Summa summae S. Thomae sive compendium theologiae

D. Thomas qq. 50, 51 et 61.

Angel is a Greek word, meaning the same as the Latin messenger. Hence, if the force of the word is considered, it is a name of office, not of nature; and therefore it is sometimes applied in the Scriptures to whoever announces the will or law of God. Thus of John the Baptist it is said, Malach., III, 1, and Matth., XI, 10: Behold I send my angel. And the Apostle, I Cor., XI, 10, commands that the heads of women be veiled because of the angels, that is, the priests.

However, because the ministry of announcing is commonly entrusted by God to the heavenly spirits, it has been received by usage that this name is applied to signify those spiritual substances higher than men; and since among them there are diverse orders, it sometimes signifies those who are in the lowest order, sometimes generally all who are contained in the nine orders. And in this way we take it here.

You will ask 1° whether there are angels.

I answer in the affirmative¹. It is of faith, against the Sadducees. Act., XXIII, 8.

Proof. By the name angel we understand a spiritual, intellectual, created substance, higher than men. But it is certainly established from the Scriptures that such a substance is given. And first, that a created spiritual substance is given. Ps. CIII, 4:

Who makest thy angels spirits. Likewise Hebr., I, 1; Apocal., I, 7; Coloss., I, 16. But if spiritual, therefore intellectual. Likewise they are higher than men. Ps. VIII, 6, the prophet speaking of man, says: Thou hast made him a little less than the angels. And II Petr., II, 11: Whereas angels are greater in strength and power.

Augustine, on that verse of Psal. CIII, 4: Who makest thy angels spirits, says, n. 15: « We know that angels exist from faith, and we read it written that they have appeared to many, and we hold it, nor is it right for us to doubt this. But angels are spirits; and when they are spirits, they are not angels, but when they are sent, they become angels. For angel is a name of office, not of nature. Do you ask the name of this nature? It is spirit. Do you ask the office? It is angel. » St. Gregory the Great, Hom. 34 in Evang.: « Almost all the pages of sacred eloquence bear witness to angels and archangels. »

Hence the Lateran Council, under Innocent III, lib. I Decretal., cap. Firmiter, de summa Trinitate, thus defines: « We firmly believe... that God... at once from the beginning of time created both creatures out of nothing, the spiritual and the corporeal, namely the angelic and the worldly, and then the human, as it were common, constituted of spirit and body. »

Hence you will infer that the angels are devoid of all matter, and do not have bodies, even subtle and sensible ones, naturally united to themselves.

As for the holy Fathers who said that the angels are corporeal, not all of them understood corporeal as common sense bears it and in that strict sense in which we understand it here. For some said they are corporeal, that is, true substances; because among many of the ancients, body is used in two ways: first, properly, for a material and extended mass, and as it is opposed to immaterial substance, as we take it here; second, improperly, for that which is real and subsists, and is opposed to nothing, to the empty and the void, as we showed in the dissert. quarta Tract. de Deo uno; and in this sense some holy Fathers said that the angels are corporeal, that is, true and real

substances. Others said² that they are corporeal comparatively to God, because incorporeal substances are a mean between God and corporeal creatures: but a mean, compared to one extreme, appears as the other extreme, just as the lukewarm, compared to the hot, appears cold; and for this reason it is said that the angels, compared to God, are material and corporeal, not, however, that there is in them anything of a corporeal nature. Some, finally, called body whatever is defined in a certain place, and is not everywhere, or even that which is potential and limited, although it were a pure spirit. Moreover, if any have judged the angels to be properly and strictly corporeal, against them we set the other Fathers cited, the sacred Scriptures, the consensus of the schools, and above all the definition of the Lateran Council.

You will ask 2° whether the angels sometimes assume bodies.

I answer in the affirmative³, so that their apparitions do not always occur according to imagination. For what is seen by an imaginary vision is only in the imagination of the one seeing, nor is it seen constantly in the same way and indifferently by all, as is clear in those dreaming and the deranged. But Scripture introduces the angels appearing in such a way that they were seen constantly in the same way and indifferently by all: thus the angels appearing to Abraham were seen constantly and in the same way by him and his whole household, and by Lot, and by the citizens of Sodom; likewise the angel of Tobias was seen constantly and in the same way by all.

If you say: Just as the imagination of one, so that of a whole multitude and of all who encounter it can be altered, so that the same thing is seen constantly by all in the same way according to an imaginary vision,

I answer 1°. Granted that this can happen absolutely, it does not, however, happen so ordinarily, and therefore the argument from what commonly occurs always holds. 2°. I deny the antecedent. For this would happen either by God acting specially, or by an angel. Not by God

acting specially, since these apparitions sometimes occur for evil and shameful purposes, as is clear in the succubus and incubus demon, likewise in the demon tempting Christ and Eve. Not by an angel; for the finite and limited power of an angel does not seem able to be borne at once to things so diverse and continued for so long. Besides, an evil angel could do nothing upon the imagination of Christ, to whom he appeared in the desert, nor upon the imagination of Eve, still innocent, to whom he appeared under the form of a serpent. Finally, this does not seem sufficiently to agree with Scripture's manner of speaking. For it is expressly said, Genes., XVIII, 2: There appeared to him (namely, to Abraham) three men, whom the Apostle, ad Hebr., XIII, 2, says were angels.

But an angel assumes a body when it is united to it according to substance as mover to the movable, in order to represent his own properties, or those of God, whose legate he is, using that body as his own⁴. And he can form that body for himself out of any elements or mixed bodies whatsoever, because all bodies are subject to angels as regards local motion. Regularly, however, it is formed out of air or vapor, because these kinds of matter can easily be thickened and thus receive and retain a shape, and be variously colored by the addition of some body, as is evident in clouds⁵.

You will ask 3° whether the angels, in the bodies they have assumed, truly exercise works of sensitive life.

I answer in the negative, because they do not live in them a sensitive life. Nor do they have sense organs, properly so called, but only their likeness, and so their actions are only vital by way of likeness. Hence Raphael said, Tob., XII, 19: I seemed indeed to eat and drink with you, but I use an invisible food and drink which cannot be seen by men.

You will ask 4° whether there are several angels distinct only in number within the same species.

I answer: There neither are nor can there be several angels distinct only in number within the same species⁶.

Proof. Numerical multiplication within the same species is repugnant to that to which matter signed by quantity, or an order to it, is repugnant. But to angels, complete immaterial substances, matter, or an order to it, is repugnant. Therefore. — The minor is established from what has been said. — Proof of the major. Numerical multiplication within the same species is repugnant to that to which the principle of such multiplication is repugnant. But only matter signed by quantity, or an order to it, is the principle of numerical multiplication within the same species. Therefore. — The difficulty is in the minor.

Proof of the minor. The principle of numerical multiplication within the same species necessarily involves two things: First, that it be intrinsic and substantial, because two individuals, e.g., Peter and Paul, differ substantially; for they are two substances of the same species really distinct. Second, that it so multiply the substance that it nevertheless does not multiply the species, but preserves one and the same specifically in several individuals. But it is repugnant that this be supplied except by matter signed by quantity, or without an order to it. Therefore. — Proof of the minor, and first, that this is supplied by matter signed by quantity. Matter is something intrinsic and substantial, and by reason of the quantity it has or connotes, of which it is the immediate recipient and not the form, it has parts of the same nature. Therefore this can bring about numerical multiplication, while specific unity is preserved. — It is now proved that this cannot be supplied except by matter alone. It cannot be supplied by form: first, because it is proper to form to constitute the species, that is, to furnish the essential predicates. Therefore of itself it does not make things differ only in number, but also in species; for since that which constitutes essentially is the same as what is constitutive and distinctive, it makes things differ essentially. Second, the principle of individuation must be a principle of incommunicability to several inferiors; for an individual is not further communicable to other, inferior individuals. But form, since it is the principle of the specific degree, which of itself is communicable to many individuals, cannot be the principle of such incommunicability. Therefore.

You will say: This doctrine of St. Thomas was formerly condemned by the University of Paris. Therefore.

I answer that this condemnation, made inconsiderately, was solemnly revoked in the year 1325, by Stephen, Bishop of Paris, with the consent of the dean, the chapter, and several other learned men, and that the doctrine of St. Thomas was celebrated with various praises.

You will ask 5° when the angels were created.

I answer that they were not created before the world, as some Greek Fathers held, but together with the world⁷.

Thus the Lateran Council, cited above, defined, saying that God created the angelic and worldly creature at once from the beginning of time. Scripture favors this, Exod., XX, 11: In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them. But the angels are in the world and in heaven. And Eccli., XVIII, 1: He created all things together, not indeed with an instantaneous simultaneity, but with a simultaneity of uninterrupted time. Understand this also as regards species; for individuals of the rational soul are created daily.

If you say that Moses, in narrating the creation of all things, made no mention of the angels.

Augustine answers, lib. XI de Civit., c. 33, that the angels in the narrative of the world's creation were not passed over, but signified under the name of heaven or light⁸. Moreover, they were either passed over for this reason, or signified by the names of corporeal things, because Moses was speaking to an unrefined people, who could not yet grasp an incorporeal nature; and if it had been expressed to them that there were things above every corporeal nature, it would have been an occasion of idolatry for them, to which they were prone, and from which Moses especially intended to call them back. Nor does it matter that afterward, in the course of Genesis, he makes mention of angels; for he does this with such caution as to represent them under the appearance of bodies, and regularly to indicate that they are only ministers and messengers, so as thus to remove every occasion of idolatry.

It is also rightly answered, with St. Jerome, Epist. 139, that Moses did not make express mention of the angels,

because this was not part of his purpose, since there he intended only to describe the order of the creation of corporeal things and the series of days.

You will ask 6° where the angels were created.

I answer that it is more probable that they were created in the empyrean heaven⁹; because, since they precede all corporeal creatures in dignity, and preside over the whole of nature as its superiors, it was fitting that they should be created in the highest of the heavens. Scripture favors this, which, Ezech., XXVIII, 13 and 14, speaking of the first angel under the figure of the prince of Tyre, says: Thou wast in the delights of the paradise of God.... Thou a cherub stretched out and protecting, and I set thee in the holy mountain of God. And below, 16: And I cast thee out from the mountain of God, and destroyed thee, O covering cherub! Now Paradise, or the mountain of God, is the empyrean heaven, in which all the saints will be.

You will ask 7° how great is the multitude of angels.

I answer that, according to Scripture, it is very great and astonishing. For it is said, Daniel, VII, 10: Thousands of thousands ministered to him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before him. And Apocal., V, 11: Their number was thousands of thousands. By these manners of speaking an almost innumerable multitude is suggested. But according to St. Thomas¹⁰, following St. Dionysius, c. 14 de coelesti Hierarchia, it is reasonably said that the multitude of angels incomparably exceeds the multitude of material species. But how much the angels exceed the number of material species, and whether they exceed the number of men who have been, are, and will be: this seems to us uncertain, nor do we think sufficiently well-founded what is alleged by some for or against it.