Quaestio 51 Question 51 De angelis per comparationem ad corporalia Angels in Comparison with Bodies Deinde quaeritur de angelis per comparationem ad corporalia. Et primo, de comparatione angelorum ad corpora; secundo, de comparatione angelorum ad loca corporalia; tertio, de comparatione angelorum ad motum localem. We next inquire about the angels in comparison with corporeal things; and in the first place about their comparison with bodies; second, of the angels in comparison with corporeal places; and, third, of their comparison with local movement. Circa primum quaeruntur tria. Under the first heading there are three points of inquiry: Primo, utrum angeli habeant corpora naturaliter sibi unita. (1) Whether angels have bodies naturally united to them? Secundo, utrum assumant corpora. (2) Whether they assume bodies? Tertio, utrum in corporibus assumptis exerceant opera vitae. (3) Whether they exercise functions of life in the bodies assumed? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum angeli habeant corpora naturaliter sibi unita Whether the angels have bodies naturally united to them? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod angeli habeant corpora naturaliter sibi unita. Dicit enim Origenes, in libro Peri Archon, solius Dei, idest patris et filii et spiritus sancti, naturae illud proprium est, ut sine materiali substantia et absque ulla corporeae adiectionis societate, intelligatur existere. Bernardus etiam dicit, in VI Homilia super Cant., demus Deo soli, sicut immortalitatem sic incorporeitatem, cuius natura sola, neque propter se neque propter alium, solatio indiget instrumenti corporei. Liquet autem omnem spiritum creatum corporeo indigere solatio. Augustinus etiam dicit, super Gen. ad Litt., Daemones aerea dicuntur animalia, quia corporum aereorum natura vigent. Eadem autem est natura daemonis et angeli. Ergo angeli habent corpora naturaliter sibi unita. Objection 1: It would seem that angels have bodies naturally united to them. For Origen says (Peri Archon i): It is God’s attribute alone—that is, it belongs to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as a property of nature, that He is understood to exist without any material substance and without any companionship of corporeal addition. Bernard likewise says (Hom. vi. super Cant.): Let us assign incorporeity to God alone even as we do immortality, whose nature alone, neither for its own sake nor on account of anything else, needs the help of any corporeal organ. But it is clear that every created spirit needs corporeal substance. Augustine also says (Gen ad lit. iii): The demons are called animals of the atmosphere because their nature is akin to that of aerial bodies. But the nature of demons and angels is the same. Therefore angels have bodies naturally united to them. Praeterea, Gregorius, in homilia Epiphaniae, nominat angelum rationale animal. Omne autem animal componitur ex corpore et anima. Ergo angeli habent corpora naturaliter sibi unita. Obj. 2: Further, Gregory (Hom. x in Ev.) calls an angel a rational animal. But every animal is composed of body and soul. Therefore angels have bodies naturally united to them. Praeterea, perfectior est vita in angelis quam in animabus. Sed anima non solum vivit, sed etiam vivificat corpus. Ergo angeli vivificant corpora naturaliter sibi unita. Obj. 3: Further, life is more perfect in the angels than in souls. But the soul not only lives, but gives life to the body. Therefore the angels animate bodies which are naturally united to them. Sed contra est quod dicit Dionysius, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod angeli sicut incorporales intelliguntur. On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that the angels are understood to be incorporeal. Respondeo dicendum quod angeli non habent corpora sibi naturaliter unita. Quod enim accidit alicui naturae, non invenitur universaliter in natura illa, sicut habere alas, quia non est de ratione animalis, non convenit omni animali. Cum autem intelligere non sit actus corporis nec alicuius virtutis corporeae, ut infra patebit, habere corpus unitum non est de ratione substantiae intellectualis inquantum huiusmodi, sed accidit alicui substantiae intellectuali propter aliquid aliud; sicut humanae animae competit uniri corpori, quia est imperfecta et in potentia existens in genere intellectualium substantiarum, non habens in sui natura plenitudinem scientiae, sed acquirens eam per sensus corporeos a sensibilibus rebus, ut infra dicetur. In quocumque autem genere invenitur aliquid imperfectum, oportet praeexistere aliquid perfectum in genere illo. Sunt igitur aliquae substantiae perfectae intellectuales in natura intellectuali, non indigentes acquirere scientiam a sensibilibus rebus. Non igitur omnes substantiae intellectuales sunt unitae corporibus; sed aliquae sunt a corporibus separatae. Et has dicimus angelos. I answer that, The angels have not bodies naturally united to them. For whatever belongs to any nature as an accident is not found universally in that nature; thus, for instance, to have wings, because it is not of the essence of an animal, does not belong to every animal. Now since to understand is not the act of a body, nor of any corporeal energy, as will be shown later (Q. 75, A. 2), it follows that to have a body united to it is not of the nature of an intellectual substance, as such; but it is accidental to some intellectual substance on account of something else. Even so it belongs to the human soul to be united to a body, because it is imperfect and exists potentially in the genus of intellectual substances, not having the fullness of knowledge in its own nature, but acquiring it from sensible things through the bodily senses, as will be explained later on (Q. 84, A. 6; Q. 89, A. 1). Now whenever we find something imperfect in any genus we must presuppose something perfect in that genus. Therefore in the intellectual nature there are some perfectly intellectual substances, which do not need to acquire knowledge from sensible things. Consequently not all intellectual substances are united to bodies; but some are quite separated from bodies, and these we call angels. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, quorundam opinio fuit quod omne ens esset corpus. Et ex hac existimatione derivatum videtur, quod aliqui existimaverunt nullas substantias incorporeas esse nisi corporibus unitas; adeo quod quidam etiam posuerunt Deum esse animam mundi, ut Augustinus narrat in VII de Civ. Dei. Sed quia hoc fidei Catholicae repugnat, quae ponit Deum super omnia exaltatum, secundum illud Psalmi VIII, elevata est magnificentia tua super caelos, Origenes, hoc de Deo dicere recusans, de aliis secutus est aliorum opinionem; sicut et in multis aliis deceptus fuit, sequens antiquorum philosophorum opiniones. Verbum autem Bernardi potest exponi, quod spiritus creati indigeant corporali instrumento, non naturaliter unito, sed ad aliquid assumpto, ut infra dicetur. Augustinus autem loquitur non asserendo, sed opinione Platonicorum utens, qui ponebant esse quaedam animalia aerea, quae daemones nominabant. Reply Obj. 1: As was said above (Q. 50, A. 1), it was the opinion of some that every being is a body; and consequently some seem to have thought that there were no incorporeal substances existing except as united to bodies; so much so that some even held that God was the soul of the world, as Augustine tells us (De Civ. Dei vii). As this is contrary to Catholic Faith, which asserts that God is exalted above all things, according to Ps. 8:2: Thy magnificence is exalted beyond the heavens; Origen, while refusing to say such a thing of God, followed the above opinion of others regarding the other substances; being deceived here as he was also in many other points, by following the opinions of the ancient philosophers. Bernard’s expression can be explained, that the created spirit needs some bodily instrument, which is not naturally united to it, but assumed for some purpose, as will be explained (A. 2). Augustine speaks, not as asserting the fact, but merely using the opinion of the Platonists, who maintained that there are some aerial animals, which they termed demons. Ad secundum dicendum quod Gregorius nominat angelum rationale animal metaphorice, propter similitudinem rationis. Reply Obj. 2: Gregory calls the angel a rational animal metaphorically, on account of the likeness to the rational nature. Ad tertium dicendum quod vivificare effective simpliciter perfectionis est. Unde et Deo convenit, secundum illud I Reg. II, dominus mortificat et vivificat. Sed vivificare formaliter est substantiae quae est pars alicuius naturae, et non habentis in se integram naturam speciei. Unde substantia intellectualis quae non est unita corpori, est perfectior quam ea quae est corpori unita. Reply Obj. 3: To give life effectively is a perfection simply speaking; hence it belongs to God, as is said (1 Kgs 2:6): The Lord killeth, and maketh alive. But to give life formally belongs to a substance which is part of some nature, and which has not within itself the full nature of the species. Hence an intellectual substance which is not united to a body is more perfect than one which is united to a body. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum angeli assumant corpora Whether angels assume bodies? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod angeli non assumant corpora. In opere enim angeli nihil est superfluum; sicut neque in opere naturae. Sed superfluum esset quod angeli corpora assumerent, angelus enim non indiget corpore, cum eius virtus omnem virtutem corporis excedat. Ergo angelus non assumit corpus. Objection 1: It would seem that angels do not assume bodies. For there is nothing superfluous in the work of an angel, as there is nothing of the kind in the work of nature. But it would be superfluous for the angels to assume bodies, because an angel has no need for a body, since his own power exceeds all bodily power. Therefore an angel does not assume a body. Praeterea, omnis assumptio ad aliquam unionem terminatur, quia assumere dicitur quasi ad se sumere. Sed corpus non unitur angelo ut formae, sicut dictum est. Ex eo autem quod unitur sibi ut motori, non dicitur assumi, alioquin sequeretur quod omnia corpora mota ab angelis, essent ab eis assumpta. Ergo angeli non assumunt corpora. Obj. 2: Further, every assumption is terminated in some union; because to assume implies a taking to oneself. But a body is not united to an angel as to a form, as stated (A. 1); while in so far as it is united to the angel as to a mover, it is not said to be assumed, otherwise it would follow that all bodies moved by the angels are assumed by them. Therefore the angels do not assume bodies. Praeterea, angeli non assumunt corpora de terra vel aqua, quia non subito disparerent; neque iterum de igne, quia comburerent ea quae contingerent; neque iterum ex aere, quia aer infigurabilis est et incolorabilis. Ergo angeli corpora non assumunt. Obj. 3: Further, angels do not assume bodies from the earth or water, or they could not suddenly disappear; nor again from fire, otherwise they would burn whatever things they touched; nor again from air, because air is without shape or color. Therefore the angels do not assume bodies. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, XVI de Civ. Dei, quod angeli in assumptis corporibus Abrahae apparuerunt. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xvi) that angels appeared to Abraham under assumed bodies. Respondeo dicendum quod quidam dixerunt angelos nunquam corpora assumere, sed omnia quae in Scripturis divinis leguntur de apparitionibus angelorum, contigisse in visione prophetiae, hoc est secundum imaginationem. I answer that, Some have maintained that the angels never assume bodies, but that all that we read in Scripture of apparitions of angels happened in prophetic vision—that is, according to imagination. Sed hoc repugnat intentioni Scripturae. Illud enim quod imaginaria visione videtur, est in sola imaginatione videntis, unde non videtur indifferenter ab omnibus. Scriptura autem divina sic introducit interdum angelos apparentes, ut communiter ab omnibus viderentur; sicut angeli apparentes Abrahae, visi sunt ab eo et tota familia eius, et a Loth, et a civibus Sodomorum. Similiter angelus qui apparuit Tobiae, ab omnibus videbatur. Ex quo manifestum fit huiusmodi contigisse secundum corpoream visionem, qua videtur id quod positum est extra videntem, unde ab omnibus videri potest. Tali autem visione non videtur nisi corpus. Cum igitur angeli neque corpora sint, neque habeant corpora naturaliter sibi unita, ut ex dictis patet, relinquitur quod interdum corpora assumant. But this is contrary to the intent of Scripture; for whatever is beheld in imaginary vision is only in the beholder’s imagination, and consequently is not seen by everybody. Yet Divine Scripture from time to time introduces angels so apparent as to be seen commonly by all; just as the angels who appeared to Abraham were seen by him and by his whole family, by Lot, and by the citizens of Sodom; in like manner the angel who appeared to Tobias was seen by all present. From all this it is clearly shown that such apparitions were beheld by bodily vision, whereby the object seen exists outside the person beholding it, and can accordingly be seen by all. Now by such a vision only a body can be beheld. Consequently, since the angels are not bodies, nor have they bodies naturally united with them, as is clear from what has been said (A. 1; Q. 50, A. 1), it follows that they sometimes assume bodies. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod angeli non indigent corpore assumpto propter seipsos, sed propter nos; ut familiariter cum hominibus conversando, demonstrent intelligibilem societatem quam homines expectant cum eis habendam in futura vita. Hoc etiam quod angeli corpora assumpserunt in veteri testamento, fuit quoddam figurale indicium quod verbum Dei assumpturum esset corpus humanum, omnes enim apparitiones veteris testamenti ad illam apparitionem ordinatae fuerunt, qua filius Dei apparuit in carne. Reply Obj. 1: Angels need an assumed body, not for themselves, but on our account; that by conversing familiarly with men they may give evidence of that intellectual companionship which men expect to have with them in the life to come. Moreover that angels assumed bodies under the Old Law was a figurative indication that the Word of God would take a human body; because all the apparitions in the Old Testament were ordained to that one whereby the Son of God appeared in the flesh. Ad secundum dicendum quod corpus assumptum unitur angelo, non quidem ut formae, neque solum ut motori; sed sicut motori repraesentato per corpus mobile assumptum. Sicut enim in sacra Scriptura proprietates rerum intelligibilium sub similitudinibus rerum sensibilium describuntur, ita corpora sensibilia divina virtute sic formantur ab angelis, ut congruant ad repraesentandum angeli intelligibiles proprietates. Et hoc est angelum assumere corpus. Reply Obj. 2: The body assumed is united to the angel not as its form, nor merely as its mover, but as its mover represented by the assumed movable body. For as in the Sacred Scripture the properties of intelligible things are set forth by the likenesses of things sensible, in the same way by Divine power sensible bodies are so fashioned by angels as fittingly to represent the intelligible properties of an angel. And this is what we mean by an angel assuming a body. Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet aer, in sua raritate manens, non retineat figuram neque colorem; quando tamen condensatur, et figurari et colorari potest, sicut patet in nubibus. Et sic angeli assumunt corpora ex aere, condensando ipsum virtute divina, quantum necesse est ad corporis assumendi formationem. Reply Obj. 3: Although air as long as it is in a state of rarefaction has neither shape nor color, yet when condensed it can both be shaped and colored as appears in the clouds. Even so the angels assume bodies of air, condensing it by the Divine power in so far as is needful for forming the assumed body. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum angeli in corporibus assumptis opera vitae exerceant Whether the angels exercise functions of life in the bodies assumed? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod angeli in corporibus assumptis opera vitae exerceant. Angelos enim veritatis non decet aliqua fictio. Esset autem fictio, si corpus ab eis assumptum, quod vivum videtur et opera vitae habens, non haberet huiusmodi. Ergo angeli in assumpto corpore opera vitae exercent. Objection 1: It would seem that the angels exercise functions of life in assumed bodies. For pretence is unbecoming in angels of truth. But it would be pretence if the body assumed by them, which seems to live and to exercise vital functions, did not possess these functions. Therefore the angels exercise functions of life in the assumed body. Praeterea, in operibus angeli non sunt aliqua frustra. Frustra autem in corpore assumpto per angelum formarentur oculi et nares et alia sensuum instrumenta, nisi per ea angelus sentiret. Ergo angelus sentit per corpus assumptum. Quod est propriissimum opus vitae. Obj. 2: Further, in the works of the angels there is nothing without a purpose. But eyes, nostrils, and the other instruments of the senses, would be fashioned without a purpose in the body assumed by the angel, if he perceived nothing by their means. Consequently, the angel perceives by the assumed body; and this is the most special function of life. Praeterea, moveri motu processivo est unum de operibus vitae, ut patet in II de Anima. Manifeste autem angeli apparent in assumptis corporibus moveri. Dicitur enim Gen. XVIII, quod Abraham simul gradiebatur, deducens angelos qui ei apparuerant. Et angelus Tobiae quaerenti, nosti viam quae ducit in civitatem Medorum? Respondit, novi, et omnia itinera eius frequenter ambulavi. Ergo angeli in corporibus assumptis frequenter exercent opera vitae. Obj. 3: Further, to move hither and thither is one of the functions of life, as the Philosopher says (De Anima ii). But the angels are manifestly seen to move in their assumed bodies. For it was said (Gen 18:16) that Abraham walked with the angels, who had appeared to him, bringing them on the way; and when Tobias said to the angel (Tob 5:7, 8): Knowest thou the way that leadeth to the city of Medes? he answered: I know it; and I have often walked through all the ways thereof. Therefore the angels often exercise functions of life in assumed bodies. Praeterea, locutio est opus viventis, fit enim per vocem, quae est sonus ab ore animalis prolatus, ut dicitur in II de Anima. Manifestum est autem ex multis locis Scripturae, angelos in assumptis corporibus locutos fuisse. Ergo in corporibus assumptis exercent opera vitae. Obj. 4: Further, speech is the function of a living subject, for it is produced by the voice, while the voice itself is a sound conveyed from the mouth. But it is evident from many passages of Sacred Scripture that angels spoke in assumed bodies. Therefore in their assumed bodies they exercise functions of life. Praeterea, comedere est proprium opus animalis, unde dominus post resurrectionem, in argumentum resumptae vitae, cum discipulis manducavit, ut habetur Lucae ultimo. Sed angeli in assumptis corporibus apparentes comederunt, et Abraham eis cibos obtulit, quos tamen prius adoraverat, ut habetur Gen. XVIII. Ergo angeli in assumptis corporibus exercent opera vitae. Obj. 5: Further, eating is a purely animal function. Hence the Lord after His Resurrection ate with His disciples in proof of having resumed life (Luke 24). Now when angels appeared in their assumed bodies they ate, and Abraham offered them food, after having previously adored them as God (Gen 18). Therefore the angels exercise functions of life in assumed bodies. Praeterea, generare hominem est actus vitae. Sed hoc competit angelis in assumptis corporibus, dicitur enim Gen. VI, postquam ingressi sunt filii Dei ad filias hominum, illaeque genuerunt, isti sunt potentes a saeculo viri famosi. Ergo angeli exercent opera vitae in corporibus assumptis. Obj. 6: Further, to beget offspring is a vital act. But this has befallen the angels in their assumed bodies; for it is related: After the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown (Gen 6:4). Consequently the angels exercised vital functions in their assumed bodies.