Bonaventure

The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation; each entry gives the Quaracchi note in Latin followed by an English rendering.

QUAESTIO II.

Utrum corpora ab Angelis assumta fiant de natura caelesti, an elementari.

Secundo quaeritur de corpore assumto a parte principii materialis. Et quaeritur, utrum corpus illud, quod assumit Angelus, fiat de natura caelesti, an elementari. Et quod fit de natura caelesti, videtur:

1. Finis imponit necessitatem his quae sunt ad finem; sed Angelus assumit corpus ad sui ipsius ostensionem: cum ergo Angeli per naturam sint lumina¹, debent ergo assumere corpora de natura lucis: ergo de natura caelesti.

2. Item, organum sive instrumentum debet conformari moventi sive motori²; sed Angelus assumens corpus ut instrumentum est immutabilis et impassibilis per naturam: ergo et corpus, unde corpus assumtum formatur, debet esse incorruptibile et impassibile. Tale autem non est nisi corpus caeleste: ergo etc.

3. Item, locus maxime competens Angelo est corpus caeleste, ut caelum³: si ergo Angelus in corpore assumto locatur tanquam in habitaculo, videtur, quod corpus illud sit sumtum de caelo, aut non competit ipsi Angelo.

4. Item, corpus assumtum aut est de natura caelesti, aut elementari. Si de natura caelesti, habeo propositum; si de elementari: aut gravi, aut levi. Sed si est de gravi, cum difficultate movetur sursum; si de levi, violenter movetur deorsum. Ergo si neutrum horum competit velocitati angelicae, corpus, quod assumunt, non est elementare: ergo est corpus caeleste.

5. Item, si est elementare, aut est mixtum, aut simplex. Si simplex, ergo non est aptum ad colorem nec ad effigiem nec ad organizationem. Si mixtum, ergo cum corpus mixtum sit resolubile et rarefactibile, videtur, quod sicut corpus humanum ex separatione animae fit putridum, sic et corpus ab Angelo assumtum; quod apparet esse falsum. Restat ergo, quod non est corpus elementare; sed est elementare, vel caeleste; ergo etc.

6. Item, si est corpus elementare, habet contrarium, sive sit simplex, sive sit mixtum: ergo si transeat per regionem ignis, videtur, quod quidquid est in eo humidum, consumatur; si vero per regionem aquae, quidquid est in eo igneum, extinguatur. Quod si hoc constat esse falsum, ergo si Angelus sine laesione pertransit regiones omnium elementorum cum corpore assumto, constat, illud non esse de natura elementari; et est de natura elementari, vel caelesti: ergo etc.

Ad oppositum arguitur sic — Fundamenta: 1. Primo auctoritate. Gregorius⁴ ait enim sic: «Nunquam Abraham Angelos videre potuisset, nisi corpus ex aere assumsissent». Et Beda de Natura rerum⁵: «Angeli ad nos venientes corpus ex aere sumunt».

2. Item, ratione sic. Angeli assumunt corpora maxime propter motum et discursum; sed corpus caeleste non est habile ad motum rectum, sed circularem⁶: ergo non competit in ministerio angelico assumere corpus de caelo.

3. Item, Angelus assumit corpus ad apparendum, et hoc in humana effigie; sed corpus caeleste nec est terminativum visus nec est figurabile: ergo non videtur ad constitutionem corporis assumti ab Angelo tunc habile⁷.

4. Item, si assumit corpus de caelo; cum non assumat de toto, assumit de parte: ergo separat et dividit partem caeli a toto. Sed omne divisibile est corruptibile: ergo videtur, quod natura caelestis sit corruptibilis; sed hoc est falsum⁸: ergo et primum.

5. Item, si assumit corpus de caelo; cum assumat partem, quam fert secum deorsum, aut aliquid subintrat locum eius, aut nihil. Si nihil, ergo remanet vacuum; si aliquid, aut oportet illud de novo creari, aut oportet corpus illud rarefieri: ergo si haec omnia sunt inconvenientia, patet etc.

6. Item, angelus satanae frequenter se transfigurat in angelum lucis⁹, et tunc constat, quod assumit corpus ita pulcrum, sicut et Angelus bonus; sed daemones non assumunt corpora de natura caelesti, quia usque ad illam non conscendunt, sed solum de natura elementari: ergo similiter videtur, quod et Angeli boni.

CONCLUSIO.

Angeli assumunt corpora ex natura non caelesti, sed elementari, non simplici, sed imperfecte commixta, utpote ex aere vaporabili.

Respondeo: Ad horum intelligentiam est notandum, quod circa hoc diversae fuerunt sapientium opiniones.

Opinio 1. Quidam enim dicere voluerunt, quod Angeli assumunt corpora ex natura elementari, ita tamen, quod non ex uno tantum, sed ex omnibus simul mixtis, aliquo tamen eorum praedominante; unde dicunt, corpus illud ab Angelo assumtum esse vere corpus mixtum, quamvis non sit vere corpus humanum. Illam autem formam mixtionis dicunt esse ab Angelo tanquam a praeparante solum, sed a Domino tanquam a dante, dante, inquam, non per creationem vel infusionem, sed per intrinsecam operationem, secundum quam dictum est supra¹⁰ quod indidit rebus naturas et virtutes seminarias, secundum quas, Deo cooperante, cunctae naturales formae producuntur in esse.

Alii opponunt. Sed cum corpus illud quasi repente formetur et destruatur, aliis non videtur probabile, quod sit plena mixtione mixtum, maxime cum in eius resolutione nec appareat temporis longitudo nec putrefactionis corruptio; et ideo dixerunt — opinio 2 — quod corpus illud est de natura elementari simplici, ex qua dicunt illud corpus assumtum formari hoc modo. Natura enim elementaris, ex qua corpus sibi format Angelus, est aeris elementum, quod de sui natura est rarefactibile et condensabile, si adsit virtus, quae hoc possit. Unde sicut videmus, aquam solidari in crystallum vel glaciem ex frigore; sic contingit aliqua virtute occulta, quae non latet Angelos, aerem condensari posse secundum plus et minus ad voluntatem Angeli operantis. Hoc autem corpus, dum condensatur, potest suscipere figuram et effigiem, et ita corpori organico¹¹ effici conforme. Potest nihilominus in una parte condensari plus, in alia minus, in alia minime, et sic conformari nervo, ossi et carni. Potest etiam in una sui parte intercipere plus de luce, in alia minus, in alia minime, et secundum hoc habere in se diversos colores; et ita corpori humano effici quasi in omnibus conforme, quamvis non sit in suis principiis multiforme, et ita idoneum esse instrumentum, signum et habitaculum¹², ut ab Angelo assumatur.

Improbatur. Sed quia adhuc hoc difficile est intelligere, quomodo scilicet ex aere sive alterius elementi commixtione fiat corpus solidum et diversis coloribus coloratum, cum colores producere non sit artis, nisi mediante auxilio naturae; ideo tertia via — opinio 3 — adhuc videtur esse probabilior, scilicet quod corpus assumtum ab Angelo corpus elementare est, non quia sit ex quatuor elementis plena mixtione commixtum, sicut corpus complexionatum, nec quia sit ex puro et simplici elemento formatum, sed quia principaliter formatur ex aere cum aliqua admixtione alterius elementi; sicut videmus in nube, quae non est corpus plene mixtum, habet tamen in se naturas plurium elementorum.

Per hunc modum et corpus ab Angelo assumtum principaliter ab aere intelligitur esse formatum, concurrente ad hoc natura alicuius vaporis terrei¹³ vel aquosi, qui quidem faciat tam ad varietatem condensationis, quam ad multiformitatem coloris. Notandum. Hanc autem non oportet Angelum de longinquo mendicare, cum aer pro magna sui parte sit commixtum vaporibus. — Et hanc positionem mediam inter utramque, tanquam ex utraque constitutam, ad praesens possumus sustinere.

Conclusio. Ad quaestionem igitur propositam breviter respondendum, quod Angelus tam bonus quam malus assumit corpus ex natura non caelesti, sed elementari, non simplici nec plene commixta, sed medio modo, utpote ex aere vaporabili; angelus tamen malus ex parte inferiori, bonus vero ex parte superiori, non inquam superiori, in qua nulla reperiatur natura alterius elementi, sed superiori comparatione et respectu eius partis, de qua assumunt corpora angeli mali. — Ideo concedendae sunt rationes, quod corpora ab Angelis assumta non sint de natura caelesti, sed elementari.

Solutio oppositorum. 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Angelus assumit corpus ad sui ostensionem; dicendum, quod Angelus non tantummodo se ostendit, pensata dignitate sive nobilitate sua, sed etiam idoneitate signi et necessitate ex parte nostra. Licet igitur eius dignitas omnis corporis nobilitatem praecellat, quia tamen corpus elementare facit¹⁴ ad eius manifestationem, secundum quod nostra exigit indigentia, et ad hoc est idoneum, ut sit corporis organici materia: ideo magis competit, ut Angelus de ipso sumat corpus quam de caelesti natura.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod instrumentum debet conformari motori; dicendum, quod verum est, quando organum sive instrumentum est ei perpetuo coniunctum; sed quando coniungitur solum ad tempus, sufficit, ut sibi pro opportunitate loci et temporis et operis conformetur; et sic est in proposito reperire.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Angelus locatur in corpore assumto tanquam in habitaculo; iam patet responsio, quia non est habitaculum debitum Angelo quantum ad excellentiam suae dignitatis, sed quantum ad indigentiam nostrae infirmitatis. Et quoniam statui nostrae infirmitatis plus conformatur elementaris natura quam caelestis; ideo, etsi habitaculum caeleste plus competat Angelo ad contemplandum, tamen habitaculum ex corpore elementari plus competit Angelo ad ministrandum¹⁵.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur: aut est corpus grave, aut leve; dicendum, quod nec simpliciter grave nec simpliciter leve, tum quia est ex aere, tum quia ex aere commixto vapori; et ideo est habile ad motum secundum omnem positionem; quod non esset, si esset corpus simplex ponderosum, aut leve.

5. Ad aliud iam patet responsio, quia nec est omnino simplex, immo quodam modo mixtum, ut competat colori et organizationi, nec adeo mixtum, ut subiaceat putrefactioni, sed medium tenet, ut praedictum est.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod patitur a contrario; dicendum, quod sicut formatio illius corporis, quamvis sit ex adiutorio naturae, tamen principaliter est a virtute spiritualis substantiae, propter hoc, quia effigies illius corporis plus est artificialis quam naturalis; sic et conservatio illius corporis est a virtute angelica. Unde sicut sua virtute absque manibus corpus illud effigiat, sic sua virtute protegit et conservat; et ipso deserente, redit corpus ad praeiacentem materiam. Ideo sicut eius conservatio non pendet ex simili, ita nec¹⁶ corruptio fit a contrario.

Question II.

Whether the bodies assumed by Angels are made of celestial or elemental nature.

Second, it is asked about the body assumed with regard to its material principle. And it is asked whether that body which the Angel assumes is made of celestial or elemental nature. And that it is made of celestial nature, it seems:

1. The end imposes necessity on the things which lead to the end; but the Angel assumes a body for his own showing-forth: since therefore the Angels are by nature lights¹, they ought therefore to assume bodies of the nature of light: therefore of celestial nature.

2. Likewise, the organ or instrument must be conformed to the mover or motor²; but the Angel assuming a body as an instrument is immutable and impassible by nature: therefore also the body out of which the assumed body is formed must be incorruptible and impassible. But such a thing is none other than a celestial body: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the place most befitting an Angel is a celestial body, namely the heaven³: if therefore the Angel is placed in the assumed body as in a dwelling, it seems that body must be taken from the heaven, or else it does not befit the Angel.

4. Likewise, the assumed body is either of celestial nature or of elemental nature. If of celestial nature, I have my point; if of elemental: either heavy or light. But if of heavy, it is moved upward with difficulty; if of light, it is moved downward by violence. Therefore if neither of these befits angelic swiftness, the body they assume is not elemental: therefore it is a celestial body.

5. Likewise, if it is elemental, it is either mixed or simple. If simple, then it is not apt for color, nor for figure, nor for organization. If mixed, then since a mixed body is dissoluble and rarefiable, it seems that, just as the human body becomes putrid by the separation of the soul, so too does the body assumed by an Angel; which appears to be false. It remains, therefore, that it is not an elemental body; but it is elemental or celestial: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, if it is an elemental body, it has a contrary, whether it be simple or mixed: therefore if it passes through the region of fire, it seems that whatever moisture is in it would be consumed; and if through the region of water, whatever fire is in it would be extinguished. But if this is established as false, then since the Angel passes without injury through the regions of all the elements with the assumed body, it is established that the body is not of elemental nature; and yet it is of elemental or of celestial nature: therefore etc.

On the opposite side it is argued thus — Fundamenta: 1. First, by authority. Gregory⁴ says thus: «Abraham could never have seen the Angels unless they had assumed bodies from air». And Bede, On the Nature of Things⁵: «The Angels coming to us take to themselves a body from air».

2. Likewise, by reason. Angels assume bodies chiefly for the sake of motion and traversal; but a celestial body is not fit for rectilinear motion but only for circular⁶: therefore it does not befit angelic ministry to assume a body from the heaven.

3. Likewise, the Angel assumes a body for the sake of appearing, and that in a human figure; but a celestial body neither terminates the sight nor is figurable: therefore it does not seem fit at that time for the constitution of the body assumed by the Angel⁷.

4. Likewise, if he assumes a body from the heaven: since he does not assume the whole, he assumes part of it: therefore he separates and divides a part of the heaven from the whole. But every divisible is corruptible: therefore it seems that celestial nature is corruptible; but this is false⁸: therefore so is the first [supposition].

5. Likewise, if he assumes a body from the heaven: since he assumes a part which he carries down with him, either something enters into its place, or nothing does. If nothing, then a vacuum remains; if something, then either it must be created anew, or that body must be rarefied: therefore if all these are unfitting, the conclusion is plain, etc.

6. Likewise, the angel of Satan frequently transfigures himself into an angel of light⁹, and then it is plain that he assumes a body as beautiful as that of a good Angel; but the demons do not assume bodies of celestial nature, because they do not ascend to that nature, but only of elemental: therefore it seems likewise that good Angels do not [assume from celestial nature].

Conclusion.

Angels assume bodies from a nature not celestial but elemental — not simple, but imperfectly mixed, namely from vaporous air.

I respond: For the understanding of these matters it must be noted that on this question there were various opinions of the wise.

Opinion 1. Some have wished to say that Angels assume bodies from elemental nature, yet in such a way that not from one only, but from all mixed together, with one of them however predominating; whence they say that the body assumed by an Angel is truly a mixed body, although not truly a human body. They say, however, that the form of that mixture is from the Angel as from one preparing only, but from the Lord as from one giving — giving, I say, not by creation or infusion, but by an intrinsic operation, according to which it was said above¹⁰ that He bestowed on things their natures and seminal powers, in accordance with which, by God's cooperation, all natural forms are produced in being.

Others reply. But since this body is, as it were, suddenly formed and destroyed, it does not seem probable to others that it is mixed by a full mixture, especially since in its dissolution neither length of time nor corruption of putrefaction appears; and so they said — opinion 2 — that that body is of simple elemental nature, from which they say that the assumed body is formed in this way. For the elemental nature out of which an Angel forms a body for itself is the element of air, which by its own nature is rarefiable and condensable, if there be a power which can do this. Hence just as we see water solidify into crystal or ice from cold, so it happens by some hidden power, which is not unknown to the Angels, that air can be condensed in greater or lesser measure according to the will of the Angel operating. And this body, while it is being condensed, can take on figure and form, and so be made conformed to an organic body¹¹. It can nevertheless be condensed more in one part, less in another, least in still another, and so be conformed to nerve, bone, and flesh. It can also in one of its parts intercept more of light, in another less, in another least, and according to this have within itself diverse colors; and so be made conformed in nearly all things to a human body, although it is not multiform in its principles; and so be fit to be instrument, sign, and dwelling¹², so that it may be assumed by an Angel.

It is disapproved. But since this is still difficult to understand — namely how out of air or out of a mixture with another element a solid body is made, colored with diverse colors, when to produce colors is not of art except by the mediation of nature — therefore a third way — opinion 3 — seems still more probable, namely that the body assumed by the Angel is an elemental body, not because it is mixed by a full mixture of the four elements like a complexioned body, nor because it is formed from a pure and simple element, but because it is principally formed from air with some admixture of another element; as we see in a cloud, which is not a fully mixed body, but yet has in itself the natures of several elements.

In this way also the body assumed by an Angel is understood to be formed principally from air, with the nature of some earthy¹³ or watery vapor concurring to this, which serves both for variety of condensation and for multiformity of color. To be noted. Nor must the Angel beg this from afar, since air is for the most part itself mingled with vapors. — And this middle position between the two — as constituted out of both — we can for the present uphold.

Conclusion. To the question proposed it must therefore be briefly answered that the Angel, whether good or evil, assumes a body from a nature not celestial but elemental — not simple, nor fully mixed, but in a middle manner, namely from vaporous air; the evil angel, however, from a lower part, the good from a higher part — not, I say, "higher" in the sense that there no nature of another element is to be found, but "higher" by comparison and with respect to that part from which evil angels assume bodies. — Therefore the arguments must be conceded which prove that the bodies assumed by Angels are not of celestial but of elemental nature.

Solution of the opposed arguments. 1. To that which is objected, that the Angel assumes a body for his own showing-forth: it must be said that the Angel does not only show himself — weighing his dignity or nobility — but also [shows himself] from the fitness of the sign and the need on our side. Although therefore his dignity surpasses the nobility of every body, yet because an elemental body does serve¹⁴ for his manifestation, in accordance with what our neediness demands, and is fit for this so as to be matter of an organic body: therefore it is more fitting that the Angel take a body from it rather than from celestial nature.

2. To that which is objected, that an instrument must be conformed to its motor: it must be said that this is true when the organ or instrument is joined to it permanently; but when it is joined only for a time, it suffices that it be conformed to it according to the opportunity of place, time, and work; and so it is in the case proposed.

3. To that which is objected, that the Angel is placed in the assumed body as in a dwelling: the answer is now plain, because it is not a dwelling befitting the Angel with respect to the excellence of his dignity, but with respect to the neediness of our infirmity. And since the elemental nature is more conformed to the state of our infirmity than the celestial; therefore, even if a celestial dwelling is more befitting the Angel for contemplating, yet a dwelling of an elemental body is more befitting the Angel for ministering¹⁵.

4. To that which is objected — whether the body is heavy or light: it must be said that it is neither absolutely heavy nor absolutely light, both because it is made of air, and because it is of air mixed with vapor; and therefore it is fit for motion in every direction, which would not be the case if it were a simple body, weighty or light.

5. To the other, the answer is now plain, because it is neither altogether simple — rather it is in some way mixed, so that it is suited to color and to organization — nor so mixed as to be subject to putrefaction; but it holds a middle position, as has been said above.

6. To that which is objected, that it suffers from a contrary: it must be said that, just as the formation of that body — although it is by the aid of nature — is yet principally from the power of the spiritual substance, on this account, that the form of that body is more artificial than natural; so also the conservation of that body is from angelic power. Hence just as by his own power without hands he gives that body its figure, so by his own power he protects and conserves it; and when he abandons it, the body returns to its underlying matter. Therefore just as its conservation does not depend on a like thing, so neither¹⁶ does its corruption come from a contrary.