← Back to Distinction 8

Dist. 8, Part 1, Art. 3, Q. 1

Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 8

Textus Latinus
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.

ARTICULUS III.

De corporis formati et assumti operatione.

Consequenter quaeritur de tertio, scilicet quas operationes exercet Angelus in corpore assumto; et circa hoc quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur, utrum ibi exerceat operationes animae1 vegetativae.

Secundo, utrum ibi exerceat operationes potentiae sensitivae.

p. 219

QUAESTIO I.

Utrum Angelus in corporibus assumtis exerceat operationes potentiae vegetativae.

Ad oppositum. Circa primum proceditur sic et ostenditur, quod operationes potentiae vegetativae exerceat in corpore assumto tam bonus Angelus quam malus.

De bonis Angelis. 1. Cibari sive comedere est actus spectans ad potentiam vegetativam; sed hunc actum exercent Angeli in corpore assumto, sicut probatur ex eo quod scribitur Genesis decimo octavo2, ubi Abraham Angelis exposuit cibaria, et sicut ibidem legitur, comederunt.

2. Item, non decet nuntios veritatis falsis ostensionibus decipere oculos hominis intuentis; sed Angeli apparentes comederunt cum his, ad quos mittebantur, sicut frequenter legitur in Scriptura3: ergo vere cibabantur. Sed iste est actus vegetativae potentiae: ergo etc.

3. Item, lingua congruit in duo opera naturae, in locutionem et cibationem4; sed Angeli in assumtis corporibus per linguam vere et proprie loquebantur: ergo vere cibabantur. Redit ergo idem quod prius, scilicet quod boni Angeli in assumto corpore vegetativae potentiae actum exercent.

De malis. 4. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur de malis. Generare enim est actus potentiae vegetativae5; sed daemones mediantibus corporibus assumtis generant, sicut dicit Iosephus, narrans illud quod scribitur Genesis sexto de generatione gigantium: Videntes filii Dei etc.: ergo etc.

5. Item, communis opinio est de Merlino, quod generatus fuit a daemone incubo6: sed si hoc daemon incubus non potuit nisi mediante corpore assumto, ergo idem quod prius.

6. Item, actus ordinatus ad generationem est per commixtionem cum sexu femineo, vel virili; sed daemon succubus se viro subiicit subiectione, in qua est effusio seminis, et daemon incubus mulieri incumbit: ergo videtur, quod si possint coire, quod possint etiam generare: ergo in assumto corpore exercent actum potentiae vegetativae.

Ad oppositum arguitur sic et ostenditur, quod bonis Angelis non competat actus cibandi — Fundamenta.

De bonis. 1. Scribitur enim Tobiae duodecimo7, et est verbum Raphaelis Angeli: Videbar quidem vobiscum comedere et bibere; ego vero cibo et potu invisibili utor: ergo non vere Angelus comedebat cibum corporalem, etsi videbatur comedere.

2. Item, ubicumque est vera cibatio, ibi est deperditi restauratio; sed in corporibus assumtis ab Angelis nulla fit deperditio, quia non est ibi caloris consumtio: ergo etc.

3. Item, ubi est vera cibatio, ibi est separatio puri ab impuro; hoc autem non facit Angelus beatus in corpore assumto: ergo etc.

De malis. 4. Item, quod malis angelis non competat generatio, videtur, quia generatio est consimilis in specie8; sed daemon, assumens corpus, non assimilatur homini, sed daemoni: ergo non generat hominem, sed si generat, generat daemonem; quod patet esse falsum: ergo etc.

5. Item, ad hoc quod fiat generatio, necesse est quod, secundum medicum, concurrat triplex spiritus, scilicet naturalis, vitalis et animalis, secundum Philosophum9, triplex calor, videlicet calor animae, calor caeli et calor elementi: ergo cum daemon nec spiritum animalem nec calorem animalem in corpore assumto possit habere, videtur, quod nullo modo possit generare.

6. Item, generare non est actus animae et10 corporis, sed coniuncti; sed ex daemone et corpore non fit unum: ergo nunquam potest per corpus exire in actum generandi.

CONCLUSIO.

Angelus in corpore assumto non habet operationem animae vegetativae, nec quoad cibationem nec quoad generationem, sed operationes aliquatenus his conformes.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod — Conclusio. — spiritus angelicus, sive bonus sive malus, in corpore assumto non habet operationem11 animae vegetativae, nec quantum ad cibationem nec quantum ad generationem; quia nec habet vim nutritivam nec habet vim generativam, habet tamen aliquo modo operationes his conformes, licet non plene.

Ratio quoad cibationem. Et hoc patet, si attendatur natura cibationis et generationis. In cibatione enim est cibi sumtio et consumtio, est nihilominus conversio et unio; et quantum ad primum competit Angelo in corpore assumto cibatio sive comestio non simulate, sed vere, quia cibum sibi appositum vere sumebant et consume

p. 220

bant. Verumtamen cibus assumtus eorum indigentiam vel deperditionem non restaurabat, quia talis cibatio ex potentia, non ex indigentia est in Angelis; his vero, quae vegetantur, non tantum est potentia, sed etiam indigentia. Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus12, quod sicut «aliter absorbet aquam terra sitiens, aliter radius calefaciens», sic aliter competit cibatio homini, aliter competit Angelo, sive aliter homini viatori, aliter beato. — Ratio quoad generationem. Per hunc etiam modum circa actum generationis in aliquo conformatur spiritus assumens corpus, in aliquo vero non. Nam in actu generationis et est seminis constitutio secundum nervos et virtutes et calores tali speciei competentes, et est seminis sic perfecti transfusio et susceptio. Primum est solius illius, cui Deus dedit vim propagativam; et hoc nullo modo competit daemonibus assumentibus corpus. Secundum vero, videlicet seminis susceptio et transfusio eis potest competere. Primo enim succumbunt viris in specie mulieris et ex eis semen pollutionis suscipiunt et quadam sagacitate ipsum in sua virtute custodiunt, et postmodum, Deo permittente, fiunt incubi et in vasa mulierum transfundunt, ex qua transfusione homines generari possunt13.

Epilogus. His visis facile respondetur ad quaestionem propositam et ad argumenta: ad quaestionem, quia simpliciter concedendum est, quod non habent opera potentiae generativae et nutritivae14, quae sunt generare et alimento uti, sicut ostendunt rationes ad hoc inductae. Habent tamen aliquas operationes his conformes, non in toto, sed in parte; et hoc probant rationes ad oppositum inductae, ostendentes videlicet, quod Angeli boni comedunt, et quod mali generant. Verum enim est, quod boni Angeli cibum sumserunt15, sed non ad suam refectionem, sed ad dantium consolationem; et ideo non erat ibi error nec deceptio nec illusio, quantum erat ex parte ipsorum Angelorum, licet aliquis ignorans illorum naturam posset ex hoc accipere occasionem opinandi falsum.

Solutio oppositorum. 1. 2. 3. Et sic patet responsio ad tres rationes primas.

4. 5. 6. Concedendum est etiam, quod daemones secundum viam praedictam semen possunt suscipere et transfundere, si Deus permittat; sed non quod possint alimentum in verum semen propria virtute16 convertere. Ideo dicuntur quodam modo generare, sicut ostendunt tres rationes sequentes. — Attamen ultima ratio non cogit; plus enim est generare quam coire; et ideo non sequitur, si possunt coire cum muliere, quod propter hoc possint eam impraegnare vel ex ea prolem generare.

Scholion

I. Utramque huius articuli quaestionem alii commentatores, praeter Richardum a Med. et Aegid. R., una tractatione absolvunt. Responsio autem negativa ad utramque eodem nititur principio, supra a. 2. q. 1. stabilito, scilicet quod Angeli assumtis corporibus non uniuntur ut perfectio sive forma substantialis, dans actum primum vitae, sed potius modo quodam accidentali. Hinc sequitur, eosdem in corporibus assumtis non posse exercere operationes vitae, quae sunt actus secundi. Actus enim secundus praesupponit actum primum.

II. Quoad comestionem, de qua agitur q. 1, est diversus modus loquendi inter doctores, quia verbum comedere non in eodem omnino sensu ab ipsis accipitur. S. Bonav. distinguit perfectam cibationem, quae est operatio animae vegetativae, a simplice manducatione; illam negat Angelis in corpore assumto competere, sed comestionem asserit eis competere «non simulate, sed vere». Quid intelligat esse proprie comestionem, ipse explicat IV. Sent. d. 9. a. 1. q. 2. his verbis: «Licet multiplex actus sit in manducatione corporali, annexus et consequens; iste tamen duplex est, qui est de integritate, masticatio scilicet et incorporatio»; sed alibi (ibid. d. 12. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. ad 3.) ait: «In manducatione tria sunt: masticatio, in ventrem traiectio et incorporatio». Ubi autem loquitur de cibatione hominis communi (ibid. q. 3. ad 3.), addit quartum, scil. perditi restaurationem. — Quoad generationem, quam quidam daemonibus attribuerunt, S. Doctor quadam utitur cautela, nihil affirmans de facto, sed tantum modum explicans, quo hoc fieri possit, si Deus illud permittat. Ad rem de hoc ab aliis supposito facto dicit Richard. a Med. (hic a. 1. q. 5.): «Aliqui tamen hoc dicunt magis debere poni sub dubio, quam aliqua pars asseri, cum et Augustinus, III. de Civit. Dei, c. 5. de hoc sub dubitatione loquatur. Et bene mihi videtur rationabile, quod alteram partem pertinaciter affirmare non expedit».

III. In quaest. 2. notanda sunt plura, quae de anima, ut est perfectio sive forma corporis, secundum doctrinam communem docentur. — De anima ut forma dicitur in corp., eam esse hoc aliquid, i. e. substantiam primam. Hoc autem non valet de omnibus formis substantialibus (cfr. supra d. 7. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. ad 4.), sed tantum de anima humana, quia est «per se nata subsistere et agere et pati, movere et moveri, quod habet intra se fundamentum suae existentiae et principium materiale, a quo habet existere, et formale, a quo habet esse» (infra d. 17. q. 2. in corp.). De anima sensitiva cfr. infra d. 15. a. 1. q. 1. ad 2.

IV. De utraque quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 35. m. 1. 2. — Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. unica, n. 4. seqq. — S. Thom., hic q. unica, a. 4; S. I. q. 51. a. 3; de Potent. q. 6. a. 8. — B. Albert., hic a. 5; S. p. I. tr. 18. q. 75. m. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 5. 6. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 1. 2. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2. — Biel, hic q. 1.

---

English Translation

Article III.

On the operation of the formed and assumed body.

Consequently the third article is taken up, namely what operations the Angel exercises in the assumed body; and concerning this, two things are inquired.

First, whether he there exercises the operations of the vegetative soul1.

Second, whether he there exercises the operations of the sensitive power.

p. 219

Question I.

Whether the Angel in assumed bodies exercises the operations of the vegetative power.

On the opposite side. The procedure on the first [question] is as follows, and it is shown that he exercises the operations of the vegetative power in the assumed body — both the good Angel and the evil.

On good Angels. 1. To be fed or to eat is an act belonging to the vegetative power; but the Angels exercise this act in an assumed body, as is proved from what is written in Genesis 182, where Abraham set food before the Angels, and as is read in the same place, they ate.

2. Likewise, it is not fitting that the messengers of truth deceive by false displays the eyes of the man who beholds them; but the appearing Angels ate with those to whom they were sent, as is frequently read in Scripture3: therefore they were truly fed. But this is an act of the vegetative power: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the tongue is fitted for two works of nature: speech and feeding4; but the Angels in assumed bodies truly and properly spoke with their tongue: therefore they were truly fed. The same point therefore returns, namely that the good Angels in an assumed body exercise the act of the vegetative power.

On evil Angels. 4. Likewise, this same point is shown of the evil ones. For to generate is an act of the vegetative power5; but the demons, by means of assumed bodies, generate, as Josephus says when telling what is written in Genesis 6 about the generation of the giants: The sons of God seeing, etc.: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, it is the common opinion concerning Merlin that he was begotten by an incubus demon6: but if the incubus demon could not have done this except by means of an assumed body, then the same conclusion as before.

6. Likewise, an act ordered to generation is by commingling with the female or male sex; but the succubus demon submits itself to a man with a submission in which there is an emission of seed, and the incubus demon lies upon a woman: therefore it seems that if they can have intercourse, they can also generate: therefore in an assumed body they exercise the act of the vegetative power.

On the opposite side it is argued thus, and it is shown that the act of feeding does not befit the good Angels — Fundamenta.

On the good. 1. For it is written at Tobit 127, and is the word of the angel Raphael: I seemed indeed to eat and drink with you; but I use food and drink that are invisible: therefore the Angel did not truly eat bodily food, although he seemed to eat.

2. Likewise, wherever there is true feeding, there is restoration of what is lost; but in bodies assumed by Angels no loss occurs, because there is no consumption of heat in them: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, where there is true feeding, there is separation of the pure from the impure; this, however, the blessed Angel does not do in an assumed body: therefore etc.

On the evil. 4. Likewise, that generation does not befit the evil angels seems to follow, because generation is between things alike in species8; but the demon, assuming a body, is not made like to a man but to a demon: therefore it does not generate a man — and if it does generate, it generates a demon; which is plainly false: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, for generation to occur it is necessary, according to the medical authority, that a triple spirit concur — namely natural, vital, and animal — and, according to the Philosopher9, a triple heat — namely heat of the soul, heat of the heaven, and heat of the element: therefore since the demon can have neither animal spirit nor animal heat in an assumed body, it seems that in no way can it generate.

6. Likewise, to generate is not an act of the soul and10 the body [taken separately], but of the conjoined whole; but from demon and body one being is not made: therefore it can never come into the act of generating through the body.

Conclusion.

The Angel in an assumed body does not have the operation of the vegetative soul, neither as to feeding nor as to generation, but operations to some extent conformed to these.

I respond: It must be said that — Conclusion. — the angelic spirit, whether good or evil, does not have in an assumed body the operation11 of the vegetative soul, neither as to feeding nor as to generation; because it has neither nutritive power nor generative power, yet it does have in some manner operations conformed to these, though not fully.

Reason as to feeding. And this is plain if the nature of feeding and of generation be considered. For in feeding there is taking and consuming of food, and there is moreover conversion and union; and as to the first, feeding or eating belongs to the Angel in an assumed body not feignedly but truly, because the food placed before them they truly took and consumed.

p. 220

But the food taken was not restoring their need or loss, because such feeding is in the Angels by power, not by need; whereas in those things which are nourished, there is not only power but also need. And this is what Augustine12 says, that just as «the thirsty earth absorbs water in one way, the warming ray of sun in another», so in one way feeding befits man, in another it befits the Angel — or, in one way the wayfaring man, in another the blessed. — Reason as to generation. In this same way also, concerning the act of generation, the spirit that assumes a body conforms to it in some respects and not in others. For in the act of generation there is both the constitution of seed according to nerves and powers and heats appropriate to such a species, and there is the transfusion and reception of the seed thus made perfect. The first belongs only to him to whom God has given the power of propagation; and this in no way befits the demons assuming a body. The second, however — namely the reception and transfusion of seed — can befit them. For first they submit to men in the form of a woman and from them receive the seed of pollution, and by a certain craftiness preserve it in its own power; and afterwards, with God permitting, they become incubi and pour it into the wombs of women, by which transfusion human beings can be generated13.

Epilogue. These things being seen, the question proposed and the arguments are easily answered: as to the question, because it must be straightforwardly conceded that they do not have the operations of the generative and nutritive14 power — which are to generate and to use food — as the arguments adduced to this point show. They have, however, some operations conformed to these, not wholly but in part; and this the arguments on the opposite side prove, namely showing that the good Angels eat, and that the evil ones generate. For it is true that the good Angels took food15, but not for their own refreshment, but for the consolation of those giving; and therefore there was no error nor deception nor illusion there, as far as concerned the Angels themselves — although one ignorant of their nature might take occasion from this to opine something false.

Solution of the opposed arguments. 1, 2, 3. And so the answer to the first three arguments is plain.

4, 5, 6. It must also be conceded that the demons, according to the manner described above, can take up and pour over the seed, if God permits; but not that they can convert food into true seed by their own power16. Therefore they are said in some manner to generate, as the three following arguments show. — Yet the last argument does not have force; for to generate is more than to have intercourse; and so it does not follow that if they can have intercourse with a woman, they can on that account impregnate her or generate offspring from her.

Scholion

I. Both questions of this article other commentators — excepting Richard of Mediavilla and Aegidius Romanus — handle in one treatment. And the negative response to both rests on the same principle established above at a. 2, q. 1, namely that the Angels are not united to assumed bodies as a perfection or substantial form giving the first act of life, but rather in a certain accidental manner. From this it follows that they cannot exercise in assumed bodies the operations of life, which are second acts. For the second act presupposes the first act.

II. As to eating — which is the subject of q. 1 — there is a diversity of usage among the doctors, because the word to eat is not received by them in exactly the same sense. St. Bonaventure distinguishes perfect feeding, which is an operation of the vegetative soul, from simple chewing-and-swallowing; the former he denies to the Angels in an assumed body, but eating he asserts to befit them «not feignedly, but truly». What he understands properly by eating, he himself explains at IV Sent. d. 9, a. 1, q. 2 in these words: «Although the act in bodily chewing-and-swallowing is manifold, with annexed and consequent acts, yet it is twofold as regards its integrity — namely mastication and incorporation»; but elsewhere (ibid. d. 12, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, ad 3) he says: «In chewing-and-swallowing there are three things: mastication, transmission into the belly, and incorporation». But where he speaks of feeding common to man (ibid. q. 3, ad 3), he adds a fourth, namely restoration of what is lost. — As to generation, which some have attributed to demons, the holy Doctor uses a certain caution, asserting nothing as actually done, but only explaining the manner in which it might be done, if God should permit it. To the point treated by others on the supposition of the fact, Richard of Mediavilla (here a. 1, q. 5) says: «Some nevertheless say that this ought rather to be placed in doubt than any part be asserted, since even Augustine, On the City of God III, c. 5, speaks of this in a manner of doubt. And it seems to me reasonable that obstinately to affirm either side is not expedient».

III. In q. 2 several things must be noted which are taught according to the common doctrine concerning the soul as the perfection or form of the body. — Of the soul as form it is said in the body [of the article] that it is this something (hoc aliquid), i.e. a primary substance. But this does not hold of all substantial forms (cf. above d. 7, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, ad 4), but only of the human soul, because it is «of itself fit to subsist and to act and to suffer, to move and to be moved, having within itself the foundation of its existence and a material principle from which it has to exist, and a formal principle from which it has to be» (below d. 17, q. 2, in the body of the article). On the sensitive soul see below d. 15, a. 1, q. 1, ad 2.

IV. On both questions: Alex. of Hales, Summa P. I, q. 35, m. 1, 2. — Scotus, in both Scripta, here q. unica, n. 4 ff. — St. Thomas, here q. unica, a. 4; Summa I, q. 51, a. 3; On Power q. 6, a. 8. — Bl. Albert, here a. 5; Summa P. I, tr. 18, q. 75, m. 4. — Petr. of Tarentaise, here q. unica, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 5, 6. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 2, a. 1, 2. — Durandus, here q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2. — Biel, here q. 1.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. In Vat. additur seu potentiae.
    In the Vatican edition the phrase or power is added.
  2. Vers. 8. seq.
    Verse 8 ff. [i.e. Gen. 18:8 ff.].
  3. Gen. 18, 8. et 19, 3; Tob. 12, 19.
    Gen. 18:8 and 19:3; Tob. 12:19.
  4. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 88. (c. 8.) et II. de Partibus animalium, c. 16. seq.
    Aristotle, On the Soul II, text 88 (c. 8) and On the Parts of Animals II, c. 16 f.
  5. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 34. (c. 4.). — De minori vide Flav. Ioseph., I. de Antiq. Iud. c. 3. et Gen. 6, 2.
    Aristotle, On the Soul II, text 34 (c. 4). — On the minor premise see Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities I, c. 3, and Gen. 6:2.
  6. Cfr. Bibliogr. univ. sub verbo Merlinus.
    Cf. the Universal Bibliography, under the word Merlinus.
  7. Vers. 19, ubi Vulgata, posito manducare pro comedere, ultimam partem sic exhibet: sed ego cibo invisibili et potu, qui ab hominibus videri non potest, utor.
    Verse 19 [i.e. Tob. 12:19], where the Vulgate, putting manducare in place of comedere, gives the last part thus: «but I use food and drink that are invisible, which cannot be seen by men».
  8. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 34. seq. (c. 4.).
    Aristotle, On the Soul II, text 34 f. (c. 4).
  9. Cfr. II. de Gener. animal. c. 3. — De triplici spiritu cfr. Costa Ben-Luca, de Differentia animae et spiritus. (ed. Barach, Innsbruck, 1878).
    Cf. On the Generation of Animals II, c. 3. — On the triple spirit cf. Costa Ben-Luca, On the Difference between Soul and Spirit (ed. Barach, Innsbruck, 1878).
  10. Cod. aa bene aut.
    Codex aa reads bene aut [i.e. «truly, or»].
  11. Cod. aa potentiam.
    Codex aa reads potentiam [«power»].
  12. Epist. 102. seu libr. ad Deogratias, q. 1. n. 6: Aliter enim absorbet terra aquam sitiens, aliter solis radius candens: illa indigentia, iste potentia. — Paulo superius nonnulli codd. ut W Y aa in his vero pro his vero.
    Letter 102, or the book To Deogratias, q. 1, n. 6: «For the thirsty earth absorbs water in one way, the burning ray of the sun in another: the former by need, the latter by power». — A little above, several codices such as W, Y, aa read in his vero in place of his vero.
  13. Cfr. August., XV. de Civ. Dei, c. 23. n. 1. — Mox plures codd. His visis facile est respondere et ad quaestionem.
    Cf. Augustine, On the City of God XV, c. 23, n. 1. — Soon after, several codices read His visis facile est respondere et ad quaestionem [«These things being seen, it is easy to respond also to the question»].
  14. Fide cod. aa substituimus nutritivae pro vegetativae, quod tanquam genus sub se continet potentiam nutritivam et generativam.
    On the authority of codex aa we have substituted nutritivae for vegetativae, which as a genus contains under itself the nutritive and generative power.
  15. Cod. I prosequitur: et erat cibi vera comestio quantum ad actum exteriorem; quia vero cibum sumebant et consumebant, licet non quoad interiorem, quia non erat indigentiae suppletio nec deperditi restauratio, unde cibum sumserunt non ad suam etc.
    Codex I continues: «and there was true eating of food as regards the exterior act; for they truly took and consumed the food, though not as regards the interior, because there was no replenishment of need nor restoration of what was lost — whence they took food not for their own [refreshment]», etc.
  16. Ita codd. F K cc et ed. 1; alii per propriam virtutem.
    Thus read codices F, K, cc, and edition 1; others read per propriam virtutem [«through their own power»]. ---
← Dist. 8, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 2Dist. 8, Part 1, Art. 3, Q. 2→