 1 and 8 add invariable.
- Matth. 8, 16; Marc. 1, 23. seqq; Luc. 4, 41.Matthew 8, 16; Mark 1, 23 ff.; Luke 4, 41.
- De Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus c. 50. — Vat. et ed. 4 verbis in libro de Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus praefigunt Augustinus; falso. Cod. Erf. annotat: «Forte Gennadius iste compilavit de verbis August. libellum suum, sicut Prosper de Vera Innocentia». Sed infra dicit: «Illud est Augustini in libro de Ecclesiast. Dogmat.».On Ecclesiastical Dogmas, c. 50. — The Vatican edition and edition 4 prefix to the words in the book On Ecclesiastical Dogmas the name Augustinus — falsely. Codex Erf. notes: «Perhaps this Gennadius compiled his little book from the words of Augustine, just as Prosper [did from his] On True Innocence». But below he says: «That is from Augustine in the book On Ecclesiastical Dogmas».
- Cap. 5, 3. Verba et implevit exstant in codd. et edd. 1, 8, sed in Vulg. desunt. Sumta sunt ex Glossa ordin., ubi legitur: Beda, alia translatio: Quare implevit satanas cor tuum; notandum, quod mentem etc. Cod. Erf. hic annotat: «...et illud est in libro Didymi de Spiritu sancto [n. 18.]».Acts 5, 3. The words and filled are present in the codices and editions 1 and 8, but are absent from the Vulgate. They are taken from the ordinary Gloss, where it reads: Bede, in another translation: Why has Satan filled your heart?; it must be noted that the mind etc. Codex Erf. notes here: «...and that is in the book of Didymus On the Holy Spirit [n. 18]».
- Ibid. ad c. 28, 3, in expositione Bedae et in Glossa ordinaria. In textu cit. post veritatis Vat. cum aliquibus edd. interiicit luctantibus.Ibid., at c. 28, 3, in the exposition of Bede and in the ordinary Gloss. In the text cited, after of the truth, the Vatican edition with some editions inserts struggling. ---