COMMENTARIA IN QUATUOR LIBROS SENTENTIARUM -- Lib. II, d. 2, p. II, a. 2, q. 1: S. BONAVENTURAE

S. Bonaventurae Bagnoregis S. R. E. Episc. Card. Albae atque Doctor Ecclesiae Universalis	St. Bonaventure of Bagnoregio Cardinal Bishop of Alba & Doctor of the Church
Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum	Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences
Magistri Petri Lombardi, Episc. Parisiensis	of Master Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris
SECUNDI LIBRI	BOOK TWO
COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM II.	COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION II
PARS II.	PART II
ARTICULUS II. Quaestio I.	ARTICLE II Question 1
Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 75-78 Cum Notitiis Originalibus	Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 75-78. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.
ARTICULUS II. De modo, quo Angeli sunt in loco.	ARTICLE II On the manner, in which Angels are in a place.
Consequenter circa secundum articulum quaeruntur quatuor.	Consequently, about the second Article four (things) are asked.
Primum est, utrum substantiae spirituales sint in loco corporeo.	The first is, whether spiritual substances are in a corporeal place.
Secundum est, utrum Angelus sit in pluribus locis simul, aut tantum in uno.	The second is, whether an Angel is in several places at once, or only in one.
Tertium est, utrum sit in loco punctuali, an composito.	The third is, whether (an Angel) is in a point-like place [loco punctuali], or a composite (place).
Quartum est, utrum plures Angeli possint simul esse⁴ in eodem loco primo.	The fourth is, whether several Angels can be together⁴ in the same prime place [loco primo].
QUAESTIO I. Utrum Angeli sint in loco corporeo.	QUESTION 1 Whether Angels are in a corporeal place?
QUAERITUR IGITUR primo, utrum loci corporalis sit locare Angelos. Et quod sic, videtur.	THEREFORE THERE IS ASKED first, whether it belongs to a corporal place to locate [locare] the Angels. And it seems, that (it is) so.
1. Dicit Strabus:⁵ « Statim ut factum est caelum empyreum, repletum est Angelis ».	1. (Walafrid) Strabo says:⁵ « As soon as the empyrean Heaven was made, it was filled with Angels ».
2. Item, Damascenus:⁶ « Caelum est continentia visibilium et invisibilium »; loquitur de empyreo: ergo etc.	2. Likewise, (St. John) Damascene (says):⁶ « Heaven is for the containing of (things) visible and invisible »; (and) he is speaking of the empyrean (Heaven): ergo etc..
3. Item, omne creatum est de universo, ergo est intra primum continens sive ultimum corpus; sed supremum corpus ambiens dicitur empyreum:⁷ ergo omnis creatura continetur infra ipsum: ergo et angelicus spiritus.	3. Likewise, every created (being) is of the universe, therefore it is within the first or last containing body; but he supreme, encompassing [ambiens] body is said (to be) the “empyrean (Heaven)”:⁷ therefore every creature is contained beneath it: therefore the angelic spirit too.
4. Item, nulla substantia operatur, nisi ubi est eius virtus;⁸ sed nulla virtus potest elongari a substantia nisi distantia proportionali — nam virtus infinita nullo modo elongatur, virtus finita non potest elongari nisi finite — ergo necesse est, Angelum esse ubi operatur, vel propre. Ergo cum operatur in loco corporali, ut patet in corpore, quod movet, ergo ibi est, vel in loco proximo est: ergo si locus maxime aptus contemplationi est empyreum, videtur, quod ibi sit.	4. Likewise, no substances operates, except where its virtue is;⁸ but no virtue can be elongated from (its) substance except by a proportional distance — for an infinite virtue is elongated in no manner, (and) a finite virtue cannot be elongated except finitely — therefore it is necessary, that an Angel be where he operates, and/or nearby [prope]. Therefore when he operates in a corporal place, as is clear in the body, which he moves, therefore he is there, and/or in the nearest [proximo] place: therefore, if the place most-of-all apt for contemplation is the empyrean (Heaven), it seems, that he is there.
5. Item, spiritus maligni in eodem loco tormentorum habebunt collocari, in quo et homines . . .	5. Likewise, the malign spirits shall have that they are collocated in the same place of torments, in which damned / men (shall) also (be placed), . . .
⁴ Ita plures codd. ut U W Y bb; alii multi omittunt hoc loco simul, quod tamen infra in titulo quaestionis ponunt. ⁵ Cfr. lit. Magistri, hic c. 4. ⁶ Libr. II. de Fide orthod. c. 6. ⁷ Cod. cc et ed. 1 caelum empyreum. ⁸ De repugnantia actionis in distans cfr. I. Sent. d. 37. p. I, a. 1. q. 1. — Aliquanto inferius plures codd. Ergo cum operetur pro Ergo cum operatur. De relatione angelicae operationis ad locum cfr. Damasc., I. de Fide othod. c. 13, cuius verba infra pag. 79, nota 5. referuntur.	⁴ Thus several codices, such as U W Y and bb; many others omit in this place together [simul], which however they do have below in the title of the Question. ⁵ Cf. the text of Master (Peter), here in ch. 4. ⁶ On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. II, ch. 6. ⁷ Codex cc and edition 1 reads the empyrean Heaven [caelum empyreum] for the empyrean (Heaven) [empreum]. ⁸ On the repugnance of an action upon something distant, cf. Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, p. I, a. 1, q. 1. — Somewhat below this several codices read Therefore since he operates [Ergo cum operetur] for Therefore when he operates [Ergo cum operatur]. On the relation of an angelic operation to a place, cf. (St. John) Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. I, ch. 13, whose words are quoted below in d. 2, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, p. 79, in footnote 5.

p. 76

damnati, sicut dicitur Matthaei vigesimo quinto:¹ Ite maledicti etc., ergo ab oppositis vel a simili in contrario Angeli cum beatis hominibus in eodem loco corporali erunt; sed locus aptus hominibus beatis est ille qui praedictus est, scilicet caelum empyreum, quod est supremum, quietum, clarum, uniforme et spatiosum: ergo etc.	damned / men (shall) also (be placed), just as is said in the twenty-fifth (chapter of the Gospel of St.) Matthew:¹ Go you accursed etc., therefore ab opposites and/or a simili in contrario there shall be Angels with the beatified men in the same corporal place; but the place apt for beatified men is that which is aforesaid, namely the empyrean Heaven, which is supreme, quiet, clear, uniform and spacious: ergo etc..
6. Item, maior requiritur proportio perfectionis ad perfectibile quam locati ad locum; sed videmus, quod substantia spiritualis adeo proportionari potest corporali, et e converso, quod una unitur alteri ut perfectio, ut patet in homine: ergo multo fortius potest una uniri alteri ut locatum loco. Ergo cum caelum empyreum sit nobilissimum corporum simplicium, vel erit in Angelo, vel Angelus in eo; sed ipsum non est in Angelo: ergo e converso.	6. Likewise, a greater proportion of perfection is required for a perfectible than (a proportion) of a (thing) placed to a place; but we see, that a spiritual substance can be so proportioned to a corporal, and vice versa, that one is united to the other as (its) perfection, as is clear in a man: therefore much more strongly one can be united to the other as a (thing) placed to a place. Therefore since the empyrean Heaven is the most noble of simple bodies, it will either be in an Angel, and/or an Angel (will be) in it; but it is not in an Angel: therefore (it is) the other way around.
SED CONTRA: 1. Boethius de Hebdomadibus:² « Communis animi conceptio, quae omnibus videtur, est, incorporeum in loco non esse ».	BUT ON THE CONTRARY: 1. (St. Severinus) Boethius (says) On the Seven Rules:² « The common conception of spirit, which seems to all, is, that an incorporeal is not in a place ».
2. Item, Gregorius:³ « Locus animae Deus est »; sed non est spiritualior locus animae quam Angeli: ergo si Deus est locus animae, et Angeli.	2. Likewise, (Pope St.) Gregory (the Great says):³ « God is the place for the soul »; but the place for the soul is not more spiritual than (the place for) the Angel: therefore if God is the place for the soul, (He is) also (the place) for the Angel.
3. Item, ratione videtur, quia loci ad locatum est mutua indigentia, sicut patet — locatum enim indiget loco suo, ut terra centro; et locus etiam indiget locato, unde refugit vacuitatem; et impossibile est, quod locus sit sine locatio, quin aliquid suppleat indigentiam loci⁴ — sed caelum empyreum non indiget Angelis nec aliquis locus, nec similiter Angelus loco, quia, omni corpore circumscripto, adhuc Angelus remaneret et secundum substantiam et secundum operationem, quae est contemplatio: ergo nullo modo est locus Angeli.	3. Likewise, it seems by reason, because there is a mutual need [mutual indigentia] of a place for (the thing) placed, just as is clear — for the (thing) placed needs its place, as the Earth (needs a) center; and a place also needs (a thing) placed, whence it flees emptiness; and it is impossible, that a place be without a location, which supplies something (to) the indigence of the place⁴ — but the empyrean Heaven does not need the Angels nor (does) any place, nor, similarly, (does) the Angel (need) a place, because, abstracting from every body, the Angel would still remain both according to (his) substance and according to (his) operation, which is contemplation: therefore in no manner is there a place for the Angel.
4. Item, locus habet influentiam et potentiam super locatum — unde superiora nobiliora locant minus nobilia, sicut patet ex hoc,⁵ quod aqua terram, aër aquam, et sic de aliis — sed corporale non habet influere in spirituale nisi secundum ordinem iustitiae, sicut in anima peccatrice vel spiritu: ergo spiritus non habet locum in corpore nisi per culpam.	4. Likewise, a place has an influence and power over the (thing) placed (in it) — wherefore more noble superiors locate less noble ones, just as is clear from this,⁵ that water (is a location for) earth, air (for) water, and thus concerning the other (elements) — but the corporal does not have an influence on the spiritual except according to the order of justice, just as in the soul and/or spirit of a sinner: therefore a spirit does not have a place in a body except through fault.
5. Item, omne locatum habet pondus et inclinationem ad locum; sed Augustinus⁶ dicit: « Quod est pondus in corporalibus, hoc est amor in spiritibus », sed inclinatio amoris angelici est ad bonum spirituale, non ad locum corporalem: ergo non habent locum corporaliter, sed solum spiritualiter.	5. Likewise, everything placed has a weight and inclination for a place; but (St.) Augustine⁶ says: « What weight is among (things) corporal, this is love among spirits », but the inclination of angelic love is for a spiritual good, not for a corporal place: therefore (Angels) do not have a place corporally, but only spiritually.
CONCLUSIO. Caelum empyreum locat Angelos ut locus continens, non autem ut mensurans vel conservans.	CONCLUSION The empyrean Heaven locates the Angels as a place containing (then), but not as (a place) measuring and/or conserving (them).
RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod caelum empyreum locat Angelos et est locus Angelorum, sicut probant rationes ad primam partem.	I RESPOND: It must be said, that the empyrean Heaven locates the Angels and is the place of the Angels, just as the reason for the first side prove.
Ad intelligentiam autem obiectorum est notandum, quod locus habet triplicem comparationem ad locatum. Comparatur enim primo in ratione contentis, secundo in ratione mensurantis et tertio in ratione conservantis. Continet enim ut vas, mensurat ut quantitas, sed conservat ut natura.⁷ — Secundum hanc triplicem habitudinem sunt in loco substantiae finitae, corporales et corruptibiles: quia finitae et limitatae, sunt in loco continente; quia corporales, in mensurante; quia corruptibiles, in loco conservante. Secundum comparationes duas primas sunt in loco substantiae finitae et corporales, sed incorruptibiles. Secundum primam vero sunt in loco substantiae finitae, spirituales et incorruptibiles, ut Angeli. Et hoc dico in loco corporali; nam Angelus habet locum spiritualem conservantem, scilicet Dei virtutem; locum mensurantem sive circumscribentem, propriae substantiae et⁸ virtutis limitationem sive clausionem; locum vero continentem, non tantum spiritualem, sed etiam corporalem.	But for an understanding of the objections it must be noted, that a place has threefold comparison to (the thing) placed. For it is compared first in a reckoning of one containing, second in the reckoning of one measuring and third in the reckoning of one conserving. For it contains as a vessel, it measures as a quantity, but it conserves as a nature.⁷ — According to this threefold habitude finite, corporal and corruptible substances are in a place: because (they are) finite and limited, they are in a containing place; because (they are) corporal, (they are) in a measuring (place); because (they are) corruptible, (they are) in a conserving place. According to the first two comparisons finite and corporal, but incorruptible, substances are in a place. However, according to the first (comparison) finite, spiritual and incorruptible substances, such as the Angels, are in a place. And this I say in regard to a corporal place; for an Angel has a spiritual, conversing place, namely God’s Virtue; a measuring or circumscribing place, (i. e.) the limitation or cloistering [clausionem] of its own substance and⁸ virtue; but a containing place, (which is) not only spiritual, but even corporal.
Ratio autem, quare Angeli continentur loco sive aliquo ambiente, est ordinatio partium universi. Si enim non haberent aliquid continens, non esset eorum existentia ordinata ad invicem,⁹ nec haberet ordinem unus ad alterum; hoc autem non decet universum nec summum opificem. — Ratio autem, quare continentur loco corporali, duplex est: una, scilicet limitatio ipsius spiritus creati. Cum enim spiritus increatus, qui Deus est, habeat in se simplicitatem, per quam est intra omnia, et immensi- / -tatem, . . .	Moreover, the reason, why Angels are contained in a place or in something encompassing (them), is the ordination of the parts of the universe. For if they did not have something containing (them), their existence would not be ordered to one another,⁹ nor would one (of them) have an order to the other; but this would not befit [decet] the universe nor the Most High Worker. — But the reason, why they are contained in a corporal place, is twofold. one, namely the limitation of a created spirit itself. For since the uncreated Spirit, which is God, has in Himself a simplicity, through which He is within all (things), and an immensi- / -ty, . . .
¹ Vers. 41; Vulgata: Discedite a me maledicti etc. Ite secundum translationem Benedicti Ariae Montani. Vide August., Enarrat. 1. in Ps. 36. n. 11. ² Circa initium, ubi propositionem per se notam seu communem animi conceptionem ita distinguit: Nam ita una communis est, ut omnium hominum sit . . . alia vero est doctorum tantum, quae tamen ex talibus communis animi conceptionibus venit, ut est: quae incorporalia sunt, in loco non esse. ³ Libr. IV. Moral. c. 33. n. 67: Deus enim, qui sine situ omnia continet, nobis ad se venientibus locus non localis manet. Cfr. etiam VIII. c. 19. n. 35, ubi dicit, quod Deus sit locus hominis. — Ioan. de Rupella, Summa de Anima, p. I. c. 52. citat August., de Quant. animae, ubi c. 1. n. 2. legitur: Propriam quandam habitationem animae ac patriam Deum ipsum credo esse, a quo creata est. ⁴ Cfr. I. Sent. d. 37. p. I. a. 1. q. 2, ubi principia huius argumenti ac seqq. tanguntur, et in notis adiectis verba Aristotelis adducuntur. — Vat. impleat pro suppleat. ⁵ Melius cum codd. aa bb cc et ed. 1 omitteretur ex hoc. Paulo inferius cod. T in animam peccatricem vel spiritum. ⁶ Libr. XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 28: Ita enim corpus pondere, sicut animus amore fertur, quocumque fertur. Cfr. XIII. Confess. c. 9. n. 10, quem textum invenies tom. I. pag. 544, nota 3. — Circa finem argumenti plures codd. cum Vat. non habent locari pro non habent locum. ⁷ Cfr. I. Sent. d. 37. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. ⁸ Vat. sola, omissa particula et, mutat interpunctionem legendo circumscribentem propriae substantiae, virtutis; lectio falsa. ⁹ Vat. cum paucis mss. et edd. 2, 3, 4 prosequitur quia ordinem non haberent in creatione, eo quod creata sunt simul, nec haberent ordinem unius ad alterum.	¹ Verse 41; the Vulgate reads Depart from me you accursed etc. [Discedite a me maledicti etc.]. Go is the reading of Benedetto Aria Montani’s translation. See (St.) Augustine’s, Enarrations, Bk. I, on Ps. 36, n. 11. ² Near the beginning, where he distinguishes a self-evident proposition or a common conception of spirit thus: For thus one is common, that it is of all men . . . but the other is of doctors only, which, however, comes forth from such conceptions of the common spirit, such as is (this): “that those, which are incorporeal, are not in a place”. ³ Moralia., Bk. IV, ch. 33, n. 67: For God, who without being situated contains all, remains as a non-local place for us coming to Him. Cf. also Bk. VIII, ch. 19, n. 35, where he says, that God is the place for man. — John of Rupella, in (his) Summa on the Soul, p. I, ch. 52, cites (St.) Augustine’s, On the Quantity of the Soul, where in ch. 1, n. 2 there is read: I believer that God Himself, by whom it was created, is the soul’s own certain habitation and fatherland. ⁴ Cf. Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, p. I, a. 1, q. 2, where the principles of this argument and (those) following are touched upon, and in the notes added (therein) there are cited the words of Aristotle. — The Vatican edition has fulfills [impleat] for supplies [suppleat]. ⁵ It would have been better if, together with codices aa bb and cc, and edition 1, from this [ex hoc] were omitted. A little below this codex T has (it does) upon the soul and/or spirit of a sinner [in animam peccatricem vel spiritum]. ⁶ On the City of God, Bk. XI, ch. 28: For thus a body by a weight, just as a soul by love, is borne, whithersoever it is borne. Cf. Confessions, Bk. XIII, ch. 9, n. 10, which text you will find in Sent., Bk. I, d. 31, p. II, a. 1, q. 33, p. 544, in footnote 3. — Near the end of the argument several codices, together with the Vatican edition, have do not have a ‘being placed’ [on habent locari] for do not have a place [non habent locum]. ⁷ Cf. Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, p. I, a. 1, q. 2. ⁸ The Vatican edition alone, having omitted the particle and [et], changes the punctuation by reading a place of virtue, measuring or circumscribing for its own substance [circumscribentem propriae substantaie, virtutis] falsely. ⁹ The Vatican edition, together with a few manuscripts and editions 2, 3 and 4, proceeds thus: because they did not have an order in (their) creation, by this, that they were created together, nor did they have an order of one to the other [quia ordinem non haberent in creatione, eo quod creata sunt simul, nec haberent ordinem unius ad alterum].

p. 77

et immensi- / -tatem, per quam continet omnia et est extra omnia;¹ communicat illas conditiones creaturae eatenus, quatenus natua est recipere. Unde simplicitatem communicat spiritui; sed spiritus non potuit recipere virtutem continentiae. Quia enim simplicitas eius finita est, ideo est hic et nunc;² et quia non habet partem et partem, ideo secundum totum est hic et nunc: ideo non potest habere universalem capacitatem rerum. Corpus autem, quia compositum est et habet partes innumerabiles, non potuit participare simplicitatem, sed propter partium extensionem potuit recipere capacitatem; ideo Deus facit unum corpus nobilissimum, quod esset natum omnia ambire, et extra quod omnino nihil esset; et hoc est empyreum; et ideo necesse est, Angelum esse intra ipsum. — Alia ratio est, quia in solo corpore est distinctio hic et ibi.³ Quia enim creaturae ceterae ordinem habent in mundo, distinctionem et positionem habent secundum gradus perfectionem, et ita quod una est hic, et alia ibi, una sursum, et alia deorsum, et⁴ in solo corpore est potentialis distinctio secundum hic et ibi: ideo inter creaturas soli corpori debuit dari universalis potentia locandi, et respectu visibilium et invisiblium, ut sic universum esset unum in omnibus suis partibus ordinatum.	an immensi- / -ty, through which He contains all (things) and is outside of all (things); He communicates those conditions to a creature to the extent, that it is born to receive (them). Wherefore He communicates (His) Simplicity to a spirit; but a spirit could not receive the virtue of containing (things) [virtutem continentiae]. For because its simplicity is finite, for that reason it is here and now;² and because it does not have different parts [partem et partem], for that reason (its) whole is here and now: for that reason it cannot have a universal capacity for things. But a body, because has been composed and has innumerable parts, could not participate in (His) Simplicity, but on account of the extension of (its) parts it could receive a capacity; for that reason God made one, most noble body, which would be born to encompass all (things), and outside of which there would be entirely nothing; and this is the empyrean (Heaven); and for that reason it is necessary, that the Angel be within that. — The other reason is, that in a body alone there is the distinction of a here and there.³ For because all other creatures have an order in the world, they have a distinction and position according to (their) grades of perfections, and thus because one is here, and another there, one up above, and another down below, and⁴ (because) there is in a body alone a potential distinction according to a here and there: for that reason among creatures there ought to be given to a body alone a universal potency of locating, and (this) in respect of (things) visible and invisible, so that in this manner the universe would be one [unum], ordered in all its parts.
Et sic patet ratio duplex, quare data est corpori potentia locandi spiritum, et spiritum contineri a corpore. Hoc enim exigebat ordo universi tum propter limitationem spiritus creati, tum quia in solo corpore distinctio est secundum hic et ibi.	And thus there is cleare the twofold reason, why the power of locating a spirit has been given to a body, and (why) a spirit is contained by a body. For the order of the universe required this, both on account of the limitation of a created spirit, and because there is in a body alone a distinction according to a here and there.
Concedendae sunt igitur rationes monstrantes, quod caeli empyrei est locare Angelos.	Therefore, the reasons demonstrating, that it belongs to the empyrean Heaven to locate Angels, are to be conceded.
1. Quod enim obiicitur in contrarium primo, quod incorporeum non est in loco; dicendum, quod intelligit⁵ de esse in loco, sicut mensuratum est in mensura.	1. For what is objected unto the contrary, first, that an incorporeal is not in a place; it must be said, that (St. Severinus Boethius) understands⁵ (this) concerning ‘being in a place’ [esse in loco], just as (something) measured is in a measure.
2. Quod obiicitur, quod locus Angeli et animae Deus est; dicendum, quod intelligit de loco conservante, non de loco definiente. Et iterum ratio non cogit: quod si Deus est locus,⁶ quod nihil creatum locet spiritum.	2. What is objected, that God is the place for the Angel and the soul; it must be said, that (St.) Gregory understands this of a conserving place, not of a delimiting place [loco definiente].* And again the reckoning does not compel: that if God is a place,⁶ that nothing created locates a spirit.
3. Quod obiicitur, quod loci ad locatum est mutua indigentia; dicendum, quod verum est de his quae locantur propter defectum sui; sed non est verum de his quae locantur propter servandum ordinem universi. — Unde si quaeratur, utrum lapis possit esse extra caelum; dicendum, quod non, tum propter suam indigentiam, quia non haberet locum conservantem, tum quia non patitur hoc ordo universi. Sed de Angelo, quod caelum non exeat, non est ratio loci corporalis indigentia, sed corporis ultimi universalis continentia, secundum quam universum est perfectum et ordinatum.⁷	3. What is objected, that there is a mutual need of a place for the (thing) placed; it must be said, that (this) is true of those which are located on account of their own defect; but it is not true of those which are located on account of observing [servandum] the order of the universe. — Wherefore if it be asked, whether a stone could be outside of a heaven; is must be said, that (it could) not, both on account of its need (for a place), because it would not have a conserving place (if it were outside of every heaven), and because the order of the universe does not suffer this. But concerning an Angel, that it does not go forth from (every) heaven, the reason is not the corporal need of the place, but the continence (i. e. ability to contain) of the ultimate universal body (i. e. the empyrean Heaven), according to which the universe has been perfected and ordered.⁷
4. 5. Ad alias duas rationes patet responsio, quod⁸ procedunt de esse in loco tanquam in conservante, ratione cuius ponitur influentia in locante, ponitur etiam inclinatio in locato; iste autem modus essendi in loco non convenit Angelo.	4. 5. To the other two reckonings the response is clear, that⁸ they proceed concerning ‘being in a place’ as in a conserving (place), by reason of which an influence is positing in the locating (place), (and) there is also posited an inclination in the (thing) placed; but that manner of being in a place [essendi in loco] does not convene with an Angel.
SCHOLION.	SCHOLIUM
I. Iam I. Sent. d. 37. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. 2. 3. tractatum est de motu Angelorum, ubi plura dicta sunt, quae servire possunt ad intelligendas quatuor hic propositas quaestiones de modo, quo Angeli sunt in loco. De proprietatibus loci cfr. ibid. a. 1. q. 1. 2. 3, in specie de differentia inter esse in loco, esse locatum, esse localem (ibid. q. 1. ad 1.). Ibidem in corp. enumerantur quatuor leges loci, scil. continendi, mensurandi, salvandi, terminandi, hic autem tantum tres, omissa ultima, fortasse quia sub vocabulo continendi comprehenditur etiam vocabulum terminandi, minus aptum ad significandum modum, quo Angeli in loco definitive sunt praesentes. Manifestum autem est, a loco non posse nec mensurari nec conservari nisi substantiam corporalem. Mensuratur autem Angelus a limitatione propriae substantiae (S. Thom., S. I. q. 50. a. 1. ad 3) et altiori modo a Deo, qui est omnium mensura extra genus. Conservatur autem Angelus a solo Deo, cuius virtutem S. Bonv. (hic in corp.) vocat locum spiritualem, consentiente S. Thoma (I. Sent. d. 37. q. 3. a. 3). Porro Angelus in stricto sensu etiam non continetur in loco i. e. sicut mensuratum in mensura, sed continetur in eo « quodam modo », nempe definitive (I. Sent. d. 37. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. in corp.). S. Thom. (S. I. q. 52. a. 1.) vocabulum continere non admittere videtur, dicens: « Angelus dicitur esse in loco corporeo non ut contentum, sed ut continens aliquo modo ». — Ceterum de ista qualicumque praesentia Angeli in loco non mediocriter illa aetate disputatum est, et quidem tum de facto, utrum sit revera praesens in loco, atque de necessitate, utrum indiget loco, tum de ratione in genere, quare determinetur ad aliquem locum, tum de modo sive ratione formali huius praesentiae in loco.	I. Already in Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, p. II, a. 2, qq. 1, 2 and 3, (St. Bonaventure) treated of the movement of Angels, where several (things) were said, which can serve to understand the four Questions proposed here, concerning the manner, in which Angels are in a place. On the properties of place, cf. ibid., a. 1, qq. 1, 2 and 3, in particular concerning the difference between ‘being in a place’ [esse in loco], ‘being located’ [esse locatum], and ‘beloning to a place’ [esse localem] (ibid., q. 1, in reply to n. 1). In the same place, in the body of the Question, there are enumerated four laws for a place, with the last omitted, perhaps because under the term for “containing” there is also comprehended the term for “terminating”, (which term is) less apt for signifying the manner, in which the Angels are present deliminatively in a place. Moreover it is manifest, that naught but a corporal substance can be either measured or conserved by a place. But an Angel is measured by the limitation of its own substance (St. Thomas, Summa, I, q. 50, a. 1, in reply to n. 3) and in a higher manner by God, who is the Measure outside-the-genus-(of-measure), for all (things). Moreover an Angel is conserved by God alone, whose virtue St. Bonaventure (here in the body of the Question) calls a “spiritual place”, with St. Thomas consenting (Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, q. 3, a. 3). Finally an Angel in the strict sense is not even contained in a place, i. e. as (something) measured in a measure, but is contained in it « in a certain manner », namely delimitatively [definitive] (cf. St. Bonaventure, Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, in the body of the Question). St. Thomas (Summa, I, q. 52, a. 1) does not seem to admit the term “to contain”, saying: « An Angel is said “to be in a corporeal place” not as (something) contained, but as (something) in some manner containing ». — Moreover, in that age there was disputed in a not mediocre manner the kind of manner of that presence of an Angel in a place, and indeed both concerning the fact, whether (an Angel) is in truth present in a place, and even of the necessity, whether it needs a place, and concerning the reason in general, why (an Angel) is delimited [determinetur] according to some place, and concerning the manner or formal reckoning of his presence in a place.
II. Quoad quaestionem de facto exortae sunt duae opiniones extremae et in verbis quidem oppositae, sed fere in eodem errore sibi propinquae. Quidam enim inter philosophos Arabes dixerunt, quod substantiae separatae nusquam sunt secundum substantiam; quae propositio, si intelligitur, quod substantia non sit in loco, reprobata est ab Episc. Paris. a 1276 (Collect. iudicior. p. 192. cap. 7. n. 27.), et a S. Thoma (I. Sent. d. 37. q. 3. a. 1.) nominatur « haeretica, quia secundum fidem nostram ponimus, Angelos immediate circa nos operari » (cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 32. m. 2, et propositio a 1240 damnata, quae I. Sent. d. 37. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. in Scholio esse relata). E contrario Durandus (I. Sent. d. 37. q. 1.) Angelos esse ubique opinatur, sed « absque assertione; solummodo inquirendo et dando occasionem peritioribus ulterius inquirendi ». Hanc autem ubiquitatem . . .	II. In regard to the question concerning the fact there have arised two extreme, and indeed in words opposed, opinions, but (which are) very close [fere porpinquae] to one another in the same error. For certain (authors) among the Arabic philosophers said, that separated substances are nowhere according to substance; which if it is understood, that a substance is not in a place, has been reproved by the Bishop of Paris in A. D. 1276 (Collectio iudiciorum., p. 192, ch. 7, n. 27), and (which) by St. Thomas (Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, q. 3, a. 1) is named « heretical, because we posit according to our Faith, that the Angels are at work immediately about us » (cf. Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. II, q. 32, m. 2, and the proposition condemned in A. D. 1240, which has been mentioned in Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, in the Scholium). Contrariwise, Durandus (Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, q. 1) opines that the Angels are everywhere, but (does so) « without an assertion; only by inquiring and giving occasion to those undertaking a further inquiry ». But this ubiquity . . .
¹ Cfr. I. Sent. d. 37. p. I. a. 1. q. 1, et p. II. a. 1. q. 2. in fine. ² Locus enim et tempus determinatum important per se quid limitatum, ideoque et inter notas individuantes obtinent primatum; cfr. tom. I. pag. 358, nota 1. ³ Vat. secundum hic et ibi. Paulo inferius multi codd. secundum gradus positionem, cod. cc et ed. 1 secundum gradus pro secundum gradus perfectionum. Dein Vat. et ita una pro et ita quod una. ⁴ Supple cum Vat. quia. ⁵ Vat. cum nonnullis mss. intelligitur. ⁶ In Vat. suppletur animae. ⁷ Cfr. I. Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 3. ad 5. ⁸ Plures codd. ut F I T W aa bb quia.	¹ Cf. Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, p. I, a. 1, q. 1, and p. II, a. 1, q. 2, at the end. ² For a determined [determinatum] time and place convey per se something limited, and for that reason they also obtain a primacy among individuating notes; cf. Sent., Bk. I, d. 29, p. II, a. sole, q. 2, p. 358, footnote 1. ³ The Vatican edition has according to a here and there [secundum hic et ibi] for of a here and there [hic et ibi]. A little below this many codices read according to (their) position of gradation [secundum gradus positionem], codex cc and edition 1 have according to (their) grades [secundum gradus] for according to (their) grades of perfections [secundum gradus perfectionum]. Then the Vatican edition has and thus one [et ita una] for and thus because one [et ita quod una]. ⁴ Supply together with the Vatican edition because [quia]. ⁵ The Vatican edition, together with not a few manuscripts, reads (this) is understood [intelligitur] for (St. Severinus Boethius) understands (this) [intelligit]. ⁶ In the Vatican edition there is supplied for the soul [animae]. ⁷ Cf. Sent., Bk. I, d. 3, p. II, a. 2, q. 3, in reply to n. 5. ⁸ Several codices, such as F I T W aa and bb, have because [quia] for that [quod].
	* [Trans. note: See definire in the “Rational for the Translation of Peculiar Latin Terms”, in the Introduction to this English translation.]

p. 78

idem intelligit omnino diversam esse a divina, eamque ponit in eo, quod pro libitu possint ubique operari, in quo totam rationem praesentiae consistere putat. Media autem sententia, quod Angeli nec sint ubique nec nusquam, sed aliquo modo in loco, communissime sustinetur.	the same (author) understands to be entirely diverse from the Divine ubiquity, and he posits that it (is) in this, that they can operate everywhere at will [pro libitu], in which he thinks the entire reckoning of presence consists. But the middle sentence, that the Angels are neither everywhere nor nowhere, but (are) in some manner in a place, is most commonly sustained.
Altera quaestio, utrum Angelus indigeat ex se, quod ad aliquem corporalem locum definiatur, a S. Bonav. (hic ad 3. et clarius infra q. 4. in corp.) in sensu negativo solvitur. Consentiunt Alex. Hal. (loco cit.), S. Thom. (I. Sent. d. 37. a. 1. ad 4.) et Scotus (hic q. 6. n. 11.), qui dicit: « Quod Angelus non necessario est in loco, quia multo magis posset fieri Angelus sine creatione creaturae corporalis, vel facta creatura corporali, posset fieri et esse extra omnem creaturam corporalem. Et tamen in Angelo est potentia passiva, qua posset esse in loco. Et ista potentia vel fundatur immediate in eius substantia, qua posset esse in loco, vel in ipsa, in quantum est natura limitata, actualiter existens, vel in aliquo extrinseco ipsi Angelo, quidquid sit illud. Et ideo non oportet quaerere aliquam intrinsecam rationem essendi Angelum in loco necessario ».	The other question, whether an Angel needs out of himself, that he be delimited [definiatur] according to some corporal place, is solved by St. Bonaventure (here in reply to n. 3 and more clearly below in q. 4, in the body of the Question) in the negative sense. In agreement are Alexander of Hales (loc. cit.), St. Thomas (Sent, Bk. I, d. 37, a. 1, in reply to n. 4) and (Bl. John Duns) Scotus (here in q. 6, n. 11), who says: « That an Angel is not necessarily in a place, because an Angel could have been made much more without the creation of a corporal creature, and/or with the corporal creature having been made, would have been made and been outside of every corporal creature. And yet in the Angel there is a passive power, by which he could be in a place. And this power of his is either founded immediately in his substance, and/or in it, inasmuch as it is a limited nature, actually existing, and/or in something extrinsic to the Angel himself, whatever that be. And for that reason it is not necessary [non oportet] to seek some intrinsic reason for the Angel to be necessarily in a place ».
III. Sed his suppositis, iterum duplex se offerebat quaestio: 1. quare et quomodo Angelus determinetur in genere, ut sit in aliquo loco et intra mundum; et 2. quid sit illud, per quod actualiter Angelus praesentiam habeat in hoc loco et non in alio.	III. But with these (things) supposed, a twofold question again offered itself: 1. for which reason and in what manner is an Angel delimited in general, so that he is in some place and within the world; and 2. what is it, through which the Angel actually has a presence in this place and not in another.
Primam quaestionem hic et infra q. 4. solvit S. Bonav. ita, ut causa finalis sit ordo universi servandus, et causa efficiens divina ordinatio, quae corporali naturae dedit quandam capacitatem continendi universalem, et Angelo quandam potentiam passivam, ut possit contineri in loco. Haec autem ordinatio divina habet rationem tum in limitatione substantiae angelicae, tum quia in solo corpore est et capacitas continendi et distinctio secundum hic et ibi. Eodem modo respondet Alex. Hal. (S. p. II. q. 32. m. 1.) et addit, quod illa proprietas in corporali natura, qua capax et continendi aliquo modo spiritus, « non sit corporalis, ex parte corporis proveniens, sed potius est divinitus data ». Item, quod « spiritus angelicus habet ad minus ex parte sua, quod debeat definiri loco, et quod sit hic, ita quod non ibi ». Tamen « posset esse, etsi non esset in loco corporali, quoniam ab hac ratione continendi [scil. passive] non dependet esse Angeli, sed solum ab hac ratione continendi, qua dicimus, quod Deus continet omnia ». Idem autem de hac solutione ait: « Hoc dicimus sine praeiudicio melioris sententiae, quia hoc non invenimus plane determinatum in s. Scriptura nec a Sanctis nec a expositoribus s. Scripturae ».	The first question St. Bonaventure solves here and below in q. 4 thus, that the final cause is to guard [servandus] the order of the universe, and the efficient cause (is) the Divine ordination, which gave to corporal nature a certain capacity of containing each and every thing, and to the Angel a certain passive power, so that it can be contained in a place. But this Divine ordination has its reason (for being) both in the limitation of the angelic substance, and because in a body alone there is both a capacity to contain and a distinction according to a here and there. In the same manner Alexander of Hales (Summa., p. II, q. 32, m. 1) responds and he adds, that that property in corporal nature, by which it is capable of containing in some manner a spirit, « is not corporal, coming forth on the part of the body, but rather is divinely given ». Likewise, that « an angelic spirit has still less on its own part, that it ought to be delimited in a place, and that it is here, thus that (it is) not here ». Yet « it could be, even if it were not in a corporal place, since the ‘being’ of the Angel does not depend upon this reason for being contained, but only upon that reason for being contained, by which we say, that God contains all (things) ».
Etiam Scotus hanc doctrinam approbare videtur et (loc. cit. n. 15.) concludit: « Illud quo primo (Angelus) potest esse in loco, est a Deo producente ipsum super creaturam corporalem continentem; sed ex tunc potest reducere se ipsum ad actum istum » (scil. ut sit actualiter in loco, et in hoc loco vel illo). — Posteriores scholastici, neglecta hac quaestione, potius disputant de sequenti.	Even (Bl. John Duns) Scotus seems to approve of this doctrine and concludes (loc. cit., n. 15): « That by which (an Angel) can be first in a place, is from God producing him above the corporal, containing creature; but thereafter [ex tunc] he can reduce himself to that act » (namely to be actually in a place, and in this place and/or in that). — Latter scholastics, having neglected this question, dispute rather concerning the following one.
IV. Quoad modum huius praesentiae, omnes doctores conveniunt, quod Angelus est in loco non circumscriptive, sed definitive, sive, ut ait Caietanus (in S. I. q. 52. a. 1.), conveniunt « in hoc, quod Angelus est in loco non per quantitatem molis nec per contactum quantitativum, sed per quantitatem et contactum virtualem. Et rursus in hoc etiam convenire omnes videntur, quod contactus ille sit relatio praesentiae Angeli ad locum causaliter, vel formaliter. Sed differentia opinionum et difficultas consistit in assignando, quod sit illius praesentiae fundamentum. Excedit enim evidentia eius humani ingenii capacitatem, propterea quod ex sacris eloquiis habemus, Angelos alicubi esse, et non apparet, quomodo tangant illum locum ». — Durandus (loc. cit.) quatuor affert opiniones; sed duae prae aliis sunt celebres. S. Thom. in Summa (loc. cit.) docent, quod « per applicationem virtutis angelicae ad aliquem locum qualitercumque dicitur Angelus esse in loco ». Quomodo autem hoc intelligendum sit, a discipulis Angelici non eodem modo exponitur (cfr. Caietan., loc. cit.). Contra sententiam S. Thomae, late disputat Scot. (hic q. 6. et Report. q. 2.) et in re convenire videtur cum Richardo a Med. (I. Sent. d. 37. a. 2. q. 1.) dicente: « Ratio applicationis Angeli ad locum est sua simultas cum loco vel cum re in loco existente . . . sicut formalis ratio applicationis corporis ad locum est circumscriptio ». Ambo afferunt articulum ab Episc. Paris. reprobatum, qui est: « Substantia separatae sunt alicubi per operationem », qui censuratur sic: « Error, si intelligatur, sine operatione substantiam non esse in loco » (Collect. iudic. t. I. p. 192. cap. 7. n. 25, sed cfr. supra Scholio pag. 30). De hac et de altera propositione damnata (supra n. II.) loquuntur etiam Durand. (loc. cit.) et praecipue Henr. Gand. (Quodl. 2. q. 9.), cuius verba notatu digna sunt: « In hoc enim concordabant omnes magistri theologiae congregati super hoc, quorum ego eram unus, unanimiter concedentes, quod substantia Angeli non est ratio, Angelum esse in loco secundum substantiam; et consimili ratione verum est indubitanter, quod si Angelus per potentiam suam, scil. intellectum ac voluntatem, virtutem suam non applicat ad locum operando circa ipsum, quod similiter potentia eius . . non est ratio eius essendi ipsum in loco, nisi forte potentia eius sit minoris abstractionis, quam sit eius substantia ». Idem in fine asserit, nullam se sustinere nec defendere specialem opinionem de hac re.	IV. In regard to the manner of this presence, all the doctors (of theology) agree, that an Angel is not circumscriptively in a place, but delimitatively [definitive], or, as Cajetan says (on Summa, I, q. 52, a. 1), they agree « in this, that an Angel is in a place not through a quantity of mass nor through a quantitative contact, but through the quantity and contact of virtue. And again in this all seem to agree too, that that contact is a relation of the presence of the Angel to the place causally, and/or formally. But a difference of opinion and difficulty consists in assigning, what is the fundament of that presence. For its evident-ness [evidentia] exceeds the capacity of human genius, on this account that we have from Sacred Scripture, that the Angels are somewhere, and (yet) it does not appear, in what manner they touch upon that place ». Durandus (loc. cit.) relates four opinions; but two are more famous that the others. St. Thomas teaches in his Summa (loc. cit.), that « through the application of angelic virtue to some place, in whatsoever kind of manner [qualitercumque] (he does this), an Angel is said “to be in a place” ». But in what manner this must be understood, is not expounded in the same manner by the disciples of the Angelic Doctor (cf. Cajetan, loc. cit.). Against the sentence of St. Thomas, (Bl. John Duns) Scotus disputes at length (here in q. 6, and in the Reportatio., q. 2) and he seems to agree in the manner with Richard of Middleton (Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, a. 2, q. 1) saying: « The reason for the application of the Angel to a place is his own togetherness [simultas] with the place and/or with the thing existing in the place . . . just as the formal reason for the application of a body to a place is (its) circumscription (by the place) ». Both cite the article reproved by the Bishop of Paris, which is: « Separates substances are somewhere through (their) operation », which is censured in this manner: « An error, if it be understood, that without (their) operation (their) substance is not in a place » (Collectio iudiciorum., tome I, p. 192, ch. 7, n. 25, but cf. the Scholium above in d. 1, p. I, a. 2, q. 2, on p. 30). Of this and the other condemned proposition (see above here under n. II) Durandus (loc. cit.) too and chiefly Henry of Ghent (Quodlibetals., 2, q. 9) speak, the words of whom are worthy of being noted: « For in this all the masters of theology, gathered together on this (matter), agreed, of whom I was one, conceding unanimously, that the substance of the Angel is not the reason, that the Angel is in a place according to substance; and according to a consimilar reckoning it is indubitably true, that if an Angel through his own power, namely (his) intellect and will, applies his own virtue to a place by operating about it, that similarly his power . . . is not the reason for his being in the place, except perchance his power be less able to be withdrawn [sit minoris abstractionis], than is his substance ». The same finally asserts, that he himself sustains or defends no special opinion on this matter.
De hac ultima quaest. S. Bonav. sicut nec Alex. Hal., explicite non tractat. Verba autem eius, incidenter prolata, favent sententiae Richardi, Scoti et Petri a Tar., ut hic q. 3. ad 2, q. 4. in corp; I. Sent. d. 37. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. ad 1.	Of this last question St. Bonaventure, just as neither Alexander of Hales, does not explicitly treat. But his words, pronounced incidentally, favor the sentence of Richard, Scotus and Peter of Tarentaise, as (can be seen) herein q. 3, in reply to n. 2; in q. 4, in the body of the Question, (and) in Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, p. II, a. 1, q. 1, in reply to n. 1.
V. Praeter locos iam citatos: S. Thom., I. Sent. d. 37. q. 3. a. 1; Quodl. 1. q. 1. a. 4. — B. Albert., I. Sent. d. 37. a. 26; S. p. I. tr. 18. q. 73. m. 2. a. 13. — Petr. a Tar., I. Sent. d. 37. q. 4. a. 1. — Biel, de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. 2. — Alii commentatores de hac et seqq. qq. plerumque agunt I. Sent. d. 37.	V. Besides the passages already cited: St. Thomas, Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, q. 3, a. 1; Quodlibetals., 1, q. 1, a. 4. — Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, a. 26; Summa., p. I, tr. 18, q. 73, m. 2, a. 13. — (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, Sent., Bk. I, d. 37, q. 4, a. 1. — (Gabriel) Biel, on this and the following questions, here in q. 2. — The other commentators (on Master Peter) deal with this and the following questions for the most part in Sent., Bk. I, d. 37.

This English Translation and the digitization of the Latin and English texts, the HTML markup, all emendations and corrections of the Latin text, and all notes by the Translator, are © 2007, 2008 by Br. Alexis Bugnolo. The / symbol is used to indicate that the text which follows appears on the subsequent page of the Quaracchi Edition. The translation of the notes in English corresponds to the context of the English text, not that of the Latin text; likewise they are a freer translation than that which is necessitated by the body of the text. Items in square [ ] brackets contain Latin terms corresponding to the previous English word(s), or notes added by the English translator.
Items in round ( ) brackets are terms implicit in the Latin syntax or which are required for clarity in English.

Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum

Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences

COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM II.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION II