Dist. 8, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 8
QUAESTIO II.
Utrum Angeli quandoque assumant sibi corpora.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum Angeli aliquando assumant corpora. Et quod sic, videtur.
1. Bernardus in Canticum homilia tertia1: «Discurrere et de loco ad locum moveri non est nisi corporum»; sed Angelus ad ministerium discurrit et de loco ad locum venit: ergo vel est corpus, vel habet corpus naturaliter unitum, vel corpus assumtum; sed non primo modo, nec secundo: ergo tertio.
2. Item, nulli potest impendi hospitalitatis obsequium, nisi habeat corpus naturaliter unitum, vel assumtum; sed Angelis aliquando impensa sunt haec officia, sicut dicitur ultimo ad Hebraeos2, quod quidam placuerunt Deo, Angelis hospitio receptis: ergo vel habuerunt corpora unita, vel assumta; sed non habuerunt naturaliter unita: ergo etc.
3. Item, nulla substantia spiritualis ex sui consortio praebet solatium sensui, nisi per inhabitationem corporis fiat visibilis; sed Angeli frequenter praebent solatia non solummodo secundum spiritum, sed etiam secundum sensum, sicut patet in Angelo Tobiae3: ergo inhabitant corpora. Sed illa non habent semper unita: ergo voluntarie assumta.
4. Item, nullus spiritus potest visibiliter demonstrari ad demonstrationem corporis, nisi sit aliquo modo corpori illi coniunctus; sed Angelus, qui loquebatur Tobiae, visibiliter poterat demonstrari, et vere4 dici: hic est Raphael, vel: hic est Angelus: ergo habebat sibi corpus illud aliquo modo coniunctum; sed non per naturalem coniunctionem: ergo per voluntariam assumtionem.
5. Item, nihil est organum vel instrumentum alicuius immediatum, nisi immediate assumatur ab illo, vel naturaliter coniungatur illi; sed Angelus multa exercet opera circa nos, sicut loqui et manducare, quae non possunt exerceri, nisi mediante corpore organico, vel instrumento: ergo etc.
Contra: 1. Maiorem convenientiam habet anima rationalis ad corpus, quam habeat angelicus spiritus; sed anima exuta corpus non assumit: ergo nec spiritus angelicus.
2. Item, proportio debet esse assumentis ad assumtum; sed spiritus angelicus est omnino incorporalis: ergo non habet proportionem ad corpus: ergo nunquam assumit illud.
3. Item, aut competit Angelo habere corpus, aut non competit. Si competit habere, ergo videtur, quod Angeli non sint perfecti, quando non habent corpus. Si non competit, ergo quando assumit, habet quod non decet ipsum: ergo si Angelus bonus non facit, nisi quod decet ipsum, non assumit corpus.
4. Item, si assumit, aut propter aliquid, aut propter nihil. Si propter nihil, ergo frustra; si propter aliquid, aut est bonum, aut malum. Si bonum, ergo per corpus assumtum meretur; si malum, ergo per corpus assumtum demeretur: ergo Angelus debet puniri et praemiari cum corpore assumto; quod est inconveniens et plane falsum.
5. Item, ubicumque est assumtio, ibi est aliqua unio vel in persona, vel in natura, sicut patet in assumtione humanae naturae a Filio Dei: ergo si Angelus assumit corpus, unit sibi vel in persona, vel in natura. Sed non in natura unit sibi, quia non resultat tertium; non in persona, quia non est communicatio idiomatum: ergo nullo modo est ibi unio, ergo nec assumtio.
Conclusio.
Angeli boni interdum corpora assumunt humana sicut instrumenta, signa et habitacula.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in Angelis duplex est vis, scilicet contemplativa et administrativa. Secundum contemplativam convertuntur ad Deum; p. 213et sic non indigent solatio assumti corporis. Secundum administrativam descendunt ad nos, et condescendunt nobis; et ut nobis congruentius condescendant, indigent solatio assumti corporis, indigent inquam, ad aliquas operationes exercendas, indigent ad se ipsos manifestandos, indigent ad nosmetipsos laetificandos sive confortandos. — Et ideo assumunt corpora sicut instrumenta vel organa ad operandum, sicut signa ad manifestandum, sicut cooperimenta vel habitacula ad conversandum. Unde corpus assumtum coniungitur illis sicut instrumentum motori, sicut signum significatori, sicut habitaculum inhabitatori. — Hoc autem magis exigit indigentia ex parte nostra quam indigentia ex parte sua; et quia finis imponit necessitatem his quae sunt ad finem, et corpus effigiatum vel organizatum humana effigie maxime competit operationibus spiritus rationalis, et expressius significat, et tanquam pulchrum indumentum quodam modo decorat: ideo Angelus assumit corpus, non qualecumque, sed humana effigie insignitum. — Et concedendae sunt rationes hoc ostendentes. Ad rationes ad oppositum iam patet responsio.
Ad rationes ad oppositum: 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de anima exuta, satis plana est responsio. Non enim est simile, quia non habet vim administrativam nec usum administrandi; ideo nec corpus assumit nec habere dicitur potentiam assumendi.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod proportio est assumentis etc.; dicendum, quod proportio attenditur et invenitur ibi per eum modum, per quem est assumtio. Cum enim non assumat in unitatem naturae, non requiritur, quod sit ibi proportio sicut perfectionis ad perfectibile; sed sufficit, quod sit proportio sicut motoris ad mobile.
3. Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum competat Angelo habere corpus etc.; dicendum, quod competit habere corpus ut voluntarie assumtum ad complendum ministerium, sed non competit ad suum esse completum; ideo nec carentia generat indigentiam, nec assumtio generat indecentiam.
4. Ad illud quod quaerit: propter quid assumit? utrum propter aliquid, vel propter nihil? dicendum, quod propter aliquid, sicut praedictum est. Illud tamen, propter quod assumit, non perficit5 per corpus, tanquam anima per corpus proprium, sed tanquam artifex per instrumentum; et ideo, sicut instrumentum, per quod quis meretur, non remuneratur, sic nec corpus ab Angelo assumtum.
5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ubi est assumtio, debet esse unio in persona, vel natura; dicendum, quod non sufficienter dividit, quia homo assumit vestimentum, cum se induit, non tamen unit sibi in persona nec in natura; sed illud locum habet in illa assumtione, in qua est unio perfecta, qualis est, cum Dei Filius assumsit humanam naturam.
Ex dictis igitur patet quaestio proposita et responsio ad obiecta; patet etiam, pro quanto dicitur Angelus corpus assumere, quia non solum propter hoc, quod moveatur6 vel operetur aliquid circa corpus, sed quia illud accipit ad se, ut in illo operetur, ut in illo manifestetur, ut in illo conversetur. Et quia in illa coniunctione sive acceptione corpus potius sequitur modum spiritus quam e converso, quia ab illo formatur et conservatur et regitur; ideo Angelus se habet in ratione assumentis et habentis, corpus vero in ratione assumti et habiti.
I. Ut patet per totam hanc quaestionem, praecipue per solutionem ad 5, assumtio tripliciter intelligi potest, scilicet per modum informationis, qua anima humana est substantialis forma (perfectio) corporis; per modum hypostaticae unionis, qua Filius Dei assumsit animam et corpus humanum; per modum cuiusdam accidentalis unionis, qua corpus assumtum non tantum movetur, sed etiam assumitur ut instrumentum, signum et habitaculum; quod bene explicatur in corp. — Quidam autem (inter quos recensetur Uldaricus) dixerunt, Angelos nunquam assumere corpora, eorumque apparitiones factas esse per visiones imaginarias. Quam sententiam S. Thomas in Commentario vocat erroneam, suffragantibus communiter aliis magistris. — In tota quaestione agitur principaliter de Angelis bonis. — In solut. ad 1. negatur, separatas animas humanas habere potentiam hoc modo assumendi corpora, scilicet propria virtute; sicut e contrario Angelus, cum habeat «esse completum» (ad 3.), non potest esse proprie forma substantialis alicuius corporis, ut hic a. 2. q. 1. probatur.
II. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 34. m. 2. 3. 4. — Scot., de hac et seq. q. in utroque Scripto hic q. unica. — S. Thom., hic q. unica, a. 2; S. I. q. 51. a. 2; de Potent. q. 6. a. 7. — B. Albert., hic a. 2; S. p. I. tr. 18. q. 75. m. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., de hac et seq. q. hic a. 1. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 2.
---
QUESTION II.
Whether the Angels sometimes assume bodies to themselves.
Secondly, it is asked whether the Angels sometimes assume bodies. And that they do, [thus] it seems.
1. Bernard On the Canticle, homily three1: «To run hither and thither and to be moved from place to place belongs only to bodies»; but the Angel runs to his ministry and comes from place to place: therefore either he is a body, or he has a body naturally united, or [a body] assumed; but [it is] not [the case] in the first way, nor in the second: therefore in the third.
2. Likewise, the duty of hospitality can be paid to no one unless he has a body naturally united, or assumed; but to the Angels at times these offices have been paid, as is said in the last [chapter of the Epistle] to the Hebrews2, that certain ones pleased God by receiving Angels with hospitality: therefore either they had bodies united [to themselves], or assumed [ones]; but they did not have [bodies] naturally united: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, no spiritual substance, of its [own] consortium, affords solace to sense, unless it become visible through the inhabitation of a body; but the Angels frequently afford solaces not only according to the spirit, but also according to sense, as is plain in the Angel of Tobit3: therefore they inhabit bodies. But they do not always have them united [to themselves]: therefore [they have them] voluntarily assumed.
4. Likewise, no spirit can be shown visibly, by the showing of a body, unless he be in some way joined to that body; but the Angel who spoke with Tobit could be shown visibly, and could truly4 be said: here is Raphael, or: here is an Angel: therefore he had that body joined to himself in some way; but not by a natural conjunction: therefore by a voluntary assumption.
5. Likewise, nothing is an immediate organ or instrument of anyone unless it be immediately assumed by him, or be naturally joined to him; but the Angel performs many works concerning us, such as speaking and eating, which cannot be performed save by means of an organic body or an instrument: therefore etc.
On the contrary: 1. The rational soul has a greater agreement with a body than has the angelic spirit; but the soul stripped [of its body] does not assume a body: therefore neither [does] the angelic spirit.
2. Likewise, there must be a proportion of the one assuming to that which is assumed; but the angelic spirit is altogether incorporeal: therefore he has no proportion to a body: therefore he never assumes one.
3. Likewise, either it befits the Angel to have a body, or it does not befit [him]. If it befits him to have [one], then it seems that the Angels are not perfect when they do not have a body. If it does not befit him, then when he assumes one, he has what is not seemly for himself: therefore, since a good Angel does nothing save what is seemly for himself, he does not assume a body.
4. Likewise, if he assumes [a body], either [it is] for the sake of something, or for nothing. If for nothing, then in vain; if for the sake of something, [that something is] either good or evil. If good, then by the assumed body he merits; if evil, then by the assumed body he demerits: therefore the Angel must be punished and rewarded with the assumed body; which is unfitting and plainly false.
5. Likewise, wherever there is an assumption, there is some union, either in person or in nature, as is plain in the assumption of human nature by the Son of God: therefore if the Angel assumes a body, he unites it to himself either in person or in nature. But [he] does not unite it to himself in nature, because no third [thing] results; nor in person, because there is no communication of idioms: therefore in no way is there a union there, and therefore neither an assumption.
Conclusion.
The good Angels at times assume human bodies as instruments, signs, and dwellings.
I respond: It must be said that in the Angels there is a twofold power, namely the contemplative and the administrative [or ministerial]. According to the contemplative they are turned toward God; p. 213and so they have no need of the solace of an assumed body. According to the administrative, they descend to us, and condescend to us; and that they may more fittingly condescend to us, they need the solace of an assumed body — they need [it], I say, for performing certain operations, they need [it] for manifesting themselves, they need [it] for gladdening or comforting us. — And so they assume bodies as instruments or organs for operating, as signs for manifesting, as coverings or dwellings for conversing. Hence the assumed body is joined to them as an instrument to its mover, as a sign to its signifier, as a dwelling to its inhabitant. — But this is exacted more by the need on our side than by need on theirs; and because the end imposes necessity on those things which are ordered to the end, and because a body fashioned or organized in the human form most befits the operations of a rational spirit, and signifies [them] more expressively, and as a beautiful garment in some way adorns: therefore the Angel assumes a body, not [a body] of any sort, but [one] marked with the human form. — And the arguments showing this must be conceded. To the arguments on the opposite side the response is now plain.
To the arguments on the opposite side: 1. To that which is objected concerning the soul stripped [of its body], the response is plain enough. For [the case] is not similar, because [the separated soul] has neither the administrative power nor the use of administering; and so it neither assumes a body nor is said to have the potency of assuming [one].
2. To that which is objected — that the proportion is of the one assuming etc. — it must be said that the proportion is to be considered and is found there according to that mode by which the assumption is. For since [the Angel] does not assume into the unity of nature, it is not required that there be there a proportion such as [that] of perfection to the perfectible; but it suffices that there be a proportion such as [that] of mover to moved.
3. To that which is asked — whether it befits the Angel to have a body, etc. — it must be said that it befits [him] to have a body as voluntarily assumed for the completing of [his] ministry, but it does not befit [him] for his complete being; and so neither does the lack [of a body] generate a need, nor does the assumption [of one] generate unseemliness.
4. To that which asks: for the sake of what does he assume? — whether for the sake of something or for nothing — it must be said that [he assumes] for the sake of something, as has been said above. Yet that for the sake of which he assumes [a body], he does not accomplish5 through the body as the soul [accomplishes things] through its own body, but as a craftsman [accomplishes things] through his instrument; and therefore, just as the instrument by which one merits is not rewarded, so neither [is] the body assumed by the Angel.
5. To that which is objected — that where there is an assumption, there must be a union in person or in nature — it must be said that [the objection] does not divide sufficiently, because a man assumes a garment when he clothes himself, yet he does not unite it to himself in person or in nature; but that [requirement] has its place in that assumption in which there is a perfect union, such as is [the case] when the Son of God assumed human nature.
From what has been said, then, the proposed question is plain, and the response to the objections; it is also plain in what sense the Angel is said to assume a body, [namely] because not only is he moved6 [in it] or performs something concerning a body, but [also because] he takes it to himself, that he may operate in it, that he may be manifested in it, that he may converse in it. And because in that conjunction or acceptance the body rather follows the mode of the spirit than the converse, since it is formed and conserved and ruled by it; therefore the Angel stands in the relation of the one assuming and having, but the body in the relation of the assumed and the had.
I. As is plain through this whole question, especially through the solution to [argument] 5, assumption can be understood in three ways, namely (1) by way of information [or in-forming], by which the human soul is the substantial form (perfection) of the body; (2) by way of hypostatic union, by which the Son of God assumed a human soul and body; (3) by way of a certain accidental union, by which the assumed body is not only moved, but also assumed as an instrument, a sign, and a dwelling — which is well explained in the body [of the question]. — Some, however (among whom Uldaricus is reckoned), said that the Angels never assume bodies, and that their apparitions were brought about through imaginary visions. This opinion St. Thomas, in his Commentary, calls erroneous, with the other Masters generally agreeing. — In the whole question [the matter] is treated principally of the good Angels. — In the solution to [argument] 1 it is denied that separated human souls have the power of assuming bodies in this mode, namely by their own virtue; just as, on the contrary, the Angel, since he has «complete being» (in the reply to 3), cannot properly be the substantial form of any body, as is proved here, a. 2, q. 1.
II. Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. II, q. 34, m. 2, 3, 4. — Scotus, on this and the following question, in both Writings, here q. unica. — St. Thomas, here q. unica, a. 2; Summa I, q. 51, a. 2; De Potentia q. 6, a. 7. — Blessed Albert, here a. 2; Summa p. I, tr. 18, q. 75, m. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. unica, a. 2, quaestiuncula 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, on this and the following question, here a. 1, q. 2. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 1, a. 2.
---
- Serm. 5. n. 2. — In minori, fide cod. cc et ed. 1, post Angelus expunximus malus, quia quaestio de Angelis generatim quidem, sed principaliter de bonis instituitur.Sermon 5, n. 2. — In the minor [premise], on the authority of cod. cc and ed. 1, after Angelus [Angel] we have expunged malus [evil], because the question is set up about the Angels generally indeed, but principally about the good [ones].
- Vers. 2, ubi Vulgata latuerunt pro placuerunt Deo, quod tamen invenitur apud Gregor., Hom. 23. in Evang. n. 2. et apud Haymonem in hunc locum. — Paulo inferius post corpora in codd. T bb a secunda manu adiungitur naturaliter [bb naturaliter sibi].[Hebr. 13,] verse 2, where the Vulgate [reads] latuerunt [they remained hidden] for placuerunt Deo [they pleased God], which however is found in Gregory, Homily 23 On the Gospels, n. 2, and in Haymo on this passage. — A little below, after corpora [bodies], in codd. T bb by a second hand is added naturaliter [naturally] [bb: naturaliter sibi (naturally to themselves)].
- Tob. 5. seqq.Tobit 5 ff.
- Cod. aa hic bene repetit poterat. Pro ultimo ergo in hoc arg. plures codd. cum ed. 1 substituunt sed.Cod. aa here rightly repeats poterat [could]. For the last ergo [therefore] in this argument, several codices with ed. 1 substitute sed [but].
- Id est: exsequitur.That is, exsequitur [carries out, accomplishes].
- Vat. cum nonnullis codd. moveat.The Vatican edition, with some codices, [reads] moveat [let him move (subjunctive)]. ---