LatineEnglish
Corrected Latin
763. Nomen spiritus aequivocum est, et diversas habet acceptiones. Nam sumitur 1. pro re tenuissima, ac subtilissima, sive sit accidens, sive substantia. Sic species, seu imagines, quae ab objectis immittuntur ad sensus, spirituales, seu intentionales dicuntur. Sic tenuissimae, ac puriores sanguinis partes, per quas vegetandi, sentiendique vis manat in reliquas, spiritus vocantur. - 2. Accipitur pro vento, aere, et puriori exhalatione; unde spirare, respirare, idem est, ac aerem trahere; et ventus nimio impetu irruens Spiritus procellarum vocatur Psalm. 148. v. 8. - 3. Pro substantia incorporea, non quomodocumque, sed ut opponitur corpori crasso ex carne, et ossibus constante, quomodo illud Christi Lucae 24. v. 39. "Palpate, et videte, quia spiritus carnem, et ossa non habet." - 4. Pro ente nulla materia, quamvis tenuissima, concreto, materiam excedente, ab eaque independente - seu, pro ente simplici, corpus et materiam excedente, et vivente vita intellectiva: talis est anima humana. - 5. Quod si ens aliquid non modo excludit a se omnem materiam et dependentiam a materia; sed etiam omnem ordinem naturalem et conjunctionem ad corpus, ut ad subjectum, quod perficiat, et cum quo faciat unam completam substantiam: tunc habetur spiritus, qui dicitur purus. Igitur spiritus purus est substantia simplex, materiam excedens, nulli corpori naturaliter unita, ac proinde per se faciens completam naturam. Vid. Valentia (tom. 1. disp. 4. q. 1. punct. 2.)
763. The name spirit is equivocal and has diverse acceptations. For it is taken 1. for a very fine and very subtle thing, whether it is an accident or a substance. Thus species, or images, which are sent from objects to the senses, are called spiritual or intentional. Thus the very fine and purer parts of the blood, through which the power of vegetating and sensing flows into the rest, are called spirits. - 2. It is taken for wind, air, and a purer exhalation; hence to breathe and to respire are the same as to draw air; and wind rushing in with too great an impulse is called the Spirit of storms, Psalm 148:8. - 3. For an incorporeal substance, not in any way whatever, but as it is opposed to a thick body consisting of flesh and bones, as that saying of Christ in Luke 24:39: "Handle and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones." - 4. For a being concreted with no matter, however subtle, exceeding matter and independent from it, or for a simple being, exceeding body and matter, and living with intellective life; such is the human soul. - 5. But if some being not only excludes from itself all matter and dependence upon matter, but also every natural order and conjunction to a body as to a subject which it perfects and with which it makes one complete substance, then there is had a spirit which is called pure. Therefore a pure spirit is a simple substance, exceeding matter, naturally united to no body, and accordingly making by itself a complete nature. See Valentia, volume 1, disputation 4, question 1, point 2.
764. Diximus autem spiritum purum nulli corpori esse naturaliter unitum, etc.; quia licet spiritus purus non habeat corpus proprium, cum quo faciat unam naturam completam; potest tamen corpus assumere. Nam a) Scriptura saepe commemorat Angelos (qui, ut videbimus, sunt puri spiritus) apparuisse, ut viderentur a pluribus. "Quidam dixerunt," inquit D. Thomas 1. p. q. 51. a. 2. c. "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 ejus, et a Loth, et a civibus Sodomorum; similiter Angelus qui apparuit Tobiae, ab omnibus videbatur. Ex quo manifestum fit hujusmodi contigisse secundum corpoream visionem, qua videtur id quod positum est extra videntem, unde ab omnibus videri potest. Tali autem visione non videtur nisi corpus." - b) Unde S. Augustinus (de civ. Dei l. 15. c. 23.) scribit: "Apparuisse hominibus Angelos in talibus corporibus, quae non solum videri, verum etiam tangi possent, verissima Scriptura testatur."
764. But we said that a pure spirit is naturally united to no body, etc., because although a pure spirit does not have a proper body with which it makes one complete nature, nevertheless it can assume a body. For a) Scripture often commemorates Angels, who, as we shall see, are pure spirits, as having appeared so that they were seen by many. "Some have said," says St. Thomas, I, question 51, article 2, corpus, "that Angels never assume bodies, but that all things which are read in the divine Scriptures concerning the apparitions of Angels happened in prophetic vision, that is, according to imagination. But this is repugnant to the intention of Scripture. For that which is seen by imaginary vision is in the imagination alone of the one seeing. Hence it is not seen indifferently by all. But divine Scripture sometimes introduces Angels appearing in such a way that they were seen commonly by all; as the Angels appearing to Abraham were seen by him and by his whole family, and by Lot and by the citizens of Sodom; similarly the Angel who appeared to Tobias was seen by all. From this it becomes manifest that things of this sort happened according to bodily vision, by which that which is placed outside the one seeing is seen, whence it can be seen by all. But by such vision nothing is seen except a body." - b) Hence St. Augustine, The City of God, book 15, chapter 23, writes: "Most true Scripture testifies that Angels appeared to men in such bodies as could not only be seen, but also touched."
765. Porro Angelus dicitur corpus assumere hoc ipso quod unitur corpori tamquam motor mobili, in quo et repraesentetur ipse aliquo modo, et etiam moveatur per accidens secundum illius motum. Vid. etiam D. Thomam l. c. a. 2. et 3.
765. Moreover, an Angel is said to assume a body by this very fact that he is united to a body as mover to movable, in which he both is represented in some way, and is also moved accidentally according to its motion. See also St. Thomas, same place, articles 2 and 3.
766. His positis, sciendum est quod etsi unanimi consensu in Ecclesia semper tributa fuerit Angelis natura vere spiritualis; non defuerunt tamen inter antiquos Patres, qui negarent Angelos esse puros spiritus, seu omnino incorporeos; illos enim corporibus non crassis, sed subtilissimis naturaliter uniri censebant. - Putandum tamen non est omnes Patres, qui pro hac sententia citantur, pro ea vere stetisse. Nam a) multi loquuntur de corporibus non propriis, sed assumptis et adscititiis, quae interdum induerunt Angeli, cum hominibus apparuerunt. - b) Nonnulli Angelos corporeos dixerunt, non quod eos materiali corpore praeditos arbitrarentur, sed quod hypostases veras germanasque esse propugnarent; corpus quippe veteribus Patribus idem erat ac substantia, quo in sensu Tertullianus Deum ipsum corporeum dixerat, ut notat S. Augustinus. - c) Alii Angelos corporeos dixerunt, non absolute, sed comparate ad Deum, qui solus ita incorporeus est, ut sit infinitus, incircumscriptus et omnis compositionis expers: hoc in sensu interdum locuti sunt S. Basilius, S. Gregorius Naz., Cassianus, Gregorius M., etc. - d) Nonnulli denique negantes Angelos esse omnino incorporeos addebant, ut Origenes ipse (de Angelis l. 1. c. 2.) "tametsi id ex nullius auctoritate Scripturae constet."
766. These things having been posited, it must be known that although by unanimous consensus in the Church a truly spiritual nature has always been attributed to Angels, nevertheless there were not lacking among the ancient Fathers some who denied that Angels are pure spirits, or altogether incorporeal; for they thought that they were naturally united to bodies, not thick ones, but very subtle ones. - Yet it must not be thought that all the Fathers who are cited for this opinion truly stood for it. For a) many speak of bodies not proper, but assumed and adscititious, which Angels sometimes put on when they appeared to men. - b) Some said that Angels were corporeal, not because they thought them endowed with a material body, but because they defended that they were true and genuine hypostases; for among the older Fathers body was the same as substance, in which sense Tertullian had called God himself corporeal, as St. Augustine notes. - c) Others said that Angels were corporeal, not absolutely, but comparatively to God, who alone is incorporeal in such a way that he is infinite, uncircumscribed, and free from every composition. In this sense St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, Cassian, Gregory the Great, etc., sometimes spoke. - d) Finally, some denying that Angels are altogether incorporeal added, as Origen himself did, On Angels, book 1, chapter 2, "although this is established from the authority of no Scripture."
767. Saeculo adhuc XII., teste S. Bernardo (serm. 5. in Cant.) res non erat extra dubitationis aleam. Attamen post Conc. Later. IV. doctrina de natura pure spirituali Angelorum est omnino tenenda. Si quis autem quaerat quam certa sit; respondetur juxta commune Theologorum judicium: 1. non esse de fide; non enim id ex instituto definitur a Concilio, sed obiter dicitur, ut illud quod ex professo definiendum fuit assereretur, nempe, res omnes initio temporis fuisse a Deo creatas. Id autem solum in Conciliis tamquam ex fide certum asseritur, quod ex instituto in illis definitur. - 2. Esse tamen ita certum, ut contrarium asserere sit erroneum et temerarium: est enim contra communem Theologorum sententiam - quae est communi Ecclesiae sensu recepta.
767. Even in the twelfth century, according to St. Bernard, sermon 5 on the Canticle, the matter was not outside the hazard of doubt. Nevertheless after Lateran IV, the doctrine concerning the purely spiritual nature of Angels must be held altogether. But if someone asks how certain it is, the answer is given according to the common judgment of Theologians: 1. that it is not of faith; for this is not defined by the Council from its purpose, but is said incidentally, so that what had to be defined expressly might be asserted, namely that all things were created by God at the beginning of time. But only that is asserted in Councils as certain from faith which is defined in them from their purpose. - 2. Yet it is so certain that to assert the contrary is erroneous and rash; for it is against the common opinion of Theologians, which has been received by the common sense of the Church.
768. His itaque praestitutis, dicimus:
PROP. LIII. Angeli sunt puri spiritus, cujusvis omnino corporis expertes.
Prob. I. Veram notionem Angelicae naturae debemus ex revelatione colligere; integrum enim erat Deo praeter humanos spiritus, alios creare, qui essent ab omni corpore soluti. Atqui ex revelatione nullo pacto colligitur ullum corpus proprium esse Angelis tribuendum. Ergo. Hoc est argumentum, quod vocant negativum.
Decl. et prob. min. Quoad Patres nulla potest esse quaestio post ea quae diximus. Scriptura vero, semper nomen et proprietates spiritus Angelis tribuit: at numquam significat eos habere corpus sibi naturaliter unitum, quemadmodum mentio fit de corpore hominis, in quo est et spiritus. Numquam, uti animadvertit S. Augustinus (Retr. l. 1. c. 11.) memorantur in Scripturis animae Angelorum; spiritus autem naturaliter corpori unitus, est anima, nam vivificat illud. Licet anima rationalis appelletur spiritus; vocatur tamen simul spiritus hominis, spiritus noster, spiritus qui in homine est Rom. 8. 16.; 1. Cor. 2. 11.: cum Angeli appellentur simpliciter spiritus, nulla habitudine significata ad aliud, cujus sit pars.
Prob. II. In Scripturis saepe appellantur Angeli simpliciter spiritus. Ps. 103. 4.: "Qui facis Angelos tuos spiritus." Hebr. 1. 14.: "Nonne omnes sunt administratorii spiritus?" - Apoc. 1. 4.: "Et a septem spiritibus, qui in conspectu throni ejus sunt." - Matth. 8. 16.: "Ejiciebat spiritus," etc. Atqui haec appellatio 1. per se; 2. ex usu Scripturae excludit quodvis corpus proprium. Ergo.
Prob. min. quoad 1um. Haec appellatio Angelorum essentiam indicat; atqui essentia resultans ex spiritu et corpore nequit appellari simpliciter spiritus: quemadmodum homo nequit vocari simpliciter spiritus. Ergo.
Prob. min. quoad 2um. Nomen spiritus cum tribuitur rei intelligenti, cujusmodi est Angelus, significare solet in eadem Scriptura rem incorpoream. - Nam a) Christus Samaritanae interroganti de loco corporeo in quo Deus adorari posset, respondet in omni loco adorari posse, modo id recte fiat, quoniam spiritus, inquit, est Deus, etc., quasi dicat, nihil interesse in quo loco corporeo adoretur, cum ipse non sit corpus, sed spiritus ubique praesens. - b) Eph. 6. Paulus de malis Angelis loquens ita illos nominat spiritus, ut plane videatur spiritualem eorum naturam distinguere contra corpus. Dicit enim "non esse nobis colluctationem adversus carnem et sanguinem, sed adversus spiritualia nequitiae in coelestibus, etc." - c) Angeli in Scripturis ita dicuntur spiritus, ut opponantur hominibus, qui spiritu et corpore constant. Ita Luc. 11. 24-26. dicitur; "Cum immundus spiritus exierit de homine, ambulat per loca inaquosa, quaerens requiem: et non inveniens dicit: Revertar in domum meam unde exivi. Et cum venerit, invenit eam scopis mundatam et ornatam. Tunc vadit, et assumit septem alios spiritus secum, nequiores se, et ingressi habitant ibi. Et fiunt novissima hominis illius pejora prioribus." - Et 10, 19. 20.: "Ecce dedi vobis potestatem calcandi supra serpentes, et scorpiones, et super omnem virtutem inimici: et nihil vobis nocebit. Verumtamen in hoc nolite gaudere, quia spiritus vobis subjiciuntur: gaudete autem, quod nomina vestra scripta sunt in coelis."
Prob. III. Testimonia Patrum videri possunt apud Petavium. - Subjicimus rationem congruentiae, quam tradit D. Thomas 1. p. q. 51. a. 1. Quod aliqua creatura intellectualis uniatur tamquam forma corpori naturaliter, per accidens convenit illi; quia nimirum est imperfecta in genere intellectualium, et eget acquisitione specierum ministerio phantasmatum, et sensus corporei. Sed in omni genere, in quo est aliquid imperfectum, debet etiam esse aliquid perfectum. Ergo in genere intellectualium, oportet etiam esse aliquas creaturas intellectuales omnino completas in sua specie, quae non egeant tali ministerio sensuum, ac proinde nec corpore. Huc accedit quod si tales creaturae intellectuales sint; erunt aliqui Dei effectus, qui inter caeteros perfectius assimilentur Deo, ut est ipse intellectualis, et per intellectum agens. Sicut D. Thomas etiam quaestione praecedenti, artic. 1. ratiocinatur.
PROP. LIII. Angeli sunt puri spiritus, cujusvis omnino corporis expertes.
Prob. I. Veram notionem Angelicae naturae debemus ex revelatione colligere; integrum enim erat Deo praeter humanos spiritus, alios creare, qui essent ab omni corpore soluti. Atqui ex revelatione nullo pacto colligitur ullum corpus proprium esse Angelis tribuendum. Ergo. Hoc est argumentum, quod vocant negativum.
Decl. et prob. min. Quoad Patres nulla potest esse quaestio post ea quae diximus. Scriptura vero, semper nomen et proprietates spiritus Angelis tribuit: at numquam significat eos habere corpus sibi naturaliter unitum, quemadmodum mentio fit de corpore hominis, in quo est et spiritus. Numquam, uti animadvertit S. Augustinus (Retr. l. 1. c. 11.) memorantur in Scripturis animae Angelorum; spiritus autem naturaliter corpori unitus, est anima, nam vivificat illud. Licet anima rationalis appelletur spiritus; vocatur tamen simul spiritus hominis, spiritus noster, spiritus qui in homine est Rom. 8. 16.; 1. Cor. 2. 11.: cum Angeli appellentur simpliciter spiritus, nulla habitudine significata ad aliud, cujus sit pars.
Prob. II. In Scripturis saepe appellantur Angeli simpliciter spiritus. Ps. 103. 4.: "Qui facis Angelos tuos spiritus." Hebr. 1. 14.: "Nonne omnes sunt administratorii spiritus?" - Apoc. 1. 4.: "Et a septem spiritibus, qui in conspectu throni ejus sunt." - Matth. 8. 16.: "Ejiciebat spiritus," etc. Atqui haec appellatio 1. per se; 2. ex usu Scripturae excludit quodvis corpus proprium. Ergo.
Prob. min. quoad 1um. Haec appellatio Angelorum essentiam indicat; atqui essentia resultans ex spiritu et corpore nequit appellari simpliciter spiritus: quemadmodum homo nequit vocari simpliciter spiritus. Ergo.
Prob. min. quoad 2um. Nomen spiritus cum tribuitur rei intelligenti, cujusmodi est Angelus, significare solet in eadem Scriptura rem incorpoream. - Nam a) Christus Samaritanae interroganti de loco corporeo in quo Deus adorari posset, respondet in omni loco adorari posse, modo id recte fiat, quoniam spiritus, inquit, est Deus, etc., quasi dicat, nihil interesse in quo loco corporeo adoretur, cum ipse non sit corpus, sed spiritus ubique praesens. - b) Eph. 6. Paulus de malis Angelis loquens ita illos nominat spiritus, ut plane videatur spiritualem eorum naturam distinguere contra corpus. Dicit enim "non esse nobis colluctationem adversus carnem et sanguinem, sed adversus spiritualia nequitiae in coelestibus, etc." - c) Angeli in Scripturis ita dicuntur spiritus, ut opponantur hominibus, qui spiritu et corpore constant. Ita Luc. 11. 24-26. dicitur; "Cum immundus spiritus exierit de homine, ambulat per loca inaquosa, quaerens requiem: et non inveniens dicit: Revertar in domum meam unde exivi. Et cum venerit, invenit eam scopis mundatam et ornatam. Tunc vadit, et assumit septem alios spiritus secum, nequiores se, et ingressi habitant ibi. Et fiunt novissima hominis illius pejora prioribus." - Et 10, 19. 20.: "Ecce dedi vobis potestatem calcandi supra serpentes, et scorpiones, et super omnem virtutem inimici: et nihil vobis nocebit. Verumtamen in hoc nolite gaudere, quia spiritus vobis subjiciuntur: gaudete autem, quod nomina vestra scripta sunt in coelis."
Prob. III. Testimonia Patrum videri possunt apud Petavium. - Subjicimus rationem congruentiae, quam tradit D. Thomas 1. p. q. 51. a. 1. Quod aliqua creatura intellectualis uniatur tamquam forma corpori naturaliter, per accidens convenit illi; quia nimirum est imperfecta in genere intellectualium, et eget acquisitione specierum ministerio phantasmatum, et sensus corporei. Sed in omni genere, in quo est aliquid imperfectum, debet etiam esse aliquid perfectum. Ergo in genere intellectualium, oportet etiam esse aliquas creaturas intellectuales omnino completas in sua specie, quae non egeant tali ministerio sensuum, ac proinde nec corpore. Huc accedit quod si tales creaturae intellectuales sint; erunt aliqui Dei effectus, qui inter caeteros perfectius assimilentur Deo, ut est ipse intellectualis, et per intellectum agens. Sicut D. Thomas etiam quaestione praecedenti, artic. 1. ratiocinatur.
768. These things having been set down beforehand, we say:
PROPOSITION LIII. Angels are pure spirits, altogether lacking any body whatever.
Proof I. We must gather the true notion of angelic nature from revelation; for it was open to God, besides human spirits, to create others who were free from every body. But from revelation it is in no way gathered that any proper body must be attributed to Angels. Therefore. This is the argument which they call negative.
Declaration and proof of the minor. As to the Fathers, there can be no question after those things which we have said. But Scripture always attributes the name and properties of spirit to Angels, yet never signifies that they have a body naturally united to them, in the way mention is made of the body of man, in whom there is also spirit. As St. Augustine observes, Retractations, book 1, chapter 11, the souls of Angels are never mentioned in the Scriptures; but a spirit naturally united to a body is a soul, for it vivifies that body. Although the rational soul is called spirit, nevertheless it is at the same time called the spirit of man, our spirit, the spirit which is in man, Romans 8:16; 1 Corinthians 2:11; while Angels are called simply spirits, with no relation signified to another thing of which it is a part.
Proof II. In the Scriptures Angels are often called simply spirits. Psalm 103:4: "Who makes your Angels spirits." Hebrews 1:14: "Are they not all ministering spirits?" - Apocalypse 1:4: "And from the seven spirits who are in the sight of his throne." - Matthew 8:16: "He cast out spirits," etc. But this appellation excludes any proper body, both 1. of itself and 2. from the usage of Scripture. Therefore.
Proof of the minor with regard to the first. This appellation indicates the essence of Angels; but an essence resulting from spirit and body cannot be called simply spirit, just as man cannot be called simply spirit. Therefore.
Proof of the minor with regard to the second. The name spirit, when it is attributed to an intelligent thing such as an Angel is, is accustomed in the same Scripture to signify an incorporeal thing. - For a) Christ, when the Samaritan woman asked about the bodily place in which God could be adored, answers that he can be adored in every place, provided that this is rightly done, because, he says, God is spirit, etc., as if to say that it makes no difference in what bodily place he is adored, since he is not a body, but a spirit present everywhere. - b) In Ephesians 6, Paul, speaking of evil Angels, names them spirits in such a way that he plainly seems to distinguish their spiritual nature against body. For he says that "we do not have wrestling against flesh and blood, but against spiritual things of wickedness in the heavens, etc." - c) Angels are called spirits in the Scriptures in such a way that they are opposed to men, who consist of spirit and body. Thus in Luke 11:24-26 it is said: "When an unclean spirit has gone out from a man, he walks through waterless places, seeking rest; and not finding it he says: I will return to my house whence I came out. And when he has come, he finds it swept clean and adorned. Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits worse than himself, and entering they dwell there. And the last things of that man become worse than the first." - And 10:19-20: "Behold, I have given you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over every power of the enemy; and nothing shall harm you. Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that spirits are subject to you; but rejoice that your names are written in heaven."
Proof III. The testimonies of the Fathers can be seen in Petavius. - We add the reason of congruence which St. Thomas hands down, I, question 51, article 1. That some intellectual creature is naturally united to a body as form belongs to it by accident, because, namely, it is imperfect in the genus of intellectual things and needs the acquisition of species by the ministry of phantasms and bodily sense. But in every genus in which there is something imperfect, there must also be something perfect. Therefore in the genus of intellectual things there must also be some intellectual creatures altogether complete in their species, which do not need such ministry of the senses, and therefore not a body either. To this is added that if there are such intellectual creatures, they will be some effects of God which among the rest are more perfectly assimilated to God, as he himself is intellectual and acting through intellect. Thus St. Thomas reasons also in the preceding question, article 1.
PROPOSITION LIII. Angels are pure spirits, altogether lacking any body whatever.
Proof I. We must gather the true notion of angelic nature from revelation; for it was open to God, besides human spirits, to create others who were free from every body. But from revelation it is in no way gathered that any proper body must be attributed to Angels. Therefore. This is the argument which they call negative.
Declaration and proof of the minor. As to the Fathers, there can be no question after those things which we have said. But Scripture always attributes the name and properties of spirit to Angels, yet never signifies that they have a body naturally united to them, in the way mention is made of the body of man, in whom there is also spirit. As St. Augustine observes, Retractations, book 1, chapter 11, the souls of Angels are never mentioned in the Scriptures; but a spirit naturally united to a body is a soul, for it vivifies that body. Although the rational soul is called spirit, nevertheless it is at the same time called the spirit of man, our spirit, the spirit which is in man, Romans 8:16; 1 Corinthians 2:11; while Angels are called simply spirits, with no relation signified to another thing of which it is a part.
Proof II. In the Scriptures Angels are often called simply spirits. Psalm 103:4: "Who makes your Angels spirits." Hebrews 1:14: "Are they not all ministering spirits?" - Apocalypse 1:4: "And from the seven spirits who are in the sight of his throne." - Matthew 8:16: "He cast out spirits," etc. But this appellation excludes any proper body, both 1. of itself and 2. from the usage of Scripture. Therefore.
Proof of the minor with regard to the first. This appellation indicates the essence of Angels; but an essence resulting from spirit and body cannot be called simply spirit, just as man cannot be called simply spirit. Therefore.
Proof of the minor with regard to the second. The name spirit, when it is attributed to an intelligent thing such as an Angel is, is accustomed in the same Scripture to signify an incorporeal thing. - For a) Christ, when the Samaritan woman asked about the bodily place in which God could be adored, answers that he can be adored in every place, provided that this is rightly done, because, he says, God is spirit, etc., as if to say that it makes no difference in what bodily place he is adored, since he is not a body, but a spirit present everywhere. - b) In Ephesians 6, Paul, speaking of evil Angels, names them spirits in such a way that he plainly seems to distinguish their spiritual nature against body. For he says that "we do not have wrestling against flesh and blood, but against spiritual things of wickedness in the heavens, etc." - c) Angels are called spirits in the Scriptures in such a way that they are opposed to men, who consist of spirit and body. Thus in Luke 11:24-26 it is said: "When an unclean spirit has gone out from a man, he walks through waterless places, seeking rest; and not finding it he says: I will return to my house whence I came out. And when he has come, he finds it swept clean and adorned. Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits worse than himself, and entering they dwell there. And the last things of that man become worse than the first." - And 10:19-20: "Behold, I have given you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over every power of the enemy; and nothing shall harm you. Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that spirits are subject to you; but rejoice that your names are written in heaven."
Proof III. The testimonies of the Fathers can be seen in Petavius. - We add the reason of congruence which St. Thomas hands down, I, question 51, article 1. That some intellectual creature is naturally united to a body as form belongs to it by accident, because, namely, it is imperfect in the genus of intellectual things and needs the acquisition of species by the ministry of phantasms and bodily sense. But in every genus in which there is something imperfect, there must also be something perfect. Therefore in the genus of intellectual things there must also be some intellectual creatures altogether complete in their species, which do not need such ministry of the senses, and therefore not a body either. To this is added that if there are such intellectual creatures, they will be some effects of God which among the rest are more perfectly assimilated to God, as he himself is intellectual and acting through intellect. Thus St. Thomas reasons also in the preceding question, article 1.
769. Dices I. Legitur Gen. 6. 2.: "Videntes Filii Dei filias hominum, quod essent pulchrae, acceperunt sibi uxores;" et ex his gigantes progenuerunt; id vero sine corpore fieri non potuit; et nomine filiorum Dei juxta aliquos Patres veniunt Angeli.
Resp. 1. Argumentum istud nimis probat; ex eo enim sequeretur Angelos habere corpus humanum et crassum, quod certo nullus Patrum, neque adversarii ipsi admittunt. - 2. Respondetur cum D. Chrysostomo homil. 22. in Genes. et Athanasio quaest. 98. ad Antiochum, et August. libr. 15. de civit. Dei, cap. 22. et 23. et cum aliis Patribus communiter, per filios Dei non debere intelligi eo loco Angelos, sed homines, puta filios Seth, qui filii Dei vocabantur, propterea quod Deum singulari studio colebant; cum contra, alii homines terrenis rebus perperam addicti essent, qui propterea filii, vel filiae hominum dicebantur.
Resp. 1. Argumentum istud nimis probat; ex eo enim sequeretur Angelos habere corpus humanum et crassum, quod certo nullus Patrum, neque adversarii ipsi admittunt. - 2. Respondetur cum D. Chrysostomo homil. 22. in Genes. et Athanasio quaest. 98. ad Antiochum, et August. libr. 15. de civit. Dei, cap. 22. et 23. et cum aliis Patribus communiter, per filios Dei non debere intelligi eo loco Angelos, sed homines, puta filios Seth, qui filii Dei vocabantur, propterea quod Deum singulari studio colebant; cum contra, alii homines terrenis rebus perperam addicti essent, qui propterea filii, vel filiae hominum dicebantur.
769. You will say I. Genesis 6:2 reads: "The sons of God, seeing that the daughters of men were beautiful, took wives for themselves"; and from these they begot giants; but this could not happen without a body; and by the name sons of God, according to some Fathers, Angels are meant.
I answer 1. That argument proves too much; for from it would follow that Angels have a human and thick body, which certainly none of the Fathers, nor even the adversaries themselves, admit. - 2. The answer is given with St. Chrysostom, homily 22 on Genesis, and Athanasius, question 98 to Antiochus, and Augustine, book 15 of The City of God, chapters 22 and 23, and commonly with other Fathers, that by sons of God in that place Angels must not be understood, but men, namely the sons of Seth, who were called sons of God because they cultivated God with singular zeal; while on the contrary other men were wrongly addicted to earthly things, and for that reason were called sons or daughters of men.
I answer 1. That argument proves too much; for from it would follow that Angels have a human and thick body, which certainly none of the Fathers, nor even the adversaries themselves, admit. - 2. The answer is given with St. Chrysostom, homily 22 on Genesis, and Athanasius, question 98 to Antiochus, and Augustine, book 15 of The City of God, chapters 22 and 23, and commonly with other Fathers, that by sons of God in that place Angels must not be understood, but men, namely the sons of Seth, who were called sons of God because they cultivated God with singular zeal; while on the contrary other men were wrongly addicted to earthly things, and for that reason were called sons or daughters of men.
770. Dices II. In Conc. Nicaeno II. lectus est dialogus Joannis Episcopi Thessalonicensis cum Gentili disputantis, quo in dialogo inter alia haec habet: "De Angelis et Archangelis catholica Ecclesia sic sentit, esse quidem intelligibiles, sed non omnino corporis expertes et invisibiles." Quibus lectis Tarasius Patriarcha CPtanus et Concilii Praeses sic locutus est: "Ostendit Pater (Joannes) etiam Angelos oportere pingi, quoniam circumscripti sunt et hominum specie multis apparuerunt." Responditque statim universa Synodus: "Etiam Domine!" qua acclamatione doctrinam Joannis de Angelorum corporeitate approbavit.
Resp. Concilium non approbavit sententiam Joannis, qua Angelos corporeos asseruit, sed solum conclusionem, qua intulit, Angelos merito pingi posse. Id patet a) ex scopo Concilii, quod convenerat ad usum sacrarum imaginum contra Iconomachos vindicandum: est autem consuetudo conciliorum, ea tantum, quae ad materiam spectant, de qua controversia agitur, de fide definiendi, non autem ea, quae incidenter dicuntur et materiam controversam directe non afficiunt. - b) Praeterea Concilium id tantum approbavit, quod ex dialogo Joannis excerpsit et proposuit Tarasius: hic vero prudenter praetermisso errore de Angelorum corporeitate (de qua tunc non erat quaestio), proposuit tantum Angelos posse depingi juxta sententiam Joannis, eo quod in specie humana apparuerunt: "Ostendit," inquit, "Pater etiam Angelos oportere pingi, quoniam circumscripti sunt et hominum specie multis apparuerunt." Quibus auditis statim subjecit Synodus: "Etiam Domine." Approbatio ergo Concilii cadit tantum in istud, nempe Angelos posse depingi quia sunt circumscripti. - c) Denique Concilium (Act. 4.) refert et approbat sententiam S. Athanasii asserentis, Angelos esse incorporeos, et in professione fidei dicit: "Veneramur imagines Sanctorum et incorporeorum Angelorum," etc., quibus verbis satis clare sententiam Joannis rejicit.
Reliquae objectiones fere omnes praeoccupatae sunt: caeterum legi possunt apud Perrone.
Resp. Concilium non approbavit sententiam Joannis, qua Angelos corporeos asseruit, sed solum conclusionem, qua intulit, Angelos merito pingi posse. Id patet a) ex scopo Concilii, quod convenerat ad usum sacrarum imaginum contra Iconomachos vindicandum: est autem consuetudo conciliorum, ea tantum, quae ad materiam spectant, de qua controversia agitur, de fide definiendi, non autem ea, quae incidenter dicuntur et materiam controversam directe non afficiunt. - b) Praeterea Concilium id tantum approbavit, quod ex dialogo Joannis excerpsit et proposuit Tarasius: hic vero prudenter praetermisso errore de Angelorum corporeitate (de qua tunc non erat quaestio), proposuit tantum Angelos posse depingi juxta sententiam Joannis, eo quod in specie humana apparuerunt: "Ostendit," inquit, "Pater etiam Angelos oportere pingi, quoniam circumscripti sunt et hominum specie multis apparuerunt." Quibus auditis statim subjecit Synodus: "Etiam Domine." Approbatio ergo Concilii cadit tantum in istud, nempe Angelos posse depingi quia sunt circumscripti. - c) Denique Concilium (Act. 4.) refert et approbat sententiam S. Athanasii asserentis, Angelos esse incorporeos, et in professione fidei dicit: "Veneramur imagines Sanctorum et incorporeorum Angelorum," etc., quibus verbis satis clare sententiam Joannis rejicit.
Reliquae objectiones fere omnes praeoccupatae sunt: caeterum legi possunt apud Perrone.
770. You will say II. In the Second Council of Nicaea there was read the dialogue of John, Bishop of Thessalonica, disputing with a Gentile, in which dialogue, among other things, he has this: "Concerning Angels and Archangels the Catholic Church thinks thus, that they are indeed intelligible, but not altogether lacking body and invisible." When these words had been read, Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople and President of the Council, spoke thus: "The Father, John, has shown that Angels also ought to be painted, because they are circumscribed and have appeared to many in the form of men." And the whole Synod immediately answered: "Yes, Lord!" By this acclamation it approved the doctrine of John concerning the corporeity of Angels.
I answer. The Council did not approve the opinion of John by which he asserted that Angels are corporeal, but only the conclusion by which he inferred that Angels can rightly be painted. This is clear a) from the purpose of the Council, which had assembled to vindicate the use of sacred images against the Iconomachi. But it is the custom of councils to define from faith only those things which pertain to the matter concerning which the controversy is being conducted, not those things which are said incidentally and do not directly affect the controversial matter. - b) Furthermore, the Council approved only that which Tarasius extracted from the dialogue of John and proposed; but he, prudently passing over the error concerning the corporeity of Angels, about which there was then no question, proposed only that Angels can be painted according to the opinion of John, because they appeared in human form: "The Father," he says, "has also shown that Angels ought to be painted, because they are circumscribed and have appeared to many in the form of men." When these words had been heard, the Synod immediately added: "Yes, Lord." Therefore the approval of the Council falls only on this, namely that Angels can be painted because they are circumscribed. - c) Finally, the Council, act 4, reports and approves the opinion of St. Athanasius asserting that Angels are incorporeal, and in the profession of faith says: "We venerate the images of the Saints and of the incorporeal Angels," etc.; by these words it rejects the opinion of John clearly enough.
Nearly all the remaining objections have been anticipated; moreover they can be read in Perrone.
I answer. The Council did not approve the opinion of John by which he asserted that Angels are corporeal, but only the conclusion by which he inferred that Angels can rightly be painted. This is clear a) from the purpose of the Council, which had assembled to vindicate the use of sacred images against the Iconomachi. But it is the custom of councils to define from faith only those things which pertain to the matter concerning which the controversy is being conducted, not those things which are said incidentally and do not directly affect the controversial matter. - b) Furthermore, the Council approved only that which Tarasius extracted from the dialogue of John and proposed; but he, prudently passing over the error concerning the corporeity of Angels, about which there was then no question, proposed only that Angels can be painted according to the opinion of John, because they appeared in human form: "The Father," he says, "has also shown that Angels ought to be painted, because they are circumscribed and have appeared to many in the form of men." When these words had been heard, the Synod immediately added: "Yes, Lord." Therefore the approval of the Council falls only on this, namely that Angels can be painted because they are circumscribed. - c) Finally, the Council, act 4, reports and approves the opinion of St. Athanasius asserting that Angels are incorporeal, and in the profession of faith says: "We venerate the images of the Saints and of the incorporeal Angels," etc.; by these words it rejects the opinion of John clearly enough.
Nearly all the remaining objections have been anticipated; moreover they can be read in Perrone.