Directory:Logic Museum/Aquinas Summa-I-50-53

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE – QUESTIONS L - LIII

Question 50.1
Question 50.2
Question 50.3
Question 50.4
Question 50.5
Question 51.1
Question 51.2
Question 51.3
Question 52.1
Question 52.2
Question 52.3
Question 53.1
Question 53.2
Question 53.3

Latin	English
Iª q. 50 pr. Post haec considerandum est de distinctione corporalis et spiritualis creaturae. Et primo, de creatura pure spirituali, quae in Scriptura sacra Angelus nominatur; secundo, de creatura pure corporali; tertio, de creatura composita ex corporali et spirituali, quae est homo. Circa vero Angelos, considerandum est primo de his quae pertinent ad eorum substantiam; secundo, de his quae pertinent ad eorum intellectum; tertio, de his quae pertinent ad eorum voluntatem; quarto, de his quae pertinent ad eorum creationem. De substantia autem eorum considerandum est et absolute, et per comparationem ad corporalia. Circa substantiam vero eorum absolute, quinque quaeruntur. Primo, utrum sit aliqua creatura omnino spiritualis, et penitus incorporea. Secundo, supposito quod Angelus sit talis, quaeritur utrum Angelus sit compositus ex materia et forma. Tertio, quaeritur de multitudine eorum. Quarto, de differentia ipsorum ab invicem. Quinto, de immortalitate, seu incorruptibilitate ipsorum.
Iª q. 50 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus non sit omnino incorporeus. Illud enim quod est incorporeum solum quoad nos, et non quoad Deum, non est incorporeum simpliciter. Sed Damascenus dicit, in libro II, quod Angelus incorporeus et immaterialis dicitur quantum ad nos, sed comparatus ad Deum, corporeus et materialis invenitur. Non ergo est incorporeus simpliciter.	Objection 1. It would seem that an angel is not entirely incorporeal. For what is incorporeal only as regards ourselves, and not in relation to God, is not absolutely incorporeal. But Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii) that "an angel is said to be incorporeal and immaterial as regards us; but compared to God it is corporeal and material. Therefore he is not simply incorporeal."
Iª q. 50 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, nihil movetur nisi corpus, ut probatur in VI Physic. Sed Damascenus dicit ibidem quod Angelus est substantia intellectualis semper mobilis. Angelus ergo est substantia corporea.	Objection 2. Further, nothing is moved except a body, as the Philosopher says (Phys. vi, text 32). But Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii) that "an angel is an ever movable intellectual substance." Therefore an angel is a corporeal substance.
Iª q. 50 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, Ambrosius dicit, in libro de spiritu sancto, omnis creatura certis suae naturae circumscripta est limitibus. Circumscribi autem proprium est corporum. Ergo omnis creatura est corporea. Angeli autem sunt Dei creaturae, ut patet in Psalmo CXLVIII, laudate dominum, omnes Angeli eius; et postea subditur, quoniam ipse dixit, et facta sunt, ipse mandavit, et creata sunt. Ergo Angeli sunt corporei.	Objection 3. Further, Ambrose says (De Spir. Sanct. i, 7): "Every creature is limited within its own nature." But to be limited belongs to bodies. Therefore, every creature is corporeal. Now angels are God's creatures, as appears from Ps. 148:2: "Praise ye" the Lord, "all His angels"; and, farther on (verse 4), "For He spoke, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created." Therefore angels are corporeal.
Iª q. 50 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalmo CIII, qui facit Angelos suos spiritus.	On the contrary, It is said (Psalm 103:4): "Who makes His angels spirits."
Iª q. 50 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod necesse est ponere aliquas creaturas incorporeas. Id enim quod praecipue in rebus creatis Deus intendit est bonum quod consistit in assimilatione ad Deum. Perfecta autem assimilatio effectus ad causam attenditur, quando effectus imitatur causam secundum illud per quod causa producit effectum; sicut calidum facit calidum. Deus autem creaturam producit per intellectum et voluntatem, ut supra ostensum est. Unde ad perfectionem universi requiritur quod sint aliquae creaturae intellectuales. Intelligere autem non potest esse actus corporis, nec alicuius virtutis corporeae, quia omne corpus determinatur ad hic et nunc. Unde necesse est ponere, ad hoc quod universum sit perfectum, quod sit aliqua incorporea creatura. Antiqui autem, ignorantes vim intelligendi, et non distinguentes inter sensum et intellectum, nihil esse existimaverunt in mundo, nisi quod sensu et imaginatione apprehendi potest. Et quia sub imaginatione non cadit nisi corpus, existimaverunt quod nullum ens esset nisi corpus; ut philosophus dicit in IV Physic. Et ex his processit Sadducaeorum error, dicentium non esse spiritum. Sed hoc ipsum quod intellectus est altior sensu, rationabiliter ostendit esse aliquas res incorporeas, a solo intellectu comprehensibiles.	I answer that, There must be some incorporeal creatures. For what is principally intended by God in creatures is good, and this consists in assimilation to God Himself. And the perfect assimilation of an effect to a cause is accomplished when the effect imitates the cause according to that whereby the cause produces the effect; as heat makes heat. Now, God produces the creature by His intellect and will (14, 8; 19, 4 ). Hence the perfection of the universe requires that there should be intellectual creatures. Now intelligence cannot be the action of a body, nor of any corporeal faculty; for every body is limited to "here" and "now." Hence the perfection of the universe requires the existence of an incorporeal creature. The ancients, however, not properly realizing the force of intelligence, and failing to make a proper distinction between sense and intellect, thought that nothing existed in the world but what could be apprehended by sense and imagination. And because bodies alone fall under imagination, they supposed that no being existed except bodies, as the Philosopher observes (Phys. iv, text 52,57). Thence came the error of the Sadducees, who said there was no spirit (Acts 23:8). The ancients, however, not properly realizing the force of intelligence, and failing to make a proper distinction between sense and intellect, thought that nothing existed in the world but what could be apprehended by sense and imagination. And because bodies alone fall under imagination, they supposed that no being existed except bodies, as the Philosopher observes (Phys. iv, text 52,57). Thence came the error of the Sadducees, who said there was no spirit (Acts 23:8). But the very fact that intellect is above sense is a reasonable proof that there are some incorporeal things comprehensible by the intellect alone.
Iª q. 50 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod substantiae incorporeae medium sunt inter Deum et creaturas corporeas. Medium autem comparatum ad unum extremum, videtur alterum extremum; sicut tepidum comparatum calido, videtur frigidum. Et hac ratione dicitur quod Angeli, Deo comparati, sunt materiales et corporei, non quod in eis sit aliquid de natura corporea.	Reply to Objection 1. Incorporeal substances rank between God and corporeal creatures. Now the medium compared to one extreme appears to be the other extreme, as what is tepid compared to heat seems to be cold; and thus it is said that angels, compared to God, are material and corporeal, not, however, as if anything corporeal existed in them.
Iª q. 50 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod motus ibi accipitur prout intelligere et velle motus quidam dicuntur. Dicitur ergo Angelus substantia semper mobilis, quia semper est actu intelligens, non quandoque actu et quandoque potentia, sicut nos. Unde patet quod ratio procedit ex aequivoco.	Reply to Objection 2. Movement is there taken in the sense in which it is applied to intelligence and will. Therefore an angel is called an ever mobile substance, because he is ever actually intelligent, and not as if he were sometimes actually and sometimes potentially, as we are. Hence it is clear that the objection rests on an equivocation.
Iª q. 50 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod circumscribi terminis localibus est proprium corporum, sed circumscribi terminis essentialibus est commune cuilibet creaturae, tam corporali quam spirituali. Unde dicit Ambrosius, in libro de Spir. Sanct., quod licet quaedam locis corporalibus non contineantur, circumscriptione tamen substantiae non carent.	Reply to Objection 3. To be circumscribed by local limits belongs to bodies only; whereas to be circumscribed by essential limits belongs to all creatures, both corporeal and spiritual. Hence Ambrose says (De Spir. Sanct. i, 7) that "although some things are not contained in corporeal place, still they are none the less circumscribed by their substance."
Iª q. 50 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus sit compositus ex materia et forma. Omne enim quod continetur sub aliquo genere, est compositum ex genere et differentia, quae, adveniens generi, constituit speciem. Sed genus sumitur ex materia, differentia vero ex forma, ut patet in VIII Metaphys. Ergo omne quod est in genere, est compositum ex materia et forma. Sed Angelus est in genere substantiae. Ergo est compositus ex materia et forma.	Objection 1. It would seem that an angel is composed of matter and form. For everything which is contained under any genus is composed of the genus, and of the difference which added to the genus makes the species. But the genus comes from the matter, and the difference from the form (Metaph. xiii, text 6). Therefore everything which is in a genus is composed of matter and form. But an angel is in the genus of substance. Therefore he is composed of matter and form.
Iª q. 50 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, in quocumque inveniuntur proprietates materiae, ibi invenitur materia. Proprietates autem materiae sunt recipere et substare; unde dicit Boetius, in libro de Trin., quod forma simplex subiectum esse non potest. Haec autem inveniuntur in Angelo. Ergo Angelus est compositus ex materia et forma.	Objection 2. Further, wherever the properties of matter exist, there is matter. Now the properties of matter are to receive and to substand; whence Boethius says (De Trin.) that "a simple form cannot be a subject": and the above properties are found in the angel. Therefore an angel is composed of matter and form.
Iª q. 50 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, forma est actus. Quod ergo est forma tantum, est actus purus. Sed Angelus non est actus purus, hoc enim solius Dei est. Ergo non est forma tantum, sed habet formam in materia.	Objection 3. Further, form is act. So what is form only is pure act. But an angel is not pure act, for this belongs to God alone. Therefore an angel is not form only, but has a form in matter.
Iª q. 50 a. 2 arg. 4 Praeterea, forma proprie limitatur et finitur per materiam. Forma ergo quae non est in materia, est forma infinita. Sed forma Angeli non est infinita, quia omnis creatura finita est. Ergo forma Angeli est in materia.	Objection 4. Further, form is properly limited and perfected by matter. So the form which is not in matter is an infinite form. But the form of an angel is not infinite, for every creature is finite. Therefore the form of an angel is in matter.
Iª q. 50 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod primae creaturae sicut incorporales et immateriales intelliguntur.	On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv): "The first creatures are understood to be as immaterial as they are incorporeal."
Iª q. 50 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod quidam ponunt Angelos esse compositos ex materia et forma. Et hanc opinionem astruere nititur Avicebron in libro fontis vitae. Supponit enim quod quaecumque distinguuntur secundum intellectum, sint etiam in rebus distincta. In substantia autem incorporea intellectus apprehendit aliquid per quod distinguitur a substantia corporea, et aliquid per quod cum ea convenit. Unde ex hoc vult concludere quod illud per quod differt substantia incorporea a corporea, sit ei quasi forma, et illud quod subiicitur huic formae distinguenti quasi commune, sit materia eius. Et propter hoc ponit quod eadem est materia universalis spiritualium et corporalium, ut intelligatur quod forma incorporeae substantiae sic sit impressa in materia spiritualium, sicut forma quantitatis est impressa in materia corporalium. Sed primo aspectu apparet esse impossibile unam esse materiam spiritualium et corporalium. Non enim est possibile quod forma spiritualis et corporalis recipiatur in una parte materiae, quia sic una et eadem res numero esset corporalis et spiritualis. Unde relinquitur quod alia pars materiae sit quae recipit formam corporalem, et alia quae recipit formam spiritualem. Materiam autem dividi in partes non contingit nisi secundum quod intelligitur sub quantitate, qua remota, remanet substantia indivisibilis, ut dicitur in I Physic. Sic igitur relinquitur quod materia spiritualium sit subiecta quantitati, quod est impossibile. Impossibile est ergo quod una sit materia corporalium et spiritualium. Sed adhuc ulterius impossibile est quod substantia intellectualis habeat qualemcumque materiam. Operatio enim cuiuslibet rei est secundum modum substantiae eius. Intelligere autem est operatio penitus immaterialis. Quod ex eius obiecto apparet, a quo actus quilibet recipit speciem et rationem, sic enim unumquodque intelligitur, inquantum a materia abstrahitur; quia formae in materia sunt individuales formae, quas intellectus non apprehendit secundum quod huiusmodi. Unde relinquitur quod omnis substantia intellectualis est omnino immaterialis. Non est autem necessarium quod ea quae distinguuntur secundum intellectum, sint distincta in rebus, quia intellectus non apprehendit res secundum modum rerum, sed secundum modum suum. Unde res materiales, quae sunt infra intellectum nostrum, simpliciori modo sunt in intellectu nostro, quam sint in seipsis. Substantiae autem angelicae sunt supra intellectum nostrum. Unde intellectus noster non potest attingere ad apprehendendum eas secundum quod sunt in seipsis; sed per modum suum, secundum quod apprehendit res compositas. Et sic etiam apprehendit Deum, ut supra dictum est.	I answer that, Some assert that the angels are composed of matter and form; which opinion Avicebron endeavored to establish in his book of the Fount of Life. For he supposes that whatever things are distinguished by the intellect are really distinct. Now as regards incorporeal substance, the intellect apprehends that which distinguishes it from corporeal substance, and that which it has in common with it. Hence he concludes that what distinguishes incorporeal from corporeal substance is a kind of form to it, and whatever is subject to this distinguishing form, as it were something common, is its matter. Therefore, he asserts the universal matter of spiritual and corporeal things is the same; so that it must be understood that the form of incorporeal substance is impressed in the matter of spiritual things, in the same way as the form of quantity is impressed in the matter of corporeal things. But one glance is enough to show that there cannot be one matter of spiritual and of corporeal things. For it is not possible that a spiritual and a corporeal form should be received into the same part of matter, otherwise one and the same thing would be corporeal and spiritual. Hence it would follow that one part of matter receives the corporeal form, and another receives the spiritual form. Matter, however, is not divisible into parts except as regarded under quantity; and without quantity substance is indivisible, as Aristotle says (Phys. i, text 15). Therefore it would follow that the matter of spiritual things is subject to quantity; which cannot be. Therefore it is impossible that corporeal and spiritual things should have the same matter. It is, further, impossible for an intellectual substance to have any kind of matter. For the operation belonging to anything is according to the mode of its substance. Now to understand is an altogether immaterial operation, as appears from its object, whence any act receives its species and nature. For a thing is understood according to its degree of immateriality; because forms that exist in matter are individual forms which the intellect cannot apprehend as such. Hence it must be that every intellectual substance is altogether immaterial. But things distinguished by the intellect are not necessarily distinguished in reality; because the intellect does not apprehend things according to their mode, but according to its own mode. Hence material things which are below our intellect exist in our intellect in a simpler mode than they exist in themselves. Angelic substances, on the other hand, are above our intellect; and hence our intellect cannot attain to apprehend them, as they are in themselves, but by its own mode, according as it apprehends composite things; and in this way also it apprehends God (3).
Iª q. 50 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod differentia est quae constituit speciem. Unumquodque autem constituitur in specie, secundum quod determinatur ad aliquem specialem gradum in entibus, quia species rerum sunt sicut numeri, qui differunt per additionem et subtractionem unitatis, ut dicitur in VIII Metaphys. In rebus autem materialibus aliud est quod determinat ad specialem gradum, scilicet forma, et aliud quod determinatur, scilicet materia, unde ab alio sumitur genus, et ab alio differentia. Sed in rebus immaterialibus non est aliud determinans et determinatum, sed unaquaeque earum secundum seipsam tenet determinatum gradum in entibus. Et ideo genus et differentia in eis non accipitur secundum aliud et aliud, sed secundum unum et idem. Quod tamen differt secundum considerationem nostram, inquantum enim intellectus noster considerat illam rem ut indeterminate, accipitur in eis ratio generis; inquantum vero considerat ut determinate, accipitur ratio differentiae.	Reply to Objection 1. It is difference which constitutes the species. Now everything is constituted in a species according as it is determined to some special grade of being because "the species of things are like numbers," which differ by addition and subtraction of unity, as the Philosopher says (Metaph. viii, text 10). But in material things there is one thing which determines to a special grade, and that is the form; and another thing which is determined, and this is the matter; and hence from the latter the "genus" is derived, and from the former the "difference." Whereas in immaterial things there is no separate determinator and thing determined; each thing by its own self holds a determinate grade in being; and therefore in them "genus" and "difference" are not derived from different things, but from one and the same. Nevertheless, this differs in our mode of conception; for, inasmuch as our intellect considers it as indeterminate, it derives the idea of their "genus"; and inasmuch as it considers it determinately, it derives the idea of their "difference."
Iª q. 50 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa ponitur in libro fontis vitae. Et esset necessaria, si idem esset modus quo recipit intellectus, et quo recipit materia. Sed hoc patet esse falsum. Materia enim recipit formam, ut secundum ipsam constituatur in esse alicuius speciei, vel aeris, vel ignis, vel cuiuscumque alterius. Sic autem intellectus non recipit formam, alioquin verificaretur opinio Empedoclis, qui posuit quod terram terra cognoscimus, et ignem igne. Sed forma intelligibilis est in intellectu secundum ipsam rationem formae, sic enim cognoscitur ab intellectu. Unde talis receptio non est receptio materiae, sed est receptio substantiae immaterialis.	Reply to Objection 2. This reason is given in the book on the Fount of Life, and it would be cogent, supposing that the receptive mode of the intellect and of matter were the same. But this is clearly false. For matter receives the form, that thereby it may be constituted in some species, either of air, or of fire, or of something else. But the intellect does not receive the form in the same way; otherwise the opinion of Empedocles (De Anima i, 5, text 26) would be true, to the effect that we know earth by earth, and fire by fire. But the intelligible form is in the intellect according to the very nature of a form; for as such is it so known by the intellect. Hence such a way of receiving is not that of matter, but of an immaterial substance.
Iª q. 50 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet in Angelo non sit compositio formae et materiae, est tamen in eo actus et potentia. Quod quidem manifestum potest esse ex consideratione rerum materialium, in quibus invenitur duplex compositio. Prima quidem formae et materiae, ex quibus constituitur natura aliqua. Natura autem sic composita non est suum esse, sed esse est actus eius. Unde ipsa natura comparatur ad suum esse sicut potentia ad actum. Subtracta ergo materia, et posito quod ipsa forma subsistat non in materia, adhuc remanet comparatio formae ad ipsum esse ut potentiae ad actum. Et talis compositio intelligenda est in Angelis. Et hoc est quod a quibusdam dicitur, quod Angelus est compositus ex quo est et quod est, vel ex esse et quod est, ut Boetius dicit, nam quod est est ipsa forma subsistens; ipsum autem esse est quo substantia est, sicut cursus est quo currens currit. Sed in Deo non est aliud esse et quod est, ut supra ostensum est. Unde solus Deus est actus purus.	Reply to Objection 3. Although there is no composition of matter and form in an angel, yet there is act and potentiality. And this can be made evident if we consider the nature of material things which contain a twofold composition. The first is that of form and matter, whereby the nature is constituted. Such a composite nature is not its own existence but existence is its act. Hence the nature itself is related to its own existence as potentiality to act. Therefore if there be no matter, and supposing that the form itself subsists without matter, there nevertheless still remains the relation of the form to its very existence, as of potentiality to act. And such a kind of composition is understood to be in the angels; and this is what some say, that an angel is composed of, "whereby he is," and "what is," or "existence," and "what is," as Boethius says. For "what is," is the form itself subsisting; and the existence itself is whereby the substance is; as the running is whereby the runner runs. But in God "existence" and "what is" are not different as was explained above (3, 4). Hence God alone is pure act.
Iª q. 50 a. 2 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod omnis creatura est finita simpliciter, inquantum esse eius non est absolutum subsistens, sed limitatur ad naturam aliquam cui advenit. Sed nihil prohibet aliquam creaturam esse secundum quid infinitam. Creaturae autem materiales habent infinitatem ex parte materiae, sed finitatem ex parte formae, quae limitatur per materiam in qua recipitur. Substantiae autem immateriales creatae sunt finitae secundum suum esse, sed infinitae secundum quod eorum formae non sunt receptae in alio. Sicut si diceremus albedinem separatam existentem esse infinitam quantum ad rationem albedinis, quia non contrahitur ad aliquod subiectum; esse tamen eius esset finitum, quia determinatur ad aliquam naturam specialem. Et propter hoc dicitur in libro de causis, quod intelligentia est finita superius, inquantum scilicet recipit esse a suo superiori; sed est infinita inferius, inquantum non recipitur in aliqua materia.	Reply to Objection 4. Every creature is simply finite, inasmuch as its existence is not absolutely subsisting, but is limited to some nature to which it belongs. But there is nothing against a creature being considered relatively infinite. Material creatures are infinite on the part of matter, but finite in their form, which is limited by the matter which receives it. But immaterial created substances are finite in their being; whereas they are infinite in the sense that their forms are not received in anything else; as if we were to say, for example, that whiteness existing separate is infinite as regards the nature of whiteness, forasmuch as it is not contracted to any one subject; while its "being" is finite as determined to some one special nature. Whence it is said (De Causis, prop. 16) that "intelligence is finite from above," as receiving its being from above itself, and is "infinite from below," as not received in any matter.
Iª q. 50 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli non sint in aliquo magno numero. Numerus enim species quantitatis est, et sequitur divisionem continui. Hoc autem non potest esse in Angelis cum sint incorporei, ut supra ostensum est. Ergo Angeli non possunt esse in aliquo magno numero.	Objection 1. It would seem that the angels are not in great numbers. For number is a species of quantity, and follows the division of a continuous body. But this cannot be in the angels, since they are incorporeal, as was shown above (1). Therefore the angels cannot exist in any great number.
Iª q. 50 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, quanto aliquid est magis propinquum uni, tanto minus est multiplicatum, ut in numeris apparet. Natura autem angelica inter alias naturas creatas est Deo propinquior. Cum ergo Deus sit maxime unus, videtur quod in natura angelica inveniatur minimum de multitudine.	Objection 2. Further, the more a thing approaches to unity, so much the less is it multiplied, as is evident in numbers. But among other created natures the angelic nature approaches nearest to God. Therefore since God is supremely one, it seems that there is the least possible number in the angelic nature.
Iª q. 50 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, proprius effectus separatarum substantiarum videtur esse motus corporum caelestium. Sed motus corporum caelestium sunt secundum aliquem determinatum numerum paucum, qui a nobis comprehendi potest. Ergo Angeli non sunt in maiori multitudine, quam motus corporum caelestium.	Objection 3. Further, the proper effect of the separate substances seems to be the movements of the heavenly bodies. But the movements of the heavenly bodies fall within some small determined number, which we can apprehend. Therefore the angels are not in greater number than the movements of the heavenly bodies.
Iª q. 50 a. 3 arg. 4 Praeterea, Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod propter radios divinae bonitatis subsistunt intelligibiles et intellectuales omnes substantiae. Sed radius non multiplicatur nisi secundum diversitatem recipientium. Non autem potest dici quod materia sit receptiva intelligibilis radii, cum substantiae intellectuales sint immateriales, ut supra ostensum est. Ergo videtur quod multiplicatio substantiarum intellectualium non possit esse nisi secundum exigentiam primorum corporum, scilicet caelestium, ut ad ea quodammodo processus praedictorum radiorum terminetur. Et sic idem quod prius.	Objection 4. Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "all intelligible and intellectual substances subsist because of the rays of the divine goodness." But a ray is only multiplied according to the different things that receive it. Now it cannot be said that their matter is receptive of an intelligible ray, since intellectual substances are immaterial, as was shown above (2). Therefore it seems that the multiplication of intellectual substances can only be according to the requirements of the first bodies--that is, of the heavenly ones, so that in some way the shedding form of the aforesaid rays may be terminated in them; and hence the same conclusion is to be drawn as before.
Iª q. 50 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Dan. VII, millia millium ministrabant ei, et decies millies centena millia assistebant ei.	On the contrary, It is said (Daniel 7:10): "Thousands of thousands ministered to Him, and ten thousands times a hundred thousand stood before Him."
Iª q. 50 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod circa numerum substantiarum separatarum, diversi diversis viis processerunt. Plato enim posuit substantias separatas esse species rerum sensibilium, utpote si poneremus ipsam naturam humanam esse separatam. Et secundum hoc oportebat dicere quod substantiae separatae sint secundum numerum specierum sensibilium. Sed hanc positionem improbat Aristoteles, ex eo quod materia est de ratione speciei horum sensibilium. Unde substantiae separatae non possunt esse species exemplares horum sensibilium, sed habent quasdam naturas altiores naturis rerum sensibilium. Posuit tamen Aristoteles quod illae naturae perfectiores habent ordinem ad sensibilia ista, secundum rationem moventis et finis. Et ideo secundum numerum primorum motuum, conatus est adinvenire numerum substantiarum separatarum. Sed quia hoc videtur repugnare documentis sacrae Scripturae, Rabbi Moyses, Iudaeus, volens utrumque concordare, posuit quod Angeli, secundum quod dicuntur substantiae immateriales, multiplicantur secundum numerum motuum vel corporum caelestium, secundum Aristotelem. Sed posuit quod Angeli in Scriptura dicuntur etiam homines divina annuntiantes; et iterum virtutes rerum naturalium, quae Dei omnipotentiam manifestant. Sed hoc est alienum a consuetudine Scripturae, quod virtutes rerum irrationabilium Angeli nominentur. Unde dicendum est quod etiam Angeli secundum quod sunt immateriales substantiae, in quadam multitudine maxima sunt, omnem materialem multitudinem excedentes. Et hoc est quod dicit Dionysius, XIV cap. Caelest. Hierarch., multi sunt beati exercitus supernarum mentium, infirmam et constrictam excedentes nostrorum materialium numerorum commensurationem. Et huius ratio est quia, cum perfectio universi sit illud quod praecipue Deus intendit in creatione rerum, quanto aliqua sunt magis perfecta tanto in maiori excessu sunt creata a Deo. Sicut autem in corporibus attenditur excessus secundum magnitudinem, ita in rebus incorporeis potest attendi excessus secundum multitudinem. Videmus autem quod corpora incorruptibilia, quae sunt perfectiora inter corpora, excedunt quasi incomparabiliter secundum magnitudinem corpora corruptibilia, nam tota sphaera activorum et passivorum est aliquid modicum respectu corporum caelestium. Unde rationabile est quod substantiae immateriales excedant secundum multitudinem substantias materiales, quasi incomparabiliter.	I answer that, There have been various opinions with regard to the number of the separate substances. Plato contended that the separate substances are the species of sensible things; as if we were to maintain that human nature is a separate substance of itself: and according to this view it would have to be maintained that the number of the separate substances is the number of the species of sensible things. Aristotle, however, rejects this view (Metaph. i, text 31) because matter is of the very nature of the species of sensible things. Consequently the separate substances cannot be the exemplar species of these sensible things; but have their own fixed natures, which are higher than the natures of sensible things. Nevertheless Aristotle held (Metaph. xi, text 43) that those more perfect natures bear relation to these sensible things, as that of mover and end; and therefore he strove to find out the number of the separate substances according to the number of the first movements. But since this appears to militate against the teachings of Sacred Scripture, Rabbi Moses the Jew, wishing to bring both into harmony, held that the angels, in so far as they are styled immaterial substances, are multiplied according to the number of heavenly movements or bodies, as Aristotle held (Metaph. xi, text 43); while he contended that in the Scriptures even men bearing a divine message are styled angels; and again, even the powers of natural things, which manifest God's almighty power. It is, however, quite foreign to the custom of the Scriptures for the powers of irrational things to be designated as angels. Hence it must be said that the angels, even inasmuch as they are immaterial substances, exist in exceeding great number, far beyond all material multitude. This is what Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. xiv): "There are many blessed armies of the heavenly intelligences, surpassing the weak and limited reckoning of our material numbers." The reason whereof is this, because, since it is the perfection of the universe that God chiefly intends in the creation of things, the more perfect some things are, in so much greater an excess are they created by God. Now, as in bodies such excess is observed in regard to their magnitude, so in things incorporeal is it observed in regard to their multitude. We see, in fact, that incorruptible bodies, exceed corruptible bodies almost incomparably in magnitude; for the entire sphere of things active and passive is something very small in comparison with the heavenly bodies. Hence it is reasonable to conclude that the immaterial substances as it were incomparably exceed material substances as to multitude.
Iª q. 50 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in Angelis non est numerus qui est quantitas discreta, causatus ex divisione continui, sed causatus ex distinctione formarum, prout multitudo est de transcendentibus, ut supra dictum est.	Reply to Objection 1. In the angels number is not that of discrete quantity, brought about by division of what is continuous, but that which is caused by distinction of forms; according as multitude is reckoned among the transcendentals, as was said above (30, 3; 11).
Iª q. 50 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ex hoc quod natura angelica est Deo propinqua, oportet quod habeat minimum de multitudine in sui compositione, non autem ita quod in paucis salvetur.	Reply to Objection 2. From the angelic nature being the nighest unto God, it must needs have least of multitude in its composition, but not so as to be found in few subjects.
Iª q. 50 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ratio illa est Aristotelis in XII Metaphys. Et ex necessitate concluderet, si substantiae separatae essent propter substantias corporales, sic enim frustra essent immateriales substantiae, nisi ex eis aliquis motus in rebus corporalibus appareret. Non est autem hoc verum, quod substantiae immateriales sint propter corporales, quia finis nobilior est his quae sunt ad finem. Unde etiam Aristoteles dicit ibidem quod haec ratio non est necessaria, sed probabilis. Coactus autem fuit hac ratione uti, quia ad cognoscendum intelligibilia non possumus pervenire nisi per sensibilia.	Reply to Objection 3. This is Aristotle's argument (Metaph. xii, text 44), and it would conclude necessarily if the separate substances were made for corporeal substances. For thus the immaterial substances would exist to no purpose, unless some movement from them were to appear in corporeal things. But it is not true that the immaterial substances exist on account of the corporeal, because the end is nobler than the means to the end. Hence Aristotle says (Metaph. xii, text 44) that this is not a necessary argument, but a probable one. He was forced to make use of this argument, since only through sensible things can we come to know intelligible ones.
Iª q. 50 a. 3 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit secundum opinionem eorum qui causam distinctionis rerum ponebant esse materiam. Hoc autem improbatum est. Unde multiplicatio Angelorum neque secundum materiam, neque secundum corpora est accipienda, sed secundum divinam sapientiam, diversos ordines immaterialium substantiarum excogitantem.	Reply to Objection 4. This argument comes from the opinion of such as hold that matter is the cause of the distinction of things; but this was refuted above (47, 1). Accordingly, the multiplication of the angels is not to be taken according to matter, nor according to bodies, but according to the divine wisdom devising the various orders of immaterial substances.
Iª q. 50 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli non differant specie. Cum enim differentia sit nobilior genere, quaecumque conveniunt secundum id quod est nobilissimum in eis, conveniunt in ultima differentia constitutiva; et ita sunt eadem secundum speciem. Sed omnes Angeli conveniunt in eo quod est nobilissimum in eis, scilicet in intellectualitate. Ergo omnes Angeli sunt unius speciei.	Objection 1. It would seem that the angels do not differ in species. For since the "difference" is nobler than the 'genus,' all things which agree in what is noblest in them, agree likewise in their ultimate constitutive difference; and so they are the same according to species. But all angels agree in what is noblest in them--that is to say, in intellectuality. Therefore all the angels are of one species.
Iª q. 50 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, magis et minus non diversificant speciem. Sed Angeli non videntur differre ad invicem nisi secundum magis et minus; prout scilicet unus alio est simplicior, et perspicacioris intellectus. Ergo Angeli non differunt specie.	Objection 2. Further, more and less do not change a species. But the angels seem to differ only from one another according to more and less--namely, as one is simpler than another, and of keener intellect. Therefore the angels do not differ specifically.
Iª q. 50 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, anima et Angelus ex opposito dividuntur. Sed omnes animae sunt unius speciei. Ergo et Angeli.	Objection 3. Further, soul and angel are contra-distinguished mutually from each other. But all souls are of the one species. So therefore are the angels.
Iª q. 50 a. 4 arg. 4 Praeterea, quanto aliquid est perfectius in natura, tanto magis debet multiplicari. Hoc autem non esset, si in una specie esset unum tantum individuum. Ergo multi Angeli sunt unius speciei.	Objection 4. Further, the more perfect a thing is in nature, the more ought it to be multiplied. But this would not be so if there were but one individual under one species. Therefore there are many angels of one species.
Iª q. 50 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod in his quae sunt unius speciei, non est invenire prius et posterius, ut dicitur in III Metaphys. Sed in Angelis, etiam unius ordinis, sunt primi et medii et ultimi, ut dicit Dionysius, X cap. Ang. Hier. Ergo Angeli non sunt eiusdem speciei.	On the contrary, In things of one species there is no such thing as "first" and "second" [prius et posterius], as the Philosopher says (Metaph. iii, text 2). But in the angels even of the one order there are first, middle, and last, as Dionysius says (Hier. Ang. x). Therefore the angels are not of the same species.
Iª q. 50 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod quidam dixerunt omnes substantias spirituales esse unius speciei, etiam animas. Alii vero quod omnes Angeli sunt unius speciei, sed non animae. Quidam vero quod omnes Angeli unius hierarchiae, aut etiam unius ordinis. Sed hoc est impossibile. Ea enim quae conveniunt specie et differunt numero, conveniunt in forma, et distinguuntur materialiter. Si ergo Angeli non sunt compositi ex materia et forma, ut dictum est supra, sequitur quod impossibile sit esse duos Angelos unius speciei. Sicut etiam impossibile esset dicere quod essent plures albedines separatae, aut plures humanitates; cum albedines non sint plures nisi secundum quod sunt in pluribus substantiis. Si tamen Angeli haberent materiam, nec sic possent esse plures Angeli unius speciei. Sic enim oporteret quod principium distinctionis unius ab alio esset materia, non quidem secundum divisionem quantitatis, cum sint incorporei, sed secundum diversitatem potentiarum. Quae quidem diversitas materiae causat diversitatem non solum speciei, sed generis.	I answer that, Some have said that all spiritual substances, even souls, are of the one species. Others, again, that all the angels are of the one species, but not souls; while others allege that all the angels of one hierarchy, or even of one order, are of the one species. But this is impossible. For such things as agree in species but differ in number, agree in form, but are distinguished materially. If, therefore, the angels be not composed of matter and form, as was said above (2), it follows that it is impossible for two angels to be of one species; just as it would be impossible for there to be several whitenesses apart, or several humanities, since whitenesses are not several, except in so far as they are in several substances. And if the angels had matter, not even then could there be several angels of one species. For it would be necessary for matter to be the principle of distinction of one from the other, not, indeed, according to the division of quantity, since they are incorporeal, but according to the diversity of their powers; and such diversity of matter causes diversity not merely of species, but of genus.
Iª q. 50 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod differentia est nobilior genere, sicut determinatum indeterminato et proprium communi; non autem sicut alia et alia natura. Alioquin oporteret quod omnia animalia irrationalia essent unius speciei; vel quod esset in eis aliqua alia perfectior forma quam anima sensibilis. Differunt ergo specie animalia irrationalia secundum diversos gradus determinatos naturae sensitivae. Et similiter omnes Angeli differunt specie secundum diversos gradus naturae intellectivae.	Reply to Objection 1. "Difference" is nobler than "genus," as the determined is more noble than the undetermined, and the proper than the common, but not as one nature is nobler than another; otherwise it would be necessary that all irrational animals be of the same species; or that there should be in them some form which is higher than the sensible soul. Therefore irrational animals differ in species according to the various determined degrees of sensitive nature; and in like manner all the angels differ in species according to the diverse degrees of intellectual nature.
Iª q. 50 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod magis et minus, secundum quod causantur ex intensione et remissione unius formae, non diversificant speciem. Sed secundum quod causantur ex formis diversorum graduum, sic diversificant speciem, sicut si dicamus quod ignis est perfectior aere. Et hoc modo Angeli diversificantur secundum magis et minus.	Reply to Objection 2. More and less change the species, not according as they are caused by the intensity or remissness of one form, but according as they are caused by forms of diverse degrees; for instance, if we say that fire is more perfect than air: and in this way the angels are diversified according to more or less.
Iª q. 50 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod bonum speciei praeponderat bono individui. Unde multo melius est quod multiplicentur species in Angelis, quam quod multiplicentur individua in una specie.	Reply to Objection 3. The good of the species preponderates over the good of the individual. Hence it is much better for the species to be multiplied in the angels than for individuals to be multiplied in the one species.
Iª q. 50 a. 4 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod multiplicatio secundum numerum, cum in infinitum protendi possit, non intenditur ab agente, sed sola multiplicatio secundum speciem, ut supra dictum est. Unde perfectio naturae angelicae requirit multiplicationem specierum, non autem multiplicationem individuorum in una specie.	Reply to Objection 4. Numerical multiplication, since it can be drawn out infinitely, is not intended by the agent, but only specific multiplication, as was said above (47, 3). Hence the perfection of the angelic nature calls for the multiplying of species, but not for the multiplying of individuals in one species.
Iª q. 50 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli non sint incorruptibiles. Dicit enim Damascenus de Angelo, quod est substantia intellectualis, gratia et non natura immortalitatem suscipiens.	Objection 1. It would seem that the angels are not incorruptible; for Damascene, speaking of the angel, says (De Fide Orth. ii, 3) that he is "an intellectual substance, partaking of immortality by favor, and not by nature."
Iª q. 50 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, Plato dicit, in Timaeo, o dii deorum, quorum opifex idem paterque ego, opera siquidem vos mea, dissolubilia natura, me tamen ita volente indissolubilia. Hos autem deos non aliud quam Angelos intelligere potest. Ergo Angeli natura sua sunt corruptibiles.	Objection 2. Further, Plato says in the Timaeus: "O gods of gods, whose maker and father am I: You are indeed my works, dissoluble by nature, yet indissoluble because I so will it." But gods such as these can only be understood to be the angels. Therefore the angels are corruptible by their nature
Iª q. 50 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, secundum Gregorium, omnia in nihilum deciderent, nisi ea manus omnipotentis conservaret. Sed quod in nihilum redigi potest, est corruptibile. Ergo, cum Angeli sint a Deo facti, videtur quod sint corruptibiles secundum suam naturam.	Objection 3. Further, according to Gregory (Moral. xvi), "all things would tend towards nothing, unless the hand of the Almighty preserved them." But what can be brought to nothing is corruptible. Therefore, since the angels were made by God, it would appear that they are corruptible of their own nature.
Iª q. 50 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod intellectuales substantiae vitam habent indeficientem, ab universa corruptione, morte et materia et generatione mundae existentes.	On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that the intellectual substances "have unfailing life, being free from all corruption, death, matter, and generation."
Iª q. 50 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod necesse est dicere Angelos secundum suam naturam esse incorruptibiles. Cuius ratio est, quia nihil corrumpitur nisi per hoc, quod forma eius a materia separatur, unde, cum Angelus sit ipsa forma subsistens, ut ex dictis patet, impossibile est quod eius substantia sit corruptibilis. Quod enim convenit alicui secundum se, nunquam ab eo separari potest, ab eo autem cui convenit per aliud, potest separari, separato eo secundum quod ei conveniebat. Rotunditas enim a circulo separari non potest, quia convenit ei secundum seipsum, sed aeneus circulus potest amittere rotunditatem per hoc, quod circularis figura separatur ab aere. Esse autem secundum se competit formae, unumquodque enim est ens actu secundum quod habet formam. Materia vero est ens actu per formam. Compositum igitur ex materia et forma desinit esse actu per hoc, quod forma separatur a materia. Sed si ipsa forma subsistat in suo esse, sicut est in Angelis, ut dictum est, non potest amittere esse. Ipsa igitur immaterialitas Angeli est ratio quare Angelus est incorruptibilis secundum suam naturam. Et huius incorruptibilitatis signum accipi potest ex eius intellectuali operatione, quia enim unumquodque operatur secundum quod est actu, operatio rei indicat modum esse ipsius. Species autem et ratio operationis ex obiecto comprehenditur. Obiectum autem intelligibile, cum sit supra tempus, est sempiternum. Unde omnis substantia intellectualis est incorruptibilis secundum suam naturam.	I answer that, It must necessarily be maintained that the angels are incorruptible of their own nature. The reason for this is, that nothing is corrupted except by its form being separated from the matter. Hence, since an angel is a subsisting form, as is clear from what was said above (2), it is impossible for its substance to be corruptible. For what belongs to anything considered in itself can never be separated from it; but what belongs to a thing, considered in relation to something else, can be separated, when that something else is taken away, in view of which it belonged to it. Roundness can never be taken from the circle, because it belongs to it of itself; but a bronze circle can lose roundness, if the bronze be deprived of its circular shape. Now to be belongs to a form considered in itself; for everything is an actual being according to its form: whereas matter is an actual being by the form. Consequently a subject composed of matter and form ceases to be actually when the form is separated from the matter. But if the form subsists in its own being, as happens in the angels, as was said above (2), it cannot lose its being. Therefore, the angel's immateriality is the cause why it is incorruptible by its own nature. A token of this incorruptibility can be gathered from its intellectual operation; for since everything acts according as it is actual, the operation of a thing indicates its mode of being. Now the species and nature of the operation is understood from the object. But an intelligible object, being above time, is everlasting. Hence every intellectual substance is incorruptible of its own nature.
Iª q. 50 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Damascenus accipit immortalitatem perfectam, quae includit omnimodam immutabilitatem, quia omnis mutatio est quaedam mors, ut Augustinus dicit. Perfectam autem immutabilitatem Angeli non nisi per gratiam assequuntur, ut infra patebit.	Reply to Objection 1. Damascene is dealing with perfect immortality, which includes complete immutability; since "every change is a kind of death," as Augustine says (Contra Maxim. iii). The angels obtain perfect immutability only by favor, as will appear later (62).
Iª q. 50 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Plato per deos intelligit corpora caelestia, quae existimabat esse ex elementis composita, et ideo secundum suam naturam dissolubilia, sed voluntate divina semper conservantur in esse.	Reply to Objection 2. By the expression 'gods' Plato understands the heavenly bodies, which he supposed to be made up of elements, and therefore dissoluble of their own nature; yet they are for ever preserved in existence by the Divine will.
Iª q. 50 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, quoddam necessarium est quod habet causam suae necessitatis. Unde non repugnat necessario nec incorruptibili, quod esse eius dependeat ab alio sicut a causa. Per hoc ergo quod dicitur quod omnia deciderent in nihilum nisi continerentur a Deo, et etiam Angeli, non datur intelligi quod in Angelis sit aliquod corruptionis principium, sed quod esse Angeli dependeat a Deo sicut a causa. Non autem dicitur aliquid esse corruptibile, per hoc quod Deus possit illud in non esse redigere, subtrahendo suam conservationem, sed per hoc quod in seipso aliquod principium corruptionis habet, vel contrarietatem vel saltem potentiam materiae.	Reply to Objection 3. As was observed above (44, 1) there is a kind of necessary thing which has a cause of its necessity. Hence it is not repugnant to a necessary or incorruptible being to depend for its existence on another as its cause. Therefore, when it is said that all things, even the angels, would lapse into nothing, unless preserved by God, it is not to be gathered therefrom that there is any principle of corruption in the angels; but that the nature of the angels is dependent upon God as its cause. For a thing is said to be corruptible not merely because God can reduce it to non-existence, by withdrawing His act of preservation; but also because it has some principle of corruption within itself, or some contrariety, or at least the potentiality of matter.
Iª q. 51 pr. 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. Circa primum quaeruntur tria. Primo, utrum Angeli habeant corpora naturaliter sibi unita. Secundo, utrum assumant corpora. Tertio, utrum in corporibus assumptis exerceant opera vitae.
Iª q. 51 a. 1 arg. 1 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 Ghost, 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.
Iª q. 51 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, Gregorius, in homilia Epiphaniae, nominat Angelum rationale animal. Omne autem animal componitur ex corpore et anima. Ergo Angeli habent corpora naturaliter sibi unita.	Objection 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.
Iª q. 51 a. 1 arg. 3 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.	Objection 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.
Iª q. 51 a. 1 s. c. 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."
Iª q. 51 a. 1 co. 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 (75, 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 fulness of knowledge in its own nature, but acquiring it from sensible things through the bodily senses, as will be explained later on (84, 6; 89, 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.
Iª q. 51 a. 1 ad 1 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 to Objection 1. As was said above (50, 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 (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.
Iª q. 51 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Gregorius nominat Angelum rationale animal metaphorice, propter similitudinem rationis.	Reply to Objection 2. Gregory calls the angel a rational animal metaphorically, on account of the likeness to the rational nature.
Iª q. 51 a. 1 ad 3 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 to Objection 3. To give life effectively is a perfection simply speaking; hence it belongs to God, as is said (1 Samuel 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.
Iª q. 51 a. 2 arg. 1 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.
Iª q. 51 a. 2 arg. 2 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.	Objection 2. Further, every assumption is terminated in some union; because to assume implies a taking to oneself [ad se sumere]. But a body is not united to an angel as to a form, as stated (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.
Iª q. 51 a. 2 arg. 3 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.	Objection 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.
Iª q. 51 a. 2 s. c. 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.
Iª q. 51 a. 2 co. 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. 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.	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. 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 (1; 50, 1), it follows that they sometimes assume bodies.
Iª q. 51 a. 2 ad 1 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 to Objection 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.
Iª q. 51 a. 2 ad 2 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 to Objection 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.
Iª q. 51 a. 2 ad 3 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 to Objection 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.
Iª q. 51 a. 3 arg. 1 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.
Iª q. 51 a. 3 arg. 2 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.	Objection 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.
Iª q. 51 a. 3 arg. 3 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.	Objection 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 (Genesis 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 (Tobit 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.
Iª q. 51 a. 3 arg. 4 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.	Objection 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.
Iª q. 51 a. 3 arg. 5 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.	Objection 5. Further, eating is a purely animal function. Hence the Lord after His Resurrection ate with His disciples in proof of having resumed life (Lk. 24). Now when angels appeared in their assumed bodies they ate, and Abraham offered them food, after having previously adored them as God (Genesis 18). Therefore the angels exercise functions of life in assumed bodies.
Iª q. 51 a. 3 arg. 6 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.	Objection 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" (Genesis 6:4). Consequently the angels exercised vital functions in their assumed bodies.
Iª q. 51 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra, corpora assumpta ab Angelis non vivunt, ut supra dictum est. Ergo nec opera vitae per ea exerceri possunt.	On the contrary, The bodies assumed by angels have no life, as was stated in the previous article (ad 3). Therefore they cannot exercise functions of life through assumed bodies.
Iª q. 51 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod quaedam opera viventium habent aliquid commune cum aliis operibus, ut locutio, quae est opus viventis, convenit cum aliis sonis inanimatorum, inquantum est sonus; et progressio cum aliis motibus, inquantum est motus. Quantum ergo ad id quod est commune utrisque operibus, possunt opera vitae fieri ab Angelis per corpora assumpta. Non autem quantum ad id quod est proprium viventium, quia secundum philosophum, in libro de Somn. et Vig., cuius est potentia, eius est actio; unde nihil potest habere opus vitae, quod non habet vitam, quae est potentiale principium talis actionis.	I answer that, Some functions of living subjects have something in common with other operations; just as speech, which is the function of a living creature, agrees with other sounds of inanimate things, in so far as it is sound; and walking agrees with other movements, in so far as it is movement. Consequently vital functions can be performed in assumed bodies by the angels, as to that which is common in such operations; but not as to that which is special to living subjects; because, according to the Philosopher (De Somn. et Vig. i), "that which has the faculty has the action." Hence nothing can have a function of life except what has life, which is the potential principle of such action.
Iª q. 51 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut non est contra veritatem quod in Scriptura intelligibilia sub figuris sensibilibus describuntur, quia hoc non dicitur ad adstruendum quod intelligibilia sint sensibilia, sed per figuras sensibilium proprietates intelligibilium secundum similitudinem quandam dantur intelligi; ita non repugnat veritati sanctorum Angelorum quod corpora ab eis assumpta videntur homines viventes, licet non sint. Non enim assumuntur nisi ut per proprietates hominis et operum hominis. Spirituales proprietates Angelorum et eorum spiritualia opera designentur. Quod non ita congrue fieret, si veros homines assumerent, quia proprietates eorum ducerent in ipsos homines, non in Angelos.	Reply to Objection 1. As it is in no wise contrary to truth for intelligible things to be set forth in Scripture under sensible figures, since it is not said for the purpose of maintaining that intelligible things are sensible, but in order that properties of intelligible things may be understood according to similitude through sensible figures; so it is not contrary to the truth of the holy angels that through their assumed bodies they appear to be living men, although they are really not. For the bodies are assumed merely for this purpose, that the spiritual properties and works of the angels may be manifested by the properties of man and of his works. This could not so fittingly be done if they were to assume true men; because the properties of such men would lead us to men, and not to angels.
Iª q. 51 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod sentire est totaliter opus vitae, unde nullo modo est dicendum quod Angeli per organa assumptorum corporum sentiant. Nec tamen superflue sunt formata. Non enim ad hoc sunt formata, ut per ea sentiatur, sed ad hoc ut per huiusmodi organa virtutes spirituales Angelorum designentur; sicut per oculum designatur virtus cognitiva Angeli, et per alia membra aliae eius virtutes, ut Dionysius docet, ult. cap. Cael. Hier.	Reply to Objection 2. Sensation is entirely a vital function. Consequently it can in no way be said that the angels perceive through the organs of their assumed bodies. Yet such bodies are not fashioned in vain; for they are not fashioned for the purpose of sensation through them, but to this end, that by such bodily organs the spiritual powers of the angels may be made manifest; just as by the eye the power of the angel's knowledge is pointed out, and other powers by the other members, as Dionysius teaches (Coel. Hier.).
Iª q. 51 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod motus qui est a motore coniuncto, est proprium opus vitae. Sic autem non moventur corpora assumpta ab eis, quia Angeli non sunt eorum formae. Moventur tamen Angeli per accidens, motis huiusmodi corporibus, cum sint in eis sicut motores in mobilibus, et ita sunt hic quod non alibi, quod de Deo dici non potest. Unde licet Deus non moveatur, motis his in quibus est, quia ubique est; Angeli tamen moventur per accidens ad motum corporum assumptorum. Non autem ad motum corporum caelestium, etiamsi sint in eis sicut motores in mobilibus, quia corpora caelestia non recedunt de loco secundum totum; nec determinatur spiritui moventi orbem locus secundum aliquam determinatam partem substantiae orbis, quae nunc est in oriente, nunc in occidente; sed secundum determinatum situm, quia semper est in oriente virtus movens, ut dicitur in VIII Physic.	Reply to Objection 3. Movement coming from a united mover is a proper function of life; but the bodies assumed by the angels are not thus moved, since the angels are not their forms. Yet the angels are moved accidentally, when such bodies are moved, since they are in them as movers are in the moved; and they are here in such a way as not to be elsewhere which cannot be said of God. Accordingly, although God is not moved when the things are moved in which He exists, since He is everywhere; yet the angels are moved accidentally according to the movement of the bodies assumed. But they are not moved according to the movement of the heavenly bodies, even though they be in them as the movers in the thing moved, because the heavenly bodies do not change place in their entirety; nor for the spirit which moves the world is there any fixed locality according to any restricted part of the world's substance, which now is in the east, and now in the west, but according to a fixed quarter; because "the moving energy is always in the east," as stated in Phys. viii, text 84.
Iª q. 51 a. 3 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod Angeli proprie non loquuntur per corpora assumpta, sed est aliquid simile locutioni, inquantum formant sonos in aere similes vocibus humanis.	Reply to Objection 4. Properly speaking, the angels do not talk through their assumed bodies; yet there is a semblance of speech, in so far as they fashion sounds in the air like to human voices.
Iª q. 51 a. 3 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod nec etiam comedere, proprie loquendo, Angelis convenit, quia comestio importat sumptionem cibi convertibilis in substantiam comedentis. Et quamvis in corpus Christi post resurrectionem cibus non converteretur, sed resolveretur in praeiacentem materiam, tamen Christus habebat corpus talis naturae in quod posset cibus converti, unde fuit vera comestio. Sed cibus assumptus ab Angelis neque convertebatur in corpus assumptum, neque corpus illud talis erat naturae in quod posset alimentum converti, unde non fuit vera comestio, sed figurativa spiritualis comestionis. Et hoc est quod Angelus dixit, Tob. XII, cum essem vobiscum, videbar quidem manducare et bibere, sed ego potu invisibili et cibo utor. Abraham autem obtulit eis cibos, existimans eos homines esse; in quibus tamen Deum venerabatur, sicut solet Deus esse in prophetis, ut Augustinus dicit, XVI de Civ. Dei.	Reply to Objection 5. Properly speaking, the angels cannot be said to eat, because eating involves the taking of food convertible into the substance of the eater. Although after the Resurrection food was not converted into the substance of Christ's body, but resolved into pre-existing matter; nevertheless Christ had a body of such a true nature that food could be changed into it; hence it was a true eating. But the food taken by angels was neither changed into the assumed body, nor was the body of such a nature that food could be changed into it; consequently, it was not a true eating, but figurative of spiritual eating. This is what the angel said to Tobias: "When I was with you, I seemed indeed to eat and to drink; but I use an invisible meat and drink" (Tobit 12:19). Abraham offered them food, deeming them to be men, in whom, nevertheless, he worshipped God, as God is wont to be in the prophets, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xvi).
Iª q. 51 a. 3 ad 6 Ad sextum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, XV de Civ. Dei, multi se expertos, vel ab expertis audisse confirmant, Silvanos et Faunos, quos vulgus incubos vocat, improbos saepe extitisse mulieribus et earum expetisse atque peregisse concubitum. Unde hoc negare impudentiae videtur. Sed Angeli Dei sancti nullo modo sic labi ante diluvium potuerunt. Unde per filios Dei intelliguntur filii Seth, qui boni erant, filias autem hominum nominat Scriptura eas quae natae erant de stirpe Cain. Neque mirandum est quod de eis gigantes nasci potuerunt, neque enim omnes gigantes fuerunt, sed multo plures ante diluvium quam post. Si tamen ex coitu Daemonum aliqui interdum nascuntur, hoc non est per semen ab eis decisum, aut a corporibus assumptis, sed per semen alicuius hominis ad hoc acceptum, utpote quod idem Daemon qui est succubus ad virum, fiat incubus ad mulierem; sicut et aliarum rerum semina assumunt ad aliquarum rerum generationem, ut Augustinus dicit, III de Trin.; ut sic ille qui nascitur non sit filius Daemonis, sed illius hominis cuius est semen acceptum.	Reply to Objection 6. As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xv): "Many persons affirm that they have had the experience, or have heard from such as have experienced it, that the Satyrs and Fauns, whom the common folk call incubi, have often presented themselves before women, and have sought and procured intercourse with them. Hence it is folly to deny it. But God's holy angels could not fall in such fashion before the deluge. Hence by the sons of God are to be understood the sons of Seth, who were good; while by the daughters of men the Scripture designates those who sprang from the race of Cain. Nor is it to be wondered at that giants should be born of them; for they were not all giants, albeit there were many more before than after the deluge." Still if some are occasionally begotten from demons, it is not from the seed of such demons, nor from their assumed bodies, but from the seed of men taken for the purpose; as when the demon assumes first the form of a woman, and afterwards of a man; just as they take the seed of other things for other generating purposes, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii), so that the person born is not the child of a demon, but of a man.
Iª q. 52 pr. Deinde quaeritur de loco Angeli. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo, utrum Angelus sit in loco. Secundo, utrum possit esse in pluribus locis simul. Tertio, utrum plures Angeli possint esse in eodem loco.
Iª q. 52 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus non sit in loco. Dicit enim Boetius, in libro de Hebd., communis animi conceptio apud sapientes est, incorporalia in loco non esse. Et Aristoteles, in IV Physic., dicit quod non omne quod est, est in loco, sed mobile corpus. Sed Angelus non est corpus, ut supra ostensum est. Ergo Angelus non est in loco.	Objection 1. It would seem that an angel is not in a place. For Boethius says (De Hebdom.): "The common opinion of the learned is that things incorporeal are not in a place." And again, Aristotle observes (Phys. iv, text 48,57) that "it is not everything existing which is in a place, but only a movable body." But an angel is not a body, as was shown above (50). Therefore an angel is not in a place.
Iª q. 52 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, locus est quantitas positionem habens. Omne ergo quod est in loco, habet aliquem situm. Sed habere situm non potest convenire Angelo, cum substantia sua sit immunis a quantitate, cuius propria differentia est positionem habere. Ergo Angelus non est in loco.	Objection 2. Further, place is a "quantity having position." But everything which is in a place has some position. Now to have a position cannot benefit an angel, since his substance is devoid of quantity, the proper difference of which is to have a position. Therefore an angel is not in a place.
Iª q. 52 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, esse in loco est mensurari loco et contineri a loco, ut patet per philosophum in IV Physic. Sed Angelus non potest mensurari neque contineri a loco, quia continens est formalius contento, sicut aer aqua, ut dicitur in IV Physic. Ergo Angelus non est in loco.	Objection 3. Further, to be in a place is to be measured and to be contained by such place, as is evident from the Philosopher (Phys. iv, text 14,119). But an angel can neither be measured nor contained by a place, because the container is more formal than the contained; as air with regard to water (Phys. iv, text 35,49). Therefore an angel is not in a place.
Iª q. 52 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod in collecta dicitur, Angeli tui sancti, habitantes in ea, nos in pace custodiant.	On the contrary, It is said in the Collect [Prayer at Compline, Dominican Breviary]: "Let Thy holy angels who dwell herein, keep us in peace."
Iª q. 52 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Angelo convenit esse in loco, aequivoce tamen dicitur Angelus esse in loco, et corpus. Corpus enim est in loco per hoc, quod applicatur loco secundum contactum dimensivae quantitatis. Quae quidem in Angelis non est; sed est in eis quantitas virtualis. Per applicationem igitur virtutis angelicae ad aliquem locum qualitercumque, dicitur Angelus esse in loco corporeo. Et secundum hoc patet quod non oportet dicere quod Angelus commensuretur loco; vel quod habeat situm in continuo. Haec enim conveniunt corpori locato, prout est quantum quantitate dimensiva. Similiter etiam non oportet propter hoc, quod contineatur a loco. Nam substantia incorporea sua virtute contingens rem corpoream, continet ipsam, et non continetur ab ea, anima enim est in corpore ut continens, et non ut contenta. Et similiter Angelus dicitur esse in loco corporeo, non ut contentum, sed ut continens aliquo modo.	I answer that, It is befitting an angel to be in a place; yet an angel and a body are said to be in a place in quite a different sense. A body is said to be in a place in such a way that it is applied to such place according to the contact of dimensive quantity; but there is no such quantity in the angels, for theirs is a virtual one. Consequently an angel is said to be in a corporeal place by application of the angelic power in any manner whatever to any place. Accordingly there is no need for saying that an angel can be deemed commensurate with a place, or that he occupies a space in the continuous; for this is proper to a located body which is endowed with dimensive quantity. In similar fashion it is not necessary on this account for the angel to be contained by a place; because an incorporeal substance virtually contains the thing with which it comes into contact, and is not contained by it: for the soul is in the body as containing it, not as contained by it. In the same way an angel is said to be in a place which is corporeal, not as the thing contained, but as somehow containing it.
Iª q. 52 a. 1 ad arg. Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta.	And hereby we have the answers to the objections.
Iª q. 52 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus possit esse in pluribus locis simul. Angelus enim non est minoris virtutis quam anima. Sed anima est simul in pluribus locis, quia est tota in qualibet parte corporis, ut Augustinus dicit. Ergo Angelus potest esse in pluribus locis simul.	Objection 1. It would seem that an angel can be in several places at once. For an angel is not less endowed with power than the soul. But the soul is in several places at once, for it is entirely in every part of the body, as Augustine says (De Trin. vi). Therefore an angel can be in several places at once.
Iª q. 52 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, Angelus est in corpore assumpto; et cum assumat corpus continuum, videtur quod sit in qualibet eius parte. Sed secundum partes eius considerantur diversa loca. Ergo Angelus est simul in pluribus locis.	Objection 2. Further, an angel is in the body which he assumes; and, since the body which he assumes is continuous, it would appear that he is in every part thereof. But according to the various parts there are various places. Therefore the angel is at one time in various places.
Iª q. 52 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, Damascenus dicit quod ubi Angelus operatur, ibi est. Sed aliquando operatur simul in pluribus locis, ut patet de Angelo subvertente Sodomam, Gen. XIX. Ergo Angelus potest esse in pluribus locis simul.	Objection 3. Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii) that "where the angel operates, there he is." But occasionally he operates in several places at one time, as is evident from the angel destroying Sodom (Genesis 19:25). Therefore an angel can be in several places at the one time.
Iª q. 52 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Damascenus dicit, quod Angeli, dum sunt in caelo, non sunt in terra.	On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii) that "while the angels are in heaven, they are not on earth."
Iª q. 52 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Angelus est virtutis et essentiae finitae. Divina autem virtus et essentia infinita est, et est universalis causa omnium, et ideo sua virtute omnia contingit, et non solum in pluribus locis est, sed ubique. Virtus autem Angeli, quia finita est, non se extendit ad omnia, sed ad aliquid unum determinatum. Oportet enim quidquid comparatur ad unam virtutem, ut unum aliquid comparari ad ipsam. Sicut igitur universum ens comparatur ut unum aliquid ad universalem Dei virtutem, ita et aliquod particulare ens comparatur ut aliquid unum ad Angeli virtutem. Unde cum Angelus sit in loco per applicationem virtutis suae ad locum, sequitur quod non sit ubique, nec in pluribus locis, sed in uno loco tantum. Circa hoc tamen aliqui decepti sunt. Quidam enim, imaginationem transcendere non valentes, cogitaverunt indivisibilitatem Angeli ad modum indivisibilitatis puncti, et inde crediderunt quod Angelus non posset esse nisi in loco punctali. Sed manifeste decepti sunt. Nam punctum est indivisibile habens situm, sed Angelus est indivisibile extra genus quantitatis et situs existens. Unde non est necesse quod determinetur ei unus locus indivisibilis secundum situm; sed vel divisibilis vel indivisibilis, vel maior vel minor, secundum quod voluntarie applicat suam virtutem ad corpus maius vel minus. Et sic totum corpus cui per suam virtutem applicatur, correspondet ei ut unus locus. Nec tamen oportet quod si aliquis Angelus movet caelum, quod sit ubique. Primo quidem, quia non applicatur virtus eius nisi ad id quod primo ab ipso movetur, una autem pars caeli est in qua primo est motus, scilicet pars orientis, unde etiam philosophus, in VIII Physic., virtutem motoris caelorum attribuit parti orientis. Secundo, quia non ponitur a philosophis quod una substantia separata moveat omnes orbes immediate. Unde non oportet quod sit ubique. Sic igitur patet quod diversimode esse in loco convenit corpori, et Angelo, et Deo. Nam corpus est in loco circumscriptive, quia commensuratur loco. Angelus autem non circumscriptive, cum non commensuretur loco, sed definitive, quia ita est in uno loco, quod non in alio. Deus autem neque circumscriptive neque definitive, quia est ubique.	I answer that, An angel's power and nature are finite, whereas the Divine power and essence, which is the universal cause of all things, is infinite: consequently God through His power touches all things, and is not merely present in some places, but is everywhere. Now since the angel's power is finite, it does not extend to all things, but to one determined thing. For whatever is compared with one power must be compared therewith as one determined thing. Consequently since all being is compared as one thing to God's universal power, so is one particular being compared as one with the angelic power. Hence, since the angel is in a place by the application of his power to the place, it follows that he is not everywhere, nor in several places, but in only one place. Some, however, have been deceived in this matter. For some who were unable to go beyond the reach of their imaginations supposed the indivisibility of the angel to be like that of a point; consequently they thought that an angel could be only in a place which is a point. But they were manifestly deceived, because a point is something indivisible, yet having its situation; whereas the angel is indivisible, and beyond the genus of quantity and situation. Consequently there is no occasion for determining in his regard one indivisible place as to situation: any place which is either divisible or indivisible, great or small suffices, according as to his own free-will he applies his power to a great or to a small body. So the entire body to which he is applied by his power, corresponds as one place to him. Neither, if any angel moves the heavens, is it necessary for him to be everywhere. First of all, because his power is applied only to what is first moved by him. Now there is one part of the heavens in which there is movement first of all, namely, the part to the east: hence the Philosopher (Phys. vii, text 84) attributes the power of the heavenly mover to the part which is in the east. Secondly, because philosophers do not hold that one separate substance moves all the spheres immediately. Hence it need not be everywhere. So, then, it is evident that to be in a place appertains quite differently to a body, to an angel, and to God. For a body is in a place in a circumscribed fashion, since it is measured by the place. An angel, however, is not there in a circumscribed fashion, since he is not measured by the place, but definitively, because he is in a place in such a manner that he is not in another. But God is neither circumscriptively nor definitively there, because He is everywhere.
Iª q. 52 a. 2 ad 1 Et per hoc patet de facili responsio ad obiecta, quia totum illud cui immediate applicatur virtus Angeli, reputatur ut unus locus eius, licet sit continuum.	From this we can easily gather an answer to the objections: because the entire subject to which the angelic power is immediately applied, is reputed as one place, even though it be continuous.
Iª q. 52 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod plures Angeli possint simul esse in eodem loco. Plura enim corpora non possunt esse simul in eodem loco, quia replent locum. Sed Angeli non replent locum, quia solum corpus replet locum, ut non sit vacuum, ut patet per philosophum, in IV Physic. Ergo plures Angeli possunt esse in uno loco.	Objection 1. It would seem that several angels can be at the same time in the same place. For several bodies cannot be at the same time in the same place, because they fill the place. But the angels do not fill a place, because only a body fills a place, so that it be not empty, as appears from the Philosopher (Phys. iv, text 52,58). Therefore several angels can be in the one place.
Iª q. 52 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, plus differt Angelus et corpus quam duo Angeli. Sed Angelus et corpus sunt simul in eodem loco, quia nullus locus est qui non sit plenus sensibili corpore, ut probatur in IV Physic. Ergo multo magis duo Angeli possunt esse in eodem loco.	Objection 2. Further, there is a greater difference between an angel and a body than there is between two angels. But an angel and a body are at the one time in the one place: because there is no place which is not filled with a sensible body, as we find proved in Phys. iv, text. 58. Much more, then, can two angels be in the same place.
Iª q. 52 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, anima est in qualibet parte corporis, secundum Augustinum. Sed Daemones, licet non illabantur mentibus, illabuntur tamen interdum corporibus, et sic anima et Daemon sunt simul in eodem loco. Ergo, eadem ratione, quaecumque aliae spirituales substantiae.	Objection 3. Further, the soul is in every part of the body, according to Augustine (De Trin. vi). But demons, although they do not obsess souls, do obsess bodies occasionally; and thus the soul and the demon are at the one time in the same place; and consequently for the same reason all other spiritual substances.
Iª q. 52 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra, duae animae non sunt in eodem corpore. Ergo, pari ratione, neque duo Angeli in eodem loco.	On the contrary, There are not two souls in the same body. Therefore for a like reason there are not two angels in the same place.
Iª q. 52 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod duo Angeli non sunt simul in eodem loco. Et ratio huius est, quia impossibile est quod duae causae completae sint immediatae unius et eiusdem rei. Quod patet in omni genere causarum, una enim est forma proxima unius rei, et unum est proximum movens, licet possint esse plures motores remoti. Nec habet instantiam de pluribus trahentibus navem, quia nullus eorum est perfectus motor, cum virtus uniuscuiusque sit insufficiens ad movendum; sed omnes simul sunt in loco unius motoris, inquantum omnes virtutes eorum aggregantur ad unum motum faciendum. Unde cum Angelus dicatur esse in loco per hoc quod virtus eius immediate contingit locum per modum continentis perfecti, ut dictum est, non potest esse nisi unus Angelus in uno loco.	I answer that, There are not two angels in the same place. The reason of this is because it is impossible for two complete causes to be the causes immediately of one and the same thing. This is evident in every class of causes: for there is one proximate form of one thing, and there is one proximate mover, although there may be several remote movers. Nor can it be objected that several individuals may row a boat, since no one of them is a perfect mover, because no one man's strength is sufficient for moving the boat; while all together are as one mover, in so far as their united strengths all combine in producing the one movement. Hence, since the angel is said to be in one place by the fact that his power touches the place immediately by way of a perfect container, as was said (1), there can be but one angel in one place.
Iª q. 52 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod plures Angelos esse in uno loco non impeditur propter impletionem loci, sed propter aliam causam, ut dictum est.	Reply to Objection 1. Several angels are not hindered from being in the same place because of their filling the place; but for another reason, as has been said.
Iª q. 52 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Angelus et corpus non eodem modo sunt in loco, unde ratio non sequitur.	Reply to Objection 2. An angel and a body are not in a place in the same way; hence the conclusion does not follow.
Iª q. 52 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod nec etiam Daemon et anima comparantur ad corpus secundum eandem habitudinem causae; cum anima sit forma, non autem Daemon. Unde ratio non sequitur.	Reply to Objection 3. Not even a demon and a soul are compared to a body according to the same relation of causality; since the soul is its form, while the demon is not. Hence the inference does not follow.
Iª q. 53 pr. Consequenter considerandum est de motu locali Angelorum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo, utrum Angelus possit moveri localiter. Secundo, utrum moveatur de loco ad locum, pertranseundo medium. Tertio, utrum motus Angeli sit in tempore vel in instanti.
Iª q. 53 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus non possit moveri localiter. Ut enim probat philosophus in VI Physic., nullum impartibile movetur, quia dum aliquid est in termino a quo, non movetur; nec etiam dum est in termino ad quem, sed tunc mutatum est, unde relinquitur quod omne quod movetur, dum movetur, partim est in termino a quo, et partim in termino ad quem. Sed Angelus est impartibilis. Ergo Angelus non potest moveri localiter.	Objection 1. It seems that an angel cannot be moved locally. For, as the Philosopher proves (Phys. vi, text 32,86) "nothing which is devoid of parts is moved"; because, while it is in the term "wherefrom," it is not moved; nor while it is in the term "whereto," for it is then already moved; consequently it remains that everything which is moved, while it is being moved, is partly in the term "wherefrom" and partly in the term "whereto." But an angel is without parts. Therefore an angel cannot be moved locally.
Iª q. 53 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, motus est actus imperfecti, ut dicitur in III Physic. Sed Angelus beatus non est imperfectus. Ergo Angelus beatus non movetur localiter.	Objection 2. Further, movement is "the act of an imperfect being," as the Philosopher says (Phys. iii, text 14). But a beatified angel is not imperfect. Consequently a beatified angel is not moved locally.
Iª q. 53 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, motus non est nisi propter indigentiam. Sed sanctorum Angelorum nulla est indigentia. Ergo sancti Angeli localiter non moventur.	Objection 3. Further, movement is simply because of want. But the holy angels have no want. Therefore the holy angels are not moved locally.
Iª q. 53 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra, eiusdem rationis est Angelum beatum moveri, et animam beatam moveri. Sed necesse est dicere animam beatam localiter moveri, cum sit articulus fidei quod Christus secundum animam, descendit ad Inferos. Ergo Angelus beatus movetur localiter.	On the contrary, It is the same thing for a beatified angel to be moved as for a beatified soul to be moved. But it must necessarily be said that a blessed soul is moved locally, because it is an article of faith that Christ's soul descended into Hell. Therefore a beatified angel is moved locally.
Iª q. 53 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Angelus beatus potest moveri localiter. Sed sicut esse in loco aequivoce convenit corpori et Angelo, ita etiam et moveri secundum locum. Corpus enim est in loco, inquantum continetur sub loco, et commensuratur loco. Unde oportet quod etiam motus corporis secundum locum, commensuretur loco, et sit secundum exigentiam eius. Et inde est quod secundum continuitatem magnitudinis est continuitas motus; et secundum prius et posterius in magnitudine, est prius et posterius in motu locali corporis, ut dicitur in IV Physic. Sed Angelus non est in loco ut commensuratus et contentus, sed magis ut continens. Unde motus Angeli in loco, non oportet quod commensuretur loco, nec quod sit secundum exigentiam eius, ut habeat continuitatem ex loco; sed est motus non continuus. Quia enim Angelus non est in loco nisi secundum contactum virtutis, ut dictum est, necesse est quod motus Angeli in loco nihil aliud sit quam diversi contactus diversorum locorum successive et non simul, quia Angelus non potest simul esse in pluribus locis, ut supra dictum est. Huiusmodi autem contactus non est necessarium esse continuos. Potest tamen in huiusmodi contactibus continuitas quaedam inveniri. Quia, ut dictum est, nihil prohibet Angelo assignare locum divisibilem, per contactum suae virtutis; sicut corpori assignatur locus divisibilis, per contactum suae magnitudinis. Unde sicut corpus successive, et non simul, dimittit locum in quo prius erat, et ex hoc causatur continuitas in motu locali eius; ita etiam Angelus potest dimittere successive locum divisibilem in quo prius erat, et sic motus eius erit continuus. Et potest etiam totum locum simul dimittere, et toti alteri loco simul se applicare, et sic motus eius non erit continuus.	I answer that, A beatified angel can be moved locally. As, however, to be in a place belongs equivocally to a body and to an angel, so likewise does local movement. For a body is in a place in so far as it is contained under the place, and is commensurate with the place. Hence it is necessary for local movement of a body to be commensurate with the place, and according to its exigency. Hence it is that the continuity of movement is according to the continuity of magnitude; and according to priority and posteriority of local movement, as the Philosopher says (Phys. iv, text 99). But an angel is not in a place as commensurate and contained, but rather as containing it. Hence it is not necessary for the local movement of an angel to be commensurate with the place, nor for it to be according to the exigency of the place, so as to have continuity therefrom; but it is a non-continuous movement. For since the angel is in a place only by virtual contact, as was said above (52, 1), it follows necessarily that the movement of an angel in a place is nothing else than the various contacts of various places successively, and not at once; because an angel cannot be in several places at one time, as was said above (52, 2). Nor is it necessary for these contacts to be continuous. Nevertheless a certain kind of continuity can be found in such contacts. Because, as was said above (52, 1), there is nothing to hinder us from assigning a divisible place to an angel according to virtual contact; just as a divisible place is assigned to a body by contact of magnitude. Hence as a body successively, and not all at once, quits the place in which it was before, and thence arises continuity in its local movement; so likewise an angel can successively quit the divisible place in which he was before, and so his movement will be continuous. And he can all at once quit the whole place, and in the same instant apply himself to the whole of another place, and thus his movement will not be continuous.
Iª q. 53 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illa ratio dupliciter deficit in proposito. Primo quidem, quia demonstratio Aristotelis procedit de indivisibili secundum quantitatem, cui respondet locus de necessitate indivisibilis. Quod non potest dici de Angelo. Secundo, quia demonstratio Aristotelis procedit de motu continuo. Si enim motus non esset continuus, posset dici quod aliquid movetur dum est in termino a quo, et dum est in termino ad quem, quia ipsa successio diversorum ubi circa eandem rem, motus diceretur; unde in quolibet illorum ubi res esset, illa posset dici moveri. Sed continuitas motus hoc impedit, quia nullum continuum est in termino suo, ut patet, quia linea non est in puncto. Et ideo oportet quod illud quod movetur, non sit totaliter in altero terminorum, dum movetur; sed partim in uno, et partim in altero. Secundum ergo quod motus Angeli non est continuus, demonstratio Aristotelis non procedit in proposito. Sed secundum quod motus Angeli ponitur continuus, sic concedi potest quod Angelus, dum movetur, partim est in termino a quo, et partim in termino ad quem (ut tamen partialitas non referatur ad substantiam Angeli, sed ad locum), quia in principio sui motus continui, Angelus est in toto loco divisibili a quo incipit moveri; sed dum est in ipso moveri, est in parte primi loci quem deserit, et in parte secundi loci quem occupat. Et hoc quidem quod possit occupare partes duorum locorum, competit Angelo ex hoc quod potest occupare locum divisibilem per applicationem suae virtutis sicut corpus per applicationem magnitudinis. Unde sequitur de corpore mobili secundum locum, quod sit divisibile secundum magnitudinem de Angelo autem, quod virtus eius possit applicari alicui divisibili.	Reply to Objection 1. This argument fails of its purpose for a twofold reason. First of all, because Aristotle's demonstration deals with what is indivisible according to quantity, to which responds a place necessarily indivisible. And this cannot be said of an angel. Secondly, because Aristotle's demonstration deals with movement which is continuous. For if the movement were not continuous, it might be said that a thing is moved where it is in the term "wherefrom," and while it is in the term "whereto": because the very succession of "wheres," regarding the same thing, would be called movement: hence, in whichever of those "wheres" the thing might be, it could be said to be moved. But the continuity of movement prevents this; because nothing which is continuous is in its term, as is clear, because the line is not in the point. Therefore it is necessary for the thing moved to be not totally in either of the terms while it is being moved; but partly in the one, and partly in the other. Therefore, according as the angel's movement is not continuous, Aristotle's demonstration does not hold good. But according as the angel's movement is held to be continuous, it can be so granted, that, while an angel is in movement, he is partly in the term "wherefrom," and partly in the term "whereto" (yet so that such partiality be not referred to the angel's substance, but to the place); because at the outset of his continuous movement the angel is in the whole divisible place from which he begins to be moved; but while he is actually in movement, he is in part of the first place which he quits, and in part of the second place which he occupies. This very fact that he can occupy the parts of two places appertains to the angel from this, that he can occupy a divisible place by applying his power; as a body does by application of magnitude. Hence it follows regarding a body which is movable according to place, that it is divisible according to magnitude; but regarding an angel, that his power can be applied to something which is divisible.
Iª q. 53 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod motus existentis in potentia, est actus imperfecti. Sed motus qui est secundum applicationem virtutis, est existentis in actu, quia virtus rei est secundum quod actu est.	Reply to Objection 2. The movement of that which is in potentiality is the act of an imperfect agent. But the movement which is by application of energy is the act of one in act: because energy implies actuality.
Iª q. 53 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod motus existentis in potentia, est propter indigentiam suam, sed motus existentis in actu, non est propter indigentiam suam, sed propter indigentiam alterius. Et hoc modo Angelus, propter indigentiam nostram, localiter movetur, secundum illud Heb. I, omnes sunt administratorii spiritus, in ministerium missi propter eos qui haereditatem capiunt salutis.	Reply to Objection 3. The movement of that which is in potentiality is the act of an imperfect but the movement of what is in act is not for any need of its own, but for another's need. In this way, because of our need, the angel is moved locally, according to Heb. 1:14: "They are all [Vulg.: 'Are they not all . . . ?'] ministering spirits, sent to minister for them who receive the inheritance of salvation."
Iª q. 53 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus non transeat per medium. Omne enim quod pertransit medium, prius pertransit locum sibi aequalem, quam maiorem. Locus autem aequalis Angeli, qui est indivisibilis, est locus punctalis. Si ergo Angelus in suo motu pertransit medium, oportet quod numeret puncta infinita suo motu, quod est impossibile.	Objection 1. It would seem that an angel does not pass through intermediate space. For everything that passes through a middle space first travels along a place of its own dimensions, before passing through a greater. But the place responding to an angel, who is indivisible, is confined to a point. Therefore if the angel passes through middle space, he must reckon infinite points in his movement: which is not possible.
Iª q. 53 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, Angelus est simplicioris substantiae quam anima nostra. Sed anima nostra sua cogitatione potest transire de uno extremo in aliud, non pertranseundo medium, possum enim cogitare Galliam et postea Syriam, nihil cogitando de Italia, quae est in medio. Ergo multo magis Angelus potest de uno extremo transire ad aliud, non per medium.	Objection 2. Further, an angel is of simpler substance than the soul. But our soul by taking thought can pass from one extreme to another without going through the middle: for I can think of France and afterwards of Syria, without ever thinking of Italy, which stands between them. Therefore much more can an angel pass from one extreme to another without going through the middle.
Iª q. 53 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra, si Angelus movetur de uno loco ad alium, quando est in termino ad quem, non movetur, sed mutatus est. Sed ante omne mutatum esse praecedit mutari, ergo alicubi existens movebatur. Sed non movebatur dum erat in termino a quo. Movebatur ergo dum erat in medio. Et ita oportet quod pertranseat medium.	On the contrary, If the angel be moved from one place to another, then, when he is in the term "whither," he is no longer in motion, but is changed. But a process of changing precedes every actual change: consequently he was being moved while existing in some place. But he was not moved so long as he was in the term "whence." Therefore, he was moved while he was in mid-space: and so it was necessary for him to pass through intervening space.
Iª q. 53 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, motus localis Angeli potest esse continuus, et non continuus. Si ergo sit continuus, non potest Angelus moveri de uno extremo in alterum, quin transeat per medium, quia, ut dicitur in V Physic., medium est in quod prius venit quod continue mutatur, quam in quod mutatur ultimum; ordo enim prioris et posterioris in motu continuo, est secundum ordinem prioris et posterioris in magnitudine, ut dicitur in IV Physic. Si autem motus Angeli non sit continuus, possibile est quod pertranseat de aliquo extremo in aliud, non pertransito medio. Quod sic patet. Inter quaelibet enim duo extrema loca sunt infinita loca media; sive accipiantur loca divisibilia, sive indivisibilia. Et de indivisibilibus quidem manifestum est, quia inter quaelibet duo puncta sunt infinita puncta media, cum nulla duo puncta consequantur se invicem sine medio, ut in VI Physic. probatur. De locis autem divisibilibus necesse est etiam hoc dicere. Et hoc demonstratur ex motu continuo alicuius corporis. Corpus enim non movetur de loco ad locum nisi in tempore. In toto autem tempore mensurante motum corporis, non est accipere duo nunc, in quibus corpus quod movetur non sit in alio et alio loco, quia si in uno et eodem loco esset in duobus nunc, sequeretur quod ibi quiesceret; cum nihil aliud sit quiescere quam in loco eodem esse nunc et prius. Cum igitur inter primum nunc et ultimum temporis mensurantis motum, sint infinita nunc, oportet quod inter primum locum, a quo incipit moveri, et ultimum locum, ad quem terminatur motus, sint infinita loca. Et hoc sic etiam sensibiliter apparet. Sit enim unum corpus unius palmi, et sit via per quam transit, duorum palmorum, manifestum est quod locus primus, a quo incipit motus, est unius palmi; et locus, ad quem terminatur motus, est alterius palmi. Manifestum est autem quod, quando incipit moveri, paulatim deserit primum palmum, et subintrat secundum. Secundum ergo quod dividitur magnitudo palmi, secundum hoc multiplicantur loca media, quia quodlibet punctum signatum in magnitudine primi palmi, est principium unius loci; et punctum signatum in magnitudine alterius palmi, est terminus eiusdem. Unde cum magnitudo sit divisibilis in infinitum, et puncta sint etiam infinita in potentia in qualibet magnitudine; sequitur quod inter quaelibet duo loca sint infinita loca media. Mobile autem infinitatem mediorum locorum non consumit nisi per continuitatem motus, quia sicut loca media sunt infinita in potentia, ita et in motu continuo est accipere infinita quaedam in potentia. Si ergo motus non sit continuus, omnes partes motus erunt numeratae in actu. Si ergo mobile quodcumque moveatur motu non continuo, sequitur quod vel non transeat omnia media, vel quod actu numeret media infinita, quod est impossibile. Sic igitur secundum quod motus Angeli non est continuus, non pertransit omnia media. Hoc autem, scilicet moveri de extremo in extremum et non per medium, potest convenire Angelo sed non corpori. Quia corpus mensuratur et continetur sub loco, unde oportet quod sequatur leges loci in suo motu. Sed substantia Angeli non est subdita loco ut contenta, sed est superior eo ut continens, unde in potestate eius est applicare se loco prout vult, vel per medium vel sine medio.	I answer that, As was observed above in the preceding article, the local motion of an angel can be continuous, and non-continuous. If it be continuous, the angel cannot pass from one extreme to another without passing through the mid-space; because, as is said by the Philosopher (Phys. v, text 22; vi, text 77), "The middle is that into which a thing which is continually moved comes, before arriving at the last into which it is moved"; because the order of first and last in continuous movement, is according to the order of the first and last in magnitude, as he says (Phys. iv, text 99). But if an angel's movement be not continuous, it is possible for him to pass from one extreme to another without going through the middle: which is evident thus. Between the two extreme limits there are infinite intermediate places; whether the places be taken as divisible or as indivisible. This is clearly evident with regard to places which are indivisible; because between every two points that are infinite intermediate points, since no two points follow one another without a middle, as is proved in Phys. vi, text. 1. And the same must of necessity be said of divisible places: and this is shown from the continuous movement of a body. For a body is not moved from place to place except in time. But in the whole time which measures the movement of a body, there are not two "nows" in which the body moved is not in one place and in another; for if it were in one and the same place in two "nows," it would follow that it would be at rest there; since to be at rest is nothing else than to be in the same place now and previously. Therefore since there are infinite "nows" between the first and the last "now" of the time which measures the movement, there must be infinite places between the first from which the movement begins, and the last where the movement ceases. This again is made evident from sensible experience. Let there be a body of a palm's length, and let there be a plane measuring two palms, along which it travels; it is evident that the first place from which the movement starts is that of the one palm; and the place wherein the movement ends is that of the other palm. Now it is clear that when it begins to move, it gradually quits the first palm and enters the second. According, then, as the magnitude of the palm is divided, even so are the intermediate places multiplied; because every distinct point in the magnitude of the first palm is the beginning of a place, and a distinct point in the magnitude of the other palm is the limit of the same. Accordingly, since magnitude is infinitely divisible and the points in every magnitude are likewise infinite in potentiality, it follows that between every two places there are infinite intermediate places. Now a movable body only exhausts the infinity of the intermediate places by the continuity of its movement; because, as the intermediate places are infinite in potentiality, so likewise must there be reckoned some infinitudes in movement which is continuous. Consequently, if the movement be not continuous, then all the parts of the movement will be actually numbered. If, therefore, any movable body be moved, but not by continuous movement, it follows, either that it does not pass through all the intermediate places, or else that it actually numbers infinite places: which is not possible. Accordingly, then, as the angel's movement is not continuous, he does not pass through all intermediate places. Now, the actual passing from one extreme to the other, without going through the mid-space, is quite in keeping with an angel's nature; but not with that of a body, because a body is measured by and contained under a place; hence it is bound to follow the laws of place in its movement. But an angel's substance is not subject to place as contained thereby, but is above it as containing it: hence it is under his control to apply himself to a place just as he wills, either through or without the intervening place.
Iª q. 53 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod locus Angeli non accipitur ei aequalis secundum magnitudinem, sed secundum contactum virtutis, et sic locus Angeli potest esse divisibilis, et non semper punctalis. Sed tamen loca media etiam divisibilia, sunt infinita, ut dictum est, sed consumuntur per continuitatem motus, ut patet ex praedictis.	Reply to Objection 1. The place of an angel is not taken as equal to him according to magnitude, but according to contact of power: and so the angel's place can be divisible, and is not always a mere point. Yet even the intermediate divisible places are infinite, as was said above: but they are consumed by the continuity of the movement, as is evident from the foregoing.
Iª q. 53 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Angelus dum movetur localiter, applicatur eius essentia diversis locis, animae autem essentia non applicatur rebus quas cogitat, sed potius res cogitatae sunt in ipsa. Et ideo non est simile.	Reply to Objection 2. While an angel is moved locally, his essence is applied to various places: but the soul's essence is not applied to the things thought of, but rather the things thought of are in it. So there is no comparison.
Iª q. 53 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod in motu continuo mutatum esse non est pars moveri, sed terminus unde oportet quod moveri sit ante mutatum esse. Et ideo oportet quod talis motus sit per medium. Sed in motu non continuo mutatum esse est pars, sicut unitas est pars numeri, unde successio diversorum locorum, etiam sine medio, constituit talem motum.	Reply to Objection 3. In continuous movement the actual change is not a part of the movement, but its conclusion; hence movement must precede change. Accordingly such movement is through the mid-space. But in movement which is not continuous, the change is a part, as a unit is a part of number: hence the succession of the various places, even without the mid-space, constitutes such movement.
Iª q. 53 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod motus Angeli sit in instanti. Quanto enim virtus motoris fuerit fortior, et mobile minus resistens motori, tanto motus est velocior. Sed virtus Angeli moventis seipsum, improportionabiliter excedit virtutem moventem aliquod corpus. Proportio autem velocitatum est secundum minorationem temporis. Omne autem tempus omni tempori proportionabile est. Si igitur aliquod corpus movetur in tempore, Angelus movetur in instanti.	Objection 1. It would seem that an angel's movement is instantaneous. For the greater the power of the mover, and the less the moved resist the mover, the more rapid is the movement. But the power of an angel moving himself exceeds beyond all proportion the power which moves a body. Now the proportion of velocities is reckoned according to the lessening of the time. But between one length of time and any other length of time there is proportion. If therefore a body is moved in time, an angel is moved in an instant.
Iª q. 53 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, motus Angeli simplicior est quam aliqua mutatio corporalis. Sed aliqua mutatio corporalis est in instanti, ut illuminatio, tum quia non illuminatur aliquid successive, sicut calefit successive; tum quia radius non prius pertingit ad propinquum quam ad remotum. Ergo multo magis motus Angeli est in instanti.	Objection 2. Further, the angel's movement is simpler than any bodily change. But some bodily change is effected in an instant, such as illumination; both because the subject is not illuminated successively, as it gets hot successively; and because a ray does not reach sooner what is near than what is remote. Much more therefore is the angel's movement instantaneous.
Iª q. 53 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, si Angelus movetur in tempore de loco ad locum, manifestum est quod in ultimo instanti illius temporis est in termino ad quem, in toto autem tempore praecedenti, aut est in loco immediate praecedenti, qui accipitur ut terminus a quo; aut partim in uno et partim in alio. Si autem partim in uno et partim in alio, sequitur quod sit partibilis, quod est impossibile. Ergo in toto tempore praecedenti est in termino a quo. Ergo quiescit ibi, cum quiescere sit in eodem esse nunc et prius, ut dictum est. Et sic sequitur quod non moveatur nisi in ultimo instanti temporis.	Objection 3. Further, if an angel be moved from place to place in time, it is manifest that in the last instant of such time he is in the term "whereto": but in the whole of the preceding time, he is either in the place immediately preceding, which is taken as the term "wherefrom"; or else he is partly in the one, and partly in the other, it follows that he is divisible; which is impossible. Therefore during the whole of the preceding time he is in the term "wherefrom." Therefore he rests there: since to be at rest is to be in the same place now and previously, as was said (2). Therefore it follows that he is not moved except in the last instant of time.
Iª q. 53 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra, in omni mutatione est prius et posterius. Sed prius et posterius motus numeratur secundum tempus. Ergo omnis motus est in tempore, etiam motus Angeli; cum in eo sit prius et posterius.	On the contrary, In every change there is a before and after. Now the before and after of movement is reckoned by time. Consequently every movement, even of an angel, is in time, since there is a before and after in it.
Iª q. 53 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod quidam dixerunt motum localem Angeli esse in instanti. Dicebant enim quod, cum Angelus movetur de uno loco ad alium, in toto tempore praecedenti Angelus est in termino a quo in ultimo autem instanti illius temporis est in termino ad quem. Nec oportet esse aliquod medium inter duos terminos; sicut non est aliquod medium inter tempus et terminum temporis. Inter duo autem nunc temporis, est tempus medium, unde dicunt quod non est dare ultimum nunc in quo fuit in termino a quo. Sicut in illuminatione, et in generatione substantiali ignis, non est dare ultimum instans in quo aer fuit tenebrosus, vel in quo materia fuit sub privatione formae ignis, sed est dare ultimum tempus, ita quod in ultimo illius temporis est vel lumen in aere, vel forma ignis in materia. Et sic illuminatio et generatio substantialis dicuntur motus instantanei. Sed hoc non habet locum in proposito. Quod sic ostenditur. De ratione enim quietis est quod quiescens non aliter se habeat nunc et prius, et ideo in quolibet nunc temporis mensurantis quietem, quiescens est in eodem et in primo, et in medio, et in ultimo. Sed de ratione motus est quod id quod movetur, aliter se habeat nunc et prius, et ideo in quolibet nunc temporis mensurantis motum, mobile se habet in alia et alia dispositione, unde oportet quod in ultimo nunc habeat formam quam prius non habebat. Et sic patet quod quiescere in toto tempore in aliquo, puta in albedine, est esse in illo in quolibet instanti illius temporis, unde non est possibile ut aliquid in toto tempore praecedenti quiescat in uno termino et postea in ultimo instanti illius temporis sit in alio termino. Sed hoc est possibile in motu, quia moveri in toto aliquo tempore, non est esse in eadem dispositione in quolibet instanti illius temporis. Igitur omnes huiusmodi mutationes instantaneae sunt termini motus continui, sicut generatio est terminus alterationis materiae, et illuminatio terminus motus localis corporis illuminantis. Motus autem localis Angeli non est terminus alicuius alterius motus continui, sed est per seipsum, a nullo alio motu dependens. Unde impossibile est dicere quod in toto tempore sit in aliquo loco, et in ultimo nunc sit in alio loco. Sed oportet assignare nunc in quo ultimo fuit in loco praecedenti. Ubi autem sunt multa nunc sibi succedentia, ibi de necessitate est tempus, cum tempus nihil aliud sit quam numeratio prioris et posterioris in motu. Unde relinquitur quod motus Angeli sit in tempore. In continuo quidem tempore, si sit motus eius continuus; in non continuo autem, si motus sit non continuus (utroque enim modo contingit esse motum Angeli, ut dictum est), continuitas enim temporis est ex continuitate motus, ut dicitur in IV Physic. Sed istud tempus, sive sit tempus continuum sive non, non est idem cum tempore quod mensurat motum caeli, et quo mensurantur omnia corporalia, quae habent mutabilitatem ex motu caeli. Motus enim Angeli non dependet ex motu caeli.	I answer that, Some have maintained that the local movement of an angel is instantaneous. They said that when an angel is moved from place to place, during the whole of the preceding time he is in the term "wherefrom"; but in the last instant of such time he is in the term "whereto." Nor is there any need for a medium between the terms, just as there is no medium between time and the limit of time. But there is a mid-time between two "nows" of time: hence they say that a last "now" cannot be assigned in which it was in the term "wherefrom," just as in illumination, and in the substantial generation of fire, there is no last instant to be assigned in which the air was dark, or in which the matter was under the privation of the form of fire: but a last time can be assigned, so that in the last instant of such time there is light in the air, or the form of fire in the matter. And so illumination and substantial generation are called instantaneous movements. But this does not hold good in the present case; and it is shown thus. It is of the nature of rest that the subject in repose be not otherwise disposed now than it was before: and therefore in every "now" of time which measures rest, the subject reposing is in the same "where" in the first, in the middle, and in the last "now." On the other hand, it is of the very nature of movement for the subject moved to be otherwise now than it was before: and therefore in every "now" of time which measures movement, the movable subject is in various dispositions; hence in the last "now" it must have a different form from what it had before. So it is evident that to rest during the whole time in some (disposition), for instance, in whiteness, is to be in it in every instant of such time. Hence it is not possible for anything to rest in one term during the whole of the preceding time, and afterwards in the last instant of that time to be in the other term. But this is possible in movement: because to be moved in any whole time, is not to be in the same disposition in every instant of that time. Therefore all instantaneous changes of the kind are terms of a continuous movement: just as generation is the term of the alteration of matter, and illumination is the term of the local movement of the illuminating body. Now the local movement of an angel is not the term of any other continuous movement, but is of itself, depending upon no other movement. Consequently it is impossible to say that he is in any place during the whole time, and that in the last "now" he is in another place: but some "now" must be assigned in which he was last in the preceding place. But where there are many "nows" succeeding one another, there is necessarily time; since time is nothing else than the reckoning of before and after in movement. It remains, then, that the movement of an angel is in time. It is in continuous time if his movement be continuous, and in non-continuous time if his movement is non-continuous for, as was said (1), his movement can be of either kind, since the continuity of time comes of the continuity of movement, as the Philosopher says (Phys. iv, text 99). But that time, whether it be continuous or not, is not the same as the time which measures the movement of the heavens, and whereby all corporeal things are measured, which have their changeableness from the movement of the heavens; because the angel's movement does not depend upon the movement of the heavens.
Iª q. 53 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, si tempus motus Angeli non sit continuum, sed successio quaedam ipsorum nunc, non habebit proportionem ad tempus quod mensurat motum corporalium, quod est continuum, cum non sit eiusdem rationis. Si vero sit continuum, est quidem proportionabile, non quidem propter proportionem moventis et mobilis sed propter proportionem magnitudinum in quibus est motus. Et praeterea, velocitas motus Angeli non est secundum quantitatem suae virtutis; sed secundum determinationem suae voluntatis.	Reply to Objection 1. If the time of the angel's movement be not continuous, but a kind of succession of 'nows,' it will have no proportion to the time which measures the movement of corporeal things, which is continuous; since it is not of the same nature. If, however, it be continuous, it is indeed proportionable, not, indeed, because of the proportion of the mover and the movable, but on account of the proportion of the magnitudes in which the movement exists. Besides, the swiftness of the angel's movement is not measured by the quantity of his power, but according to the determination of his will.
Iª q. 53 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod illuminatio est terminus motus; et est alteratio, non motus localis ut intelligatur lumen moveri prius ad propinquum, quam ad remotum. Motus autem Angeli est localis, et non est terminus motus. Unde non est simile.	Reply to Objection 2. Illumination is the term of a movement; and is an alteration, not a local movement, as though the light were understood to be moved to what is near, before being moved to what is remote. But the angel's movement is local, and, besides, it is not the term of movement; hence there is no comparison.
Iª q. 53 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de tempore continuo. Tempus autem motus Angeli potest esse non continuum. Et sic Angelus in uno instanti potest esse in uno loco, et in alio instanti in alio loco, nullo tempore intermedio existente. Si autem tempus motus Angeli sit continuum, Angelus in toto tempore praecedenti ultimum nunc, variatur per infinita loca, ut prius expositum est. Est tamen partim in uno locorum continuorum et partim in alio, non quod substantia illius sit partibilis; sed quia virtus sua applicatur ad partem primi loci et ad partem secundi, ut etiam supra dictum est.	Reply to Objection 3. This objection is based on continuous time. But the same time of an angel's movement can be non-continuous. So an angel can be in one place in one instant, and in another place in the next instant, without any time intervening. If the time of the angel's movement be continuous, he is changed through infinite places throughout the whole time which precedes the last 'now'; as was already shown (2). Nevertheless he is partly in one of the continuous places, and partly in another, not because his substance is susceptible of parts, but because his power is applied to a part of the first place and to a part of the second, as was said above (2).

Directory:Logic Museum/Aquinas Summa-I-50-53

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

Navigation

semantic

Site statistics

Tools

Search