Chapter XXVII. Question 50
THe EXISTENCE AND THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ANGELS
BRWAWAABABRAAAARARRAERREBRAERRBRABRAEBRABRERBEBRBEBRERRER ERR RER RRR ERE EER REESE
Y the word “angel” is understood a created substance, purely spiritual (in no way ordered to inform a body), and hence intellectual (but not rational). Thus the angel is subsistent and possesses a personality, for it is a substance that is complete, existing and operating per se and separately and of its own right (sui juris) and has dominion over its own actions.
First ARTICLE
THE EXISTENCE OF THE ANGELS
The existence of the angels was denied in ancient times by the Epicureans and the Sadducees, and in our time it is denied by atheists, rationalists, and liberal Protestants, who assert that the angels, mentioned in Sacred Scripture, are either divine inspirations or men sent by God to instruct other men.
The testimony of Scripture. a) The Old Testament teaches the existence of the angels, both good and bad.’ From the Old Testament it is also clear that the angels are intelligent creatures, that their number is great, that there is an order among them,” and that the good angels under God’s command assist and guard good men.*
On the other hand, the bad angels, with God’s permission, attack men.*
b) This doctrine of the Old Testament is confirmed by the New1
Testament." St. Paul enumerates the orders of angels, “whether thrones or dominations or principalities or powers.” ° He also mentions the bad angels.”
Even if Pseudo-Dionysius had not written his De caelesti hierarchia, St. Thomas would have been able to write his treatise on the angels, relying on the testimony of Scripture and tradition.
Concerning the angels the Church teaches: 1. that they exist, that they were created but not from eternity, and that they are spiritual; ° 2. that they are not propagated; ° 3. that the devil was good when he was created. "°
Besides this, the ordinary magisterium of the Church has everywhere taught the doctrine of the guardian angels, and theologians consider this truth to be of faith. Finally, according to Suarez, it is of faith that the angels are not equal in dignity, as is clear from many texts, especially from St. Paul.
The teaching of all of the Fathers is that the angels are created by God, and endowed with intellect and free will. The absolute spirituality of the angels, however, is not clearly affirmed by all the Fathers prior to the fourth century. Without the angels the ascending series of creatures appears to be incomplete.*! After the twelfth century the theologians commonly teach that the angels are absolutely incorporeal, although Scotus thought that there was an incorporeal matter in the angels.
THE TEACHING OF ST. THOMAS COMPARED WITH THAT OF SCOTUS AND SUAREZ
- St. Thomas affirms the absolute spirituality of the angels and therefore that there cannot be two angels of the same species, because the principle of individuation is matter marked by quantity. Scotus taught the opposite. As an eclectic, Suarez held with St. Thomas that
$ Luke 1:11, 26; 2:13; Matt. 1:20; 2:13, 193 4:11; 18:10; 24:31; 26:53; 28:1-7; 13:41, 49; Luke 20:36; Acts 5:19; 8:26; 12:7-15, 23; 27:23.
10 Ibid., no. 237. The principal definition by the Fourth Lateran Council, cf. Denz., no, 428..2
the angels were absolutely spiritual, and with Scotus that there could be two angels of the same species.
- For St. Thomas the proper object of the angel’s intellect is the essence of the angel itself, whereas the proper object of our intellect is the essence of sensible things. Therefore, whereas the human idea is abstracted from sensible particulars, the angelic idea is not abstracted but is naturally impressed on the angel and it is at the same time universal and concrete, that is, it represents at the same time the species, for example, of a lion, and the individuals, both the actual and the past of which the angel has memory.
Hence the angelic ideas are participations in the divine ideas, according to which God is the cause of things. Therefore the angels do not have discursive but simply intuitive knowledge. They know not by composition and division, but they see the properties of things in the essence of things by one simple intuition. In the same way they see conclusions in the principles and means in the ends.
Therefore the angels cannot err with regard to the things that belong or do not belong naturally to things, but they can err about those things that are entirely contingent and free, such as, the secrets of the heart and future free acts.
Scotus, on the other hand, held that an angel, although it does not have senses, can receive ideas from sensible things. Scotus was unwilling to designate the proper and specific object of the angelic intellect, and he concluded therefore that the angel had discursive knowledge. With St. Thomas, Suarez admitted this innatism in the angels, and with Scotus he held that the angels could reason.
- With regard to the will of the angels, St. Thomas admitted that in the angelic will there were certain necessary acts, such as the natural desire of happiness in general. Moreover, since nothing is willed unless first known as agreeable, the angel’s free choice is always conformed to the ultimate practical judgment by which it is regulated, but the will executes this ultimate judgment, while it freely accepts it. Scotus, however, held that every act of the will is free and that a free choice could be not conformed to the ultimate practical judgment. Here we see evidence of Scotus’ voluntarism.
Because of these viewpoints many differences arose between St. Thomas and Scotus about the angelic will.
According to St. Thomas, the angel loves by a natural love not only happiness in general but also God the author of its nature more than itself,’* and therefore probably the angel cannot sin directly and immediately against its natural law, which it sees intuitively inscribed on its own essence.’* When Satan sinned directly and immediately against the supernatural law, he sinned indirectly against the natural law.
St. Thomas held that during the time of probation the angel could not sin venially but only mortally, because “the mind of the angel (which is simply intuitive) does not comprehend those things which are ordered to an end except as they are placed in the order to the end.” ** The angel sees the means in the end as it sees conclusions in the principles. Thus the angel cannot turn itself away from the proper means to an end without turning away from its ultimate end and sinning mortally. Further, according to St. Thomas, because of the superiority of the angelic intellect the angel’s free choice is immutable; it is a participation in the immutability of the divine choice. From this it follows that the angel’s mortal sin is unforgivable, or that the angel wills irrevocably what it freely chooses with full and intuitive advertance, that is, a choice made not after successive consideration, like ours, but after a simultaneous consideration of all the things that pertain to the choice without any influence of the passions. Hence if someone would say to the devil after he had made his choice, “You did not consider this point,” the devil could answer, “This also I considered.” This explains the obstinacy of the devils, since before their choice they considered everything and then cannot change their choice. The only way that the devil could recall his decision would be by humility and obedience, and this the devil did not wish to do and does not wish to do.’®
Because of his voluntarism, Scotus held that the choice of the angels is not always in conformity with the final practical judgment, and that the devil’s first mortal sin, as such, is not irrevocable or unforgivable. The demons, he thought, committed many sins before they became obstinate, and after each sin they could have returned to God. Hence the diabolical obstinacy is only extrinsic, that is, it is owing to the fact that after many sins God declared that He would no longer grant them the grace of conversion.
In his eclecticism Suarez held with St. Thomas that the angelic will did not have concupiscible and irascible parts, but with Scotus
he held that, since the angel could reason, it could sin directly against the natural law and could also sin venially. He also thought that after the first mortal sin the angel could return to God, because the angel’s choice need not be in conformity with the final practical judgment.
Finally Suarez thought that the devil’s obstinacy was a consequence of that miserable state to which he saw himself condemned. St. Thomas would have replied that it is precisely damnation itself and the immutability of this state that must be explained, either intrinsically because of the intuitive mode of the knowledge that directs the choice, or extrinsically because God no longer offers the grace of conversion.
These three doctors teach that the angels were elevated to the order of grace, and that most probably they were created in grace. But there are certain differences in their teachings. St. Thomas denies that the angels could have sinned in the first instant. He held that their probation lasted for one instant. He denied that the angels received essential grace and glory because of the merits of Christ, because the merits of Christ are the merits of the Redeemer, and the angels were not redeemed. On these points Scotus, and Suarez to some extent, differ from the Angelic Doctor because of the principles mentioned above.
From this brief review it is apparent that St. Thomas is more definite in affirming the specific distinction between angels and men because of the proper and specific object of their intellects. He affirms that the angels are purely intellectual and intuitive spirits, not rational or discursive. He maintains intact the principle that nothing is willed unless first known as agreeable. All the differences with Scotus and Suarez flow from these two principles.
THE CREATION AND SUBSTANCE OF THE ANGELS QUESTION 61, A. 2 AND 3; QUESTION 50
The angels were not created from eternity; they were probably created with corporeal creatures, because they are part of the universe, and no part is perfect separated from the whole.'® They were probably created in the empyrean heavens. They are a very great multitude, “Thousands of thousands ministered to Him (God), and
16 Cf, Fourth Lateran Council, Denz., no. 428.
ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before Him.” *? Their number exceeds the number of the species of material substances and is comparable to the number of the stars. A greater number of the more perfect things was created for the perfection of the universe." This principle refers to the more important parts of the universe which God produced without the intervention of secondary causes, the stars, the constellations, and the angels. It does not follow from this principle that there is more gold than silver, or more silver than lead in the universe.
They were created that they might attain eternal happiness and glorify God, and that they might assist and guard men and rule over corporeal creatures. This second reason is not an end but result of their superiority, since it is fitting that inferior beings be ruled by superior beings.
THE ANGELS ARE PURE SPIRITS WITHOUT A BODY QUESTION 50, A. I
The Scriptures never speak of the body of an angel, and frequently call the angels spirits. When spirit is predicated of intellectual creatures, it is used in opposition to body.*®
The Fourth Lateran Council declared: “At the same time in the beginning God established from nothing both creatures, the spiritual and corporeal, that is, the angelic and the mundane, and finally the human creature as a common creature constituted from spirit and body.” 7°
In this definition is clearly defined: 1. the existence of the angels; 2. their real distinction from corporeal creatures and from man, who is both spiritual and corporeal. This is equivalent to stating that the angels are incorporeal. This, however, is not properly defined but merely declared; what the Council was expressly defining was the unity of the first principle against the Manichaeans.
After the Fourth Lateran Council it was considered temerarious to attribute to the angels a body however subtile, and after the twelfth century theologians commonly taught that the angels were absolutely incorporeal.
St. Thomas shows that the perfection of the universe requires intellectual creatures, who are able to know God. “Since intellection is not an act of the body nor of any corporeal power, the union of a body is not part of the nature of the intellectual substance as such; it is an addition, . . . because it is imperfect, inasmuch as the object (of the corporeal being) is the lowest intelligible of sensible things. In any genus where something imperfect is found, it is fitting that the corresponding perfection in that genus pre-exist.” ** Otherwise creation would be truncated and, as it were, mutilated.
As Cajetan points out, a more perfect creature can always be produced, but it is reasonable to infer that the perfection of the universe requires a purely intellectual creature as one genus of being.
THE ANGELS ARE ABSOLUTELY IMMATERIAL QUESTION 50, A. 2
Avicebron held that matter was common to spirits and bodies because, as he said, there is something which they have in common. But the thing they have in common is nothing more than created essence as something capable of existence and limiting being. According to St. Thomas, it is impossible that a spiritual substance have any kind of matter. The operation of anything is after the manner of its substance, or operation follows being, or the mode of operation follows the mode of being. But intellection is an operation entirely immaterial, that is, intrinsically independent of matter, because it is specified of a universal object, by intelligible being, which abstracts from all matter. Thus the intellect is able to know the first principles of being, which are absolutely necessary and universal, above all contingent and particular being, and hence it can know the reasons for the being of things. Therefore a spiritual and intellectual substance is entirely immaterial.
HOW THE ANGELS ASSUME BODIES
Sometimes angels assume bodies, as the angels who appeared to Tobias and Abraham. In these instances the angels are accidentally united to such bodies, which they move but do not inform vitally.
Thus the angel said to Tobias: “I seemed to eat and to drink with you: but I use an invisible meat and drink, which cannot be seen by men.” 2”
WHETHER THE ANGELS DIFFER IN SPECIES QUESTION 50, A. 4
The Church has defined nothing on this point, but from the various names used in Sacred Scripture it appears that there is a hierarchy of angels, for example, “Whether thrones or dominations or principalities or powers,” °° and in the Old Testament the angels are distinguished and subordinated into seraphim, cherubim, angels, and archangels. From this it is certain that the angels are not different only in number, which theologians commonly admit.
St. Thomas holds that all the angels differ in species; this is denied by Scotus. In agreement with St. Thomas, the Thomists generally admit that there cannot be two angels of the same species. The reason is that those things that are of the same species and differ in number are the same in form and different with regard to matter, since an act is not multiplied except by the potency in which it is received. Thus two perfectly similar drops of water are two by reason of the matter in which their specific forms are received. But the angels are not composed of matter and form. Therefore it is impossible that there be two angels of the same species. That is to say, according to many Thomists, that this is intrinsically impossible, or intrinsically repugnant, and not only extrinsically by reason of the end, as, for example, the annihilation of some blessed soul, which never happens but is still not intrinsically repugnant.
Confirmation. If whiteness were separated from matter, it would be unique. By a similar argument the unicity and infinity of God are apodictically proved, namely, because God, who is pure act, is not received in matter, or unreceived subsistent being.”*
In the question, “Concerning spiritual creatures” (a. 8), St. Thomas says: “If the angel is a simple form apart from matter, it is impossible to imagine that there are many angels in the same species.” In another
22 Tob. 12:19; cf. Summa theol., Ia, q.51, a.3. 28 Col. 1:16. 24 Cf. Summa theol., la, q.7, a. 1, 2; q.11, a.3, 4.
place he says: “We cannot understand that any separated form is anything but one of one species.” 7° He also shows that the separated human soul is individuated by the transcendental relation to its body, which will rise again, while the substance of the angel has no relation to a body which it is to inform.” Hence there cannot be two angels of the same species. It is not enough to have recourse to the thisness (Aaecceitas) of the angel, as Scotus did, for the question arises, whence does it come that in the same species one nature is this as distinct from that. This difference can come only from matter.
The principle of numerical multiplication within the same species must be intrinsic and substantial. But Scotus implies that this can happen without matter marked by quantity or without a relation to such matter. Therefore in the angels, in which there is no matter, there can be no numerical multiplication. Nor can this multiplication be explained by some supernatural addition, since this would be extrinsic to the substance of the angel, which is supposed to be already constituted.
If God were to annihilate the archangel Michael and then create him again, he would be the same Michael with the same essence, the same existence once more produced and received in the same essence. Moreover, even if it were possible to have two angels of the same species successively (by annihilation and a second creation), it would not follow that there were two angels of the same species at the same time. The principle remains that an act cannot be multiplied except by the potency in which it is received.
According to St. Thomas, all angels differ in species according to the different grades of intellectual nature, according to intellectual power, and sometimes, like the birds, the angels have a stronger or weaker visual power. In the same way the seven colors of the rainbow and the seven notes in the scale are distinguished.
EIGHTH ARTICLE WHETHER AN ANGEL IS IN A PLACE QUESTION 52, A. I
Since an angel is absolutely incorporeal and immaterial, it is not in a place according to its substance, that is, by quantitative contact, since
it does not have quantity. But the angel is said equivocally to be in a place inasmuch as it locally moves some body by dynamic contact, or the contact of its power, that is, by a virtually transient operation. In this way our will, which is spiritual, moves the members of our body, but it is not in a place by quantitative contact (as when my hand touches the page), but by dynamic contact. Besides this, the human soul, as informing its body, is definitively in the place of the body and nowhere else.
Footnotes
Chapter 28 of 46