Scotus Academicus, Tomus quartus: De Angelis

Note 1. That the angels are of the greatest number, and of an immense and utterly astonishing multitude, is taught everywhere in the Scriptures; thus Daniel 7, cap.: Thousands upon thousands ministered to him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before him: Apocalypse 5: I heard the voice of many angels, and their number was thousands upon thousands: and Hebrews 12: You have come to the company of many thousands of angels; therefore it is an established truth that the multitude of the angels is immense and very great.

— Now it was most fitting that the angels be created in the greatest number: both in order that God might communicate himself most liberally to the more perfect creatures, and also in order that he might show forth his omnipotence the more, creating so many spirits at once, and so noble, in a single instant: which indeed S. Chrysostom, observing, hom. 2 De Incompre. says: There are ten thousand times ten thousand angels above, and hundreds of thousands of archangels: likewise Thrones, and Dominations, and Principalities, and Powers, and infinite peoples of bodiless Virtues, and countless tribes; and yet he founded all these Virtues with such ease as no speech can attain. Another most congruent reason is added, namely that it befits the supreme Prince and most powerful Emperor to have a most numerous family and an abundant army; for Prov. 14: In the multitude of the people is the glory of the king, and in the smallness of the folk is the ignominy of the prince: but God is the greatest King, namely King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Apoc.: therefore it befitted him to have very many angels assisting him.

Note 2. The number of the angels can be inquired into in two ways: First absolutely, and precisely: Second comparatively, namely whether it is greater than the whole multitude of men, or even than all corporeal substances. It is certain, however, that the number of the angels cannot be designated by us absolutely and precisely. For Scripture, when with the words related above it posits a certain number of angels, does not speak of all, the good equally with the bad, and it posits a determinate number for the indeterminate, as the Interpreters and holy Fathers acknowledge there: but no other certain tradition is brought forward: indeed the holy Fathers themselves confess that that number is precisely unknown to us, and so immense that, with respect to us, it can be called innumerable and infinite, as will appear below: there remains, then, to investigate whether a determinate number of the angels can be known from a comparison made, both with men and with the other created beings.

Note 3. Concerning this determination, the opinion of Authors is varied and manifold. For there are those who think the angels are infinite in number: some wish them to be more numerous than all corporeal creatures, considered both in species and in individuals. The Author of the questions to Antiochus (which exist among the works of Athanasius) reports also that some think the angels are related to men as ninety-nine to one, from the parable of the hundred sheep: others as nine to one, according to the other parable of the ten drachmas; others finally think both are equal in number. There are also those who judge that the elect men unto eternal felicity will be as many as the angels who fell. But what seems truer to us in so manifold and doubtful an opinion, let us set forth distinctly: three things are to be determined in this Question: First, whether the number of the angels is truly infinite: Second, whether there are more angels than all corporeal things, considered both in species and in individuals: Third finally, whether they exceed at least the number of men.

First conclusion. — The angels are not infinite in number. This is the common opinion among Theologians, and Guillaume of Paris proves it admirably, part 2 of the second part de Universo cap. 17, from the fact that the number of created things must necessarily be determined and limited.

First indeed (he says) determination itself is so essential to number that by every addition or diminution a new species of it is constituted. For example, if you add unity to three, another number than three is constituted, and of another species, namely four: but if you take unity away from it, another number, and of another species, remains from it, namely two. This determination, therefore, which I called essential, forbids every number to receive more and less, and greatness and smallness. Second, this determination constitutes each of the numbers in its own species. Wherefore where determination is changed, the species of any number whatever is changed, that is, it is another a priori: because therefore it is necessary that each of the numbers be in some species of number, or under some one, as an individual: it is necessary that each of the numbers be dete>rmined, and limited, and be two or three or one of the other determinate numbers: wherefore it is impossible by every mode that any number be infinite. Third, if the number of substances of this kind were infinite, since it would be a number, it would of necessity be either even or odd: but if it were even, it would have a half, which would be either finite or infinite: if finite, therefore the whole number would be finite, since it would be an aggregate of finite parts: if it were infinite, it would not be less than its whole, since no number could be found or even thought which would be exceeded by its whole. Fourth, everything that receives addition upon itself is finite and terminated by addition of this kind, since the whole is short of it, having nothing at all beyond. Therefore, since every number receives the addition of unity upon itself, or even of a number of another species, it is necessary that every number be finite. Wherefore it is impossible that this number be infinite. Fifth, it is necessary that every number, and every measure, be quantity in genus; but quantity is everything making how much, and number is that making how many; therefore the whole company of substances of this kind is in number how much, and in number how many, that is, some definite amount; just as there is no one of whom it is not possible to assign or answer who, nor what sort, nor of what kind, of whom it is not possible to assign and answer the inquirer of what kind he is. Therefore, since you cannot assign or answer concerning the whole company or the totality of the substances of which we treat, how much it is in number, or how many it is: it is manifest there is no number of substances of this kind: therefore the number is not infinite. Sixth, the Creator formed all things in weight, number, and measure: but those things which are in number are numerable, and those things which are numerable are in some determinate number; for it is not intelligible that some things be in number and yet be innumerable.

Therefore, since an infinite number is repugnant, it is also repugnant that created things be infinite in number. Add that an infinite multitude of angels can be urged neither from holy Scripture, nor from the SS. Fathers, nor from any reason.

You will say 1. Job cap. 25 says: is there any number of his soldiers? As if to say: there is no number of his soldiers, namely of the angels, whom he therefore calls the soldiers of God, because for the glory of God and the salvation of men they fight against the Demons from the time when the great battle was made in heaven by the faithful Angels against the foes: therefore, since the number of the angels is not determined, it must necessarily be judged infinite.

I distinguish the antecedent. The number of the angels is not determined with respect to us, I concede: with respect to God, I deny; for, says S. Gregory the Great on the aforesaid text of Job, In the cognition of human reason there is no number of the supernal spirits, because it knows not how great is that company of the invisible army; and lib. 27 Moral. cap. 9, comparing the aforesaid text of Daniel with what was said above, he adds: The number of supernal citizens is infinite, and it is defined, and expressed: that he who is numerable to God may be shown to be innumerable to men. I confess, therefore, that only God can know that immense number of angels determinately, and therefore it appears to us as if infinite, as it is also not rarely named by the SS. Fathers; although truly in itself it is determinate and finite.

You will say 2. Very many of the sacred Doctors judge the number of the angels to be infinite, and in no way able to be detected by men wayfarers. So especially Origen lib. 1 De Principiis, cap. 5, where, weighing this text of the Apostle to the Ephesians 1, vers. 21: above every name that is named not only in this age, but also in the future, after he had recalled the orders of angels declared by the Apostle, he adds:

From this, namely, he shows, he says, that there are certain ones besides these which he recalled, which are indeed commemorated in this age, yet were not enumerated by him, perhaps not understood by anyone else: and that there are others which indeed are not named in this age, yet will be named.

Nor did Origen alone persuade himself of this besides those orders of angels which are named in Scripture, that there are others infinite in number and unknown to men. For Chrysostom wrote, homil. 4 De Incompr.: For there are, there are also other virtues whose names even we do not know. Which he professes shortly after to gather from the above-remembered place of Paul to the Ephesians, and he repeats the same in Orat. 5 contra Anomoeos, and Homil. 3 on the epistle to the Eph. Theodoret, on the same place of his epistle, agree with Chrysostom, and Oecumenius and Theophylactus.

I answer. that the aforesaid writers were indeed of that opinion that they thought there were other orders of angels besides those declared in holy Scripture, that it did not yet sufficiently plainly appear, as it now appears among Theologians, the series and distribution of the angels into three hierarchies and nine orders, although truly they judged there to be far more angels than are those whose characters, offices and names become known to us. Yet from this it is not permitted to gather that they thought the angels to be infinite in number; for it is one thing to assert the number of some things to be immense and greater than mortals can detect, another thing that it be infinite.

You will say 3. If the number of the angels were finite, especially since limited and determinate, it would have been so either on the part of God the creator, or on the part of the creatable angel, or from both: but from neither side does it seem necessary that the angels ought to have been produced in a certain and determinate number. Not indeed on the part of the Creator; for this would come about either because he could not, or because he would not produce the angels in infinite number: but neither seems rightly to be asserted;

for none (says Guillaume praised above) was so weak and brief of intellect who has thought upon the virtue and power of the Creator, but that it is itself in the ultimacy both of amplitude, and of fortitude, and of liberty; and on account of the ultimacy of fortitude unthinkably able toward that which it does not will, and unprohibitable by that which it wills, likewise unfatiguable and undefectible. Also that very constriction or determination does not come from the part of his goodness; for since creation of many was equally easy to him as of few of such substances, and of infinite as of finite, who imposed this end upon the Creator? who so limited him and made him stand in a finite number? who prohibited him from being extended into infinity? who, of even the least largess, if he could give great things with the same facility as small, and many as few, and infinite as finite, especially since he could laudably give all things, restricted and narrowed himself to finite goods? How much more strongly, therefore, could the largess of the Creator not give in some number or even quantity of giftable things? Nor can that limitation and determination be demanded from the part of the angels, since among them there would be no contrariety or opposition by which they might impede one another in any way. For there is not among them, as among corporeal substances, the straitness of place, by which it comes about that they expel one another.

— The same Guillaume answers, that this indeed comes not from the part of the Creator, but of the creature:

just as (he says) virtue or power did not fail the Creator, so that he could create an infinite world, but power failed the world, by whose defect it could not be created infinite; for there failed it the receptibility of infinite magnitude. For some body cannot be of infinite magnitude, therefore the corporeal world, as a body, or aggregate of corporeals, had need to be finite. Therefore the divine power was not straitened, so that it could not bestow on it a greater magnitude. But when it saw that it could not receive an infinite one, it provided for it a finite one most congruent to its nature, which would suffice to contain all other bodies, and hold them together among themselves. So also it provided for all other corporeal natures quantities most congruent to their natures. For not without cause did he will the ant to be smaller than the Elephant, and the fly so far from the magnitude of the crane or eagle. If however an infinite multitude cannot be, that finition was from the part of the multitude: wherefore the largess and goodness of the Creator stood in a determinate number, since it could not be indeterminate or infinite.

Second conclusion. — The angels are more numerous in number than the corporeal species, and the individuals of the more excellent species: but they do not seem to be so many as the individuals of the less noble corporeal species. This seems the more probable as regards each part.

The first part holy Dionysius indicates cap. 14 De Coelesti Hierarchia, where he says:

Many are the blessed armies of the heavenly minds, which surpass and pass over the weak and contracted measure of the corporeal numbers which we use, and are knowingly defined by their sole summit and celestial intelligence, and science, which is granted to them most abundantly by the Divinity, and by the cause of infinite cognition, which at once, after the manner of the nature of all things surpassing the principle, is the principle and deficient cause of essence, and the containing and embracing force of determination.

And Dionysius adds there that Scripture is wont to set forth the number of the angels by the greatest numbers repeated in themselves, and by Myriads of Myriads. Aeneas Gazaeus subscribes, tome 2 biblioth. Graec., whose words in Theophrastus are of this kind:

Yet the universe of heaven is full of intelligible virtues, full are the earth, the sea, and all things under the earth, and as one of our Wise men said, nothing is empty, not even so little as that a blade of grain and a hair could be inserted. So much so that even if God should will to prolong the life of men to thousands of years of ten, still I do not think the souls of men will be equal in number to the multitude of angels and demons.

It is proved also by theological reason: for since the perfection of the Universe was chiefly intended by God in the creation of things, the more perfect some things are, the greater excess were they created in. Wherefore just as God founded the incorruptible and more perfect heavenly bodies in that mode of being, in a mass almost infinitely greater than sublunary things, so he created the angels incorruptibly in a far greater quantity: not indeed continuous, but discrete, that is, in a greater number than all the rest inferior to them.

The second part also stands; for who would bring himself to believe the angels to be more numerous than all the sands of the sea, the atoms of the air, the leaves of herbs and trees, gnats, flies, ants, and all the fish of rivers and sea, and likewise all the grains of wheat, barley, and of all legumes, whose immense number verges almost into infinity?

Third conclusion. — It is probable that the number of the angels exceeds the multitude of men, who are, have been, and are to come forth.

It is first proved from that parable of the good Shepherd, who, leaving ninety-nine sheep, went to seek one lost, and carries it found on his shoulders, as we read Luke 15. For that unique sheep is said to be human nature: but the remaining ninety-nine the angels. So S. Hilary on Matthew:

The sheep, one, (he says) is to be understood as man, and under one man the whole universality is to be understood: but in the error of one Adam the whole race of men went astray: therefore the ninety-nine not erring are to be reckoned the multitude of the heavenly angels, for whom there is joy in Heaven, and care of human salvation.

S. Ambrose subscribes, lib. 7 on cap. 15 of Luke:

Rich therefore is the shepherd (he says) of whom we all are the hundredth portion, who has flocks of angels, archangels, dominations, powers, thrones, and others innumerable, which he left in the mountains, who, since they are rational, rejoice not unworthily in the redemption of men.

— Cyril of Jerusalem also, cath. 15, gathers the same not only from that parable, but uses moreover this argument, that from the magnitude of a place the multitude of inhabitants ought to be estimated: but the whole earth is like a point in the middle of one heaven, in which the angels dwell:

For according to the magnitude of places (he says) the dwelling of men is to be reckoned, that if this our earth is as a center in the midst of heaven, and has so great a multitude, how great a multitude will the heaven have, which surrounds the earth, and the heaven of heavens? They surely have an immense multitude.

Another reason is also supported, sought from the common opinion of Theologians affirming that a guardian angel from the lowest order is deputed by God to each man; so that each of the men who have been from the beginning of the world and are to exist unto the end has had, or will have, his own peculiar angel; indeed we read in the Revelations of S. Bridget lib. 4. cap. 11. that there are so many S. Angels in that lowest order, that from it more than ten could be deputed to each man in guardianship. Since, however, there are more angels in the higher orders, there is no doubt that all of them far exceed the number of men.

You will say. The men to be saved are as many as the evil angels, because there will be as many blessed men as angels fell, who were to repair their ruin by an equal number: but it stands that a third part of the angels fell, when the Dragon drew the third part of the stars, Apoc. 12. but men, who will be gifted with beatitude, are not the third part of men, since Many are called, but few chosen: therefore there seem to be more men than angels; since the men to be damned are far more than those to be saved, who will equal the third part of the angels.

I answer first. that it is false that men were destined to salvation only from the accident of the ruin of the angels, and not per se; and therefore to be saved precisely in that same number.

Secondly. it is uncertain whether those seats of the angels are to be restored by men only in the same number, and according to the same proportion. For perhaps (says S. Augustinus in the Enchiridion c. 29.) that heavenly city will not be defrauded of the numerosity of its citizens, but will perhaps reign with even richer abundance. Because we do not know how great is the number either of the men to be saved, or of the evil angels.

Thirdly finally I say. it is uncertain whether Lucifer precisely drew the third part of the angels: for Apoc. 12. a certain number is posited for the uncertain. And the literal sense is about Antichrist, about to lead into error and perdition a great part of the faithful, even the more learned and more excellent, who shine like stars in the firmament of the Church, as the Interpreters of the cited chapter teach, especially Richard 1 t. on Apoc., our Lyranus on the same place, and very many Recentiores after them.

You will say 2. There are as many men as angels: therefore the angels do not exceed the multitude of men. The antecedent is proved from that of Deuteronomy 32: He established the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the angels of God, as the seventy Interpreters read: for instead of that which is in the Vulgate According to the number of the sons of Israel they read sons of God, by whom the angels can be understood, so that God established the number of the multiplication of men according to the number of the angels.

I answer. that the reading of the Vulgate is to be preferred, as is gathered from the Hebrew over against the seventy interpreters, as Origen and others testify. And the sense is that God, when he confounded the tongues at Babylon, and scattered men into various parts of the earth, already then destined the land of Canaan to the sons of Israel for a sufficient and commodious dwelling: then also because although it may be read properly, According to the number of the sons of God: from this the ancient Fathers gather only that human Kingdoms and Empires are divine according to the number of the angels, who were deputed to their guardianship, as Theodoret expounds Orat. 10. on Daniel around those words; The prince of the kingdom of the Persians resisted me, etc. And according to the same sense Clement of Alexandria said lib. 7 Strom. a little from the beginning: There are angels distributed through the Nations by divine and ancient command.