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 III.

COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION III

PARS I.

PART I

ARTICULUS II.

 

Quaestio I.

ARTICLE II

 

Question 1

 

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pag. 102-104
Cum Notitiis Originalibus

 

 

Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,
Ad Claras Aquas, 1885, Vol. 2, pp. 102-104.
Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

 

ARTICULUS II.

 

De discretione personali.

ARTICLE II

 

On personal discretion (among the Angels).

Consequenter quaeritur de secundo attributo, scilicet de discretione4 personali. Circa quam tria quaeruntur.

Consequently there is asked concerning (their) second attribute, namely concerning (their) personal discretion [discretione personali].4  About which three (questions) are asked:

Primo quaeritur, utrum in Angelis sit mera discretio personalis.

First there is asked, whether in the Angels there is merely a personal discretion.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum haec proprietas sit accidentalis, aut substantialis.

Second there is asked, whether this property is accidental, or substantial.

Tertio vero, utrum sit materialis, vel formalis.

But third, whether it is material, and/or formal.

QUAESTIO I.

 

Utrum in Angelis sit mera discretio personalis.

QUESTION 1

 

Whether in the Angels there is merely a personal discretion?

QUOD AUTEM in Angelis sit mera discretio personalis, ita quod Angeli aliqui differant solo numero, videtur.

MOREOVER THAT in the Angels there is a mere personal discretion [discretio personalis], such that some Angels differ in number alone, seems:

1. Danielis septimo:5  Millia millium ministrabant ei; et constat, quod non tot habebant ministeria differentia specie, quot Daniel enumerat:  ergo nec ministri omnes differebant specie:  ergo aliqui, vel omnes differebant numero solo.  Quodsi dicas, quod tot, quot6 ministeria; obiicitur de secunda parte auctoritatis:  Et decies centena millia . . .

1. According to the seventh (chapter) of Daniel:5  Thousands of thousands ministered to Him; and it is established, that they do not have as many ministries differing in species, as Daniel enumerates:  therefore neither did all the ministers differ in species:  therefore some, and/or all, differed in number alone.  Wherefore if you say, that (there are) as many, as6 (there are) ministries; there is objected from the second half of the quote:  And ten times a hundred thousand . . .

4  Plures codd. cum ed. 1 hic et infra distinctione.

5  Vers. 10.

6  Ex cod. aa supplevimus, contextu exigente, quot.

4  Several codices, together with edition 1, have here and below distinction [distinctione] for discretion [discretione]. [Trans. note:  Since in English discretion no longer has, in its common sense, the sense of the Latin discretio, a division made by means of a dividing line [discrimen], an explanation of its use here is required.  In technical Scholastic terms, discretion is distinguished from a separation and a distinction.  A distinction, from the Latin distinguere, to mark off, is any difference that does not suppose a division, nor a disparity.  A discretion is a difference which supposes a division, but not necessarily a disparity.  A separation is a difference which supposes a division and some disparity, at least in quality.  Thus properly speaking the Divine Persons are distinct, not discrete nor separated; men are distinct and discrete and separate persons; and the members of the human body are distinct and discrete, but not separate according to their existence.  Cf. the “Rationale for the Translation of Peculiar Latin Terms” in the Introduction to this English Translation.]

5  Verse 10.

6  From codex aa we have supplied, as required by the context, as [quot].

p. 103

assistebant ei.  Constat, quod tanta diversitas non poterat cadere nisi secundum numerum, cum haberent unum statum, scilicet assistere.

assisted Him.  It is established, that such a great diversity could not occur except according to number, since they had one state, namely to assist.

2. Item, gloria est regi habere multos ministros uniformes:  ergo si « gloriosum est regnum, in quo cum Christo gaudent omnes Sancti »,1 videtur quod multi sint uniformes in illo superno palatio, et ita solo numero vel persona differentes.

2. Likewise, the glory of a king is to have many ministers in the same uniform [ministros uniformes]:  therefore if « glorious is the Kingdom, in which all the Saints rejoice with Christ »,1 it seems that there are many in the same uniform [multi uniformes] in that supernal Palace, and thus differing in number alone and/or in person.

3. Item, personalis discretio est in Deo, Angelis et hominibus; et cum natura angelica sit divinae propinquior quam humana, ergo et discretio personalis; sed in Deo sunt plures personae differentes sola personalitate, similiter in hominibus:  ergo videtur, quod similiter in Angelis:  ergo sunt ibi aliqui solo numero differentes, aut omnes.

3. Likewise, there is a personal discretion in God, in the Angels and in men; and since the nature of an Angel is nearer to the Divine than to the human, therefore also (its) personal discretion; but in God there are several Persons, differing in personality alone, similarly in men:  therefore it seems, that (there is such) similarly among the Angels:  therefore in that Place [ibi] there are some, or all, differing in number alone.

4. Item, omne animal per naturam desiderat societatem similis in specie — nam omne animal ad sibi simile copulabitur, et volatilia ad sibi similia conveniunt2 — ergo Angelus per naturam desiderat societatem similis in specie.  Sed desiderium eius non est frustra, maxime in Angelo beato:  ergo etc.   Si tu dicas, quod illud est verum in animalibus, non in substantiis spiritualibus; tunc quaero a te, utrum in Angelis sit socialis et amicabilis affectus.  Constat quod sic; sed in quocumque est ponere affectum talem, est amare similem et appetere habere:  ergo redit idem quod prius.

4. Likewise, every animal through nature desires the society of one similar in species — for every animal will be joined to one similar to itself, and birds of a feather flock together [volatilia ad sibi similia conveniunt]2 — therefore an Angel through nature desires the society of one similar in species.  But his desire is not as in vain [frustra], most of all in a blessed Angel:  ergo etc..  If you say, that that is true among animals, not among spiritual substances; then I ask of you, whether among the Angels there is a social and amicable affection.  It is established that there is [quod sic]; but in whomsoever there is the positing of such an affection, there is a loving of a similar and the having of a desiring (for the similar):  therefore (the argument) returns the same (conclusion) as before.

CONTRA:  1. Diversitas, quae est numero solo, causatur ex divisione materiae;3 inde est, quod sol non multiplicatur, quia eius essentia est ex tota sua materia, ita quod materia eius non est divisibilis nec multiplicabilis; sed talis ratio est in Angelis:  ergo etc.

ON THE CONTRARY:  1. The diversity, which is in number alone, is caused out of the division of matter;3 hence it is, that the Sun is not multiplied, because its essence is out of the whole of its matter, such that its matter is not divisible nor multipliable; but such a reckoning (of matter) is in the Angels:  ergo etc..

2. Item, ratio finalis multiplicationis secundum numerum venit ex parte corruptibilitatis; ideo enim multiplicatur secundum numerum, ut, quia non poterat salvari in uno, ipsa species salvetur in pluribus; unde sol et luna, quia perpetua sunt, non habent nisi unicum individuum in eadem specie:4  ergo etc.

2. Likewise, the final reason for multiplication according to number comes on the part of corruptibility; for a species itself is multiplied according to number for this reason, so that, because it could not be saved in one, it may be saved in several; wherefore the Sun and Moon, because they are perpetual, do not have but a unique individual in the same species:4  ergo etc..

3. Item, si reperire contingit extrema, et medium, si illud est possibile esse;5 sed contingit reperire pluralitatem personarum in una natura in Deo, et e converso pluralitatem naturarum in una persona, ut in homine et in Christo:  ergo contingit pluralitatem naturarum reperire in pluribus personis, ut tot sint naturae differentes, quot sunt supposita, et tot species, quot individua.

3. Likewise, if one happens to find extremes, (one) also (happens to find) an intermediary (between them), if that is able [possibile] to be;5 but one does happen to find a plurality of Persons in the one Nature in God, and conversely a plurality of natures in one person, such as in man and in Christ:  therefore one happens to find a plurality of natures in several persons, so that as many may be the differing natures, so many are the supposits, and as many the species, so many the individuals.

4. Item, distinctio personalis pura est in Deo quantum ad originem et in homine similiter, ergo videtur, quod origo sit tota et principalis ratio discretionis personalis:  cum ergo in Angelis non reperiatur origo, nec pura distinctio personalis per consequens.6

4. Likewise, there is a pure personal distinction in God as much as regards origin and in man similarly, therefore it seems, that origin is the whole and principal reason for personal discretion:  therefore since there is not found in the Angels an origin, neither per consequens a pure personal discretion.6

CONCLUSIO.

 

In Angelis, vel in aliquibus vel in omnibus, est discretio solummodo quoad personalitatem, non quoad speciem.

CONCLUSION

 

In the Angels, either in some and/or in all, there is only a discretion in regard to personality, not in regard to species.

RESPONDEO:  Dicendum, quod hic fuit duplex positio.

I RESPOND:  It must be said, that in this there was a twofold position.

Quidam enim dixerunt, quod in Angelis est discretio personalis, sed nunquam pure, immo sunt ibi tot species, quot individua; similiter dicunt in luminaribus mundi.  —  Sed licet hoc aliquam probabilitatem habeat in corporibus, non tamen videtur rationabile in spiritibus, ut nullus communicet cum alio in natura speciali.7  Sicut enim innotescit per Scripturam, multi angeli ad idem officium ordinantur et communem videntur habere operationem eandem.  Nobis autem nec per Scripturam nec per dicta Sanctorum nec per officia innotescit tanta diversitas;8 ideo non videtur nisi praesumtio hoc dicere, maxime cum non appareat in promptu aliqua ratione cogens.

For certain (authors) said, that in the Angels there is personal discretion, but never purely, nay there are among them as many species, as (there are) individuals; they speak similarly in regard to the celestial lights [luminaribus mundi].  —  But though this has some probability among bodies, yet it does not seem reasonable among spirits, that none communicates with another in the nature of a species [in natura speciali].7  For just as is known through Scripture, many Angels are ordained to the same office and seem to have the same common operation.  But neither through Scripture nor through the sayings nor through the Offices of the Saints, is there made known to us such a great diversity;8 for that reason it does not seem but presumption to say this, most of all since there does not appear at hand [in promptu] any cogent reason.

Alia est positio sobria et catholica, quod in Angelis est ponere distinctionem quantum ad personalitatem tantummodo, aut in omnibus, aut in . . .

The other is the sober and catholic position, that among the Angels there is the positing of a distinction as much as regards personality only, either in all, or in . . .

1  Antiphona ad Magn. II. Vesp. in festo Omnium Sanctorum.

2  Eccli. 13, 19 seq.:  Omne animal diligit simile sibi . . . Omnis caro ad similem sibi coniungitur, et omnis homo simili sui sociabitur (alias: copulabitur).  Et c. 27, 10:  Volatilia ad sibi similia conveniunt.  —  Paulo superius plures codd. societatem animalis pro societatem similis.

3  Aristot., VII. Metaph. text. 28. (VI. c. 8.), ubi dicit, quod Callias* et Socrates sunt diversa propter materiam, idem autem specie.  Cfr. etiam ibid. X. text. 25. (IX. c. 9.).  Quae sequuntur nituntur dicits Arisot., VII. Metaph. text. 55.(VI. c. 15.), ubi inter ea quae unica sunt, recenset solem, et I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 95. (c. 9.), ubi de caelo ait:  Caelum autem est quidem eorum quae singularia sunt, et eorum quae ex materia; sed si non ex parte ipsius constat, sed ex universa, esse quidem ipsius caeli et huius caeli aliud est, non tamen aut erit aliud, aut utique contingit fieri plures, propterea quod hoc materiam comprehendit universam.  —  Cod. F. ratione materiae, plures codd. ordine materiae, Vat. a diversitate materiae pro ex divisione materiae, quod exhibent codd. A K X Y cc et ed. 1 et infra in solutione habetur.

4  Hanc rationem indicat Aristot., II. de Gener. et corrupt. text. 59. (c. 10.), et II. de Anima, text. 35. (c. 4.).  —  In principio argumenti cod. cc et ed. 1 multitudinis pro multiplicationis, dein plures codd. corruptionis pro corruptibilitatis.

5  Aristot., III. Eudem. c. 6. (c. 4.):  Nam ubi extrema sunt, istic et medium.  — Vat. et medium similiter est possibile esse.  Paulo inferius cod. I verbis in Deo praefigit ut.

6  Hoc arg. formatum est ex iis quae Richardus a S. Vict., IV. de Trin. c. 13. seq. proponit.  Secundum ipsum persona sive existentia variatur et distinguitur « aut secundum solam rei qualitatem [proprietates], aut secundum solam rei originem, aut secundum utriusque concursionem . . .  In angelica autem natura nulla est propagatio [origo], sed sola simplexque creatio.  Est ergo singulorum simul et omnium unum solum indifferensque principium » etc.

7  Plures codd. cum ed. 1 perperam spirituali; Vat. spirituali et specifica; nostram lectionem praebent codd. I L O aa bb.  Paulo ante plures codd. conveniat pro communicet.  Dein in nonnullis mss. deest communem.

8  Intellige, ut in cod. Q (a secunda manu) adiungitur:  scilicet quod omnes Angeli differant non solum numero, sed etiam specie.

1  (The Traditional Breviarium Romanum.), Feast of All Saints, Antiphon for the Magnificat at Second Vespers.

2  Ecclesiasticus 13:19 f.:  Every animal loves a similar to itself . . . Every flesh is conjoined to a similar to itself, and every man associates with a similar to himself [Omne animal diligit simile sibi . . . Omnis caro ad similem sibi coniungitur, et omnis homo simili sui sociabitur].  And 27:10:  Birds of a feather flock together [Volatilia ad sibi similia conveniunt].  —  A little above this several codices have the society of an animal [societatem animalis] for the society of one similar [societatem similis].

3  Aristotle, Metaphysics, Bk. VII, text 28 (Bk. VI, ch. 8), where he says, that Callias and Socrates are diverse (beings) on account of (their) matter, but the same in species.  Cf. also ibid., Bk. X, text 25 (Bk. IX, ch. 9).  What follows is supported on the sayings of Aristotle in Metaphysics, Bk. VII, text 55 (Bk. VI, ch. 15), where among those which are unique, he mentions the Sun, and in On Heaven and the World, Bk. I, text 95 (ch. 9), where he says of a heaven:  Moreover a heaven indeed is of those which are singular, and of those which are out of matter; but if the ‘to be’ of the very heaven is established, not on its own part, but on the part of all, and (such) is not (something) else of this heaven, either it will not be (something) else, or indeed it happens to become several (to be’s), on account of which it comprehends all matter.  —  Codex F has by reason of matter [ratione materiae], several codices have by the order of matter [ordine materiae], and the Vatican edition by the diversity of matter [a diversitate materiae] for out of the division of matter [ex divisione materiae], which codex A K X Y cc and edition 1 have, and (which) is had below in the solution (to this objection).

4  Aristotle indicates this reason in On Generation and Corruption, Bk. II, text 59 (ch. 10), and in On the Soul, Bk. II, text 35 (ch. 4).  —  At the beginning of the argument codex cc and edition 1 have for a multitude [multitudinis] in stead of for multiplication [multiplicationis], then several codices have of corruption [corruptionis] for of corruptibility [corruptibilitatis].

5  Aristotle, Eudemian Ethics, Bk. III, ch. 6 (ch. 4):  For where there are extremes, in that (there is) also a mean.  —  The Vatican edition has and the intermediary similarly is able to be [et medium similiter est possibile esse].  A little below this codex I reads to find a plurality of persons in one nature, such as in God [reperire pluralitatem personarum in una natura ut in Deo] for to find a plurality of Persons in the one Nature in God [reperire pluralitatem personarum in una natura in Deo].

6  This argument has been formed from those which Richard of St. Victor proposes On the Trinity, Bk. IV, ch. 13 f..  According to him, a person or existence is varied and distinguished « either according to the quality (i. e. properties) alone of the thing, or according to the origin alone of the thing, or according to a running-together [concursione] of each . . . but in the angelic nature there is no propagation, but a creation alone and simple.  Therefore  there belongs to each one of them together and to all, only one and indifferent principle » etc..

7  Several codices, together with edition 1, have faultily in a spiritual nature [in natura spirituali]; the Vatican edition has in a spiritual and specific nature [in natura spirituali et specifica]; our reading is proffered by codices I L O aa and bb.  A little before this several codices have convenes [conveniat] for communicates [communicet].  Then in not a few manuscripts there is lacking common [communem].

8  Understand, as added in codex Q (by a second hand):  namely, that all the Angels differ not only in number, but also in species [scilicet quod omnes Angeli differant non solum numero, sed etiam specie].  [Trans. note:  The offices of the Saints, are the readings about the lives of the Saints at Matins.]

* [Trans. nota:  Hic contra consuetudinem transcriptionis latinae nota originaliter legivit Kallias pro Callias, quod mutavi secundum Callias infra d. 3, p. I, a. 2, q. 3, p. 109, nota 5.]

 

p. 104

aliquibus.  —  Et concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc inductae tum ex parte ministerii, tum ex parte assimilationis ad Deum, tum ex parte assimilationis mutuae.

some.  —  And the reasons brought forward for this, both on the part of (their) ministry, and on the part of (their) assimilation to God, and on the part of (their) mutual assimilation, are to be conceded.

1. 2. Quod ergo obiicitur, quod diversitas secundum numerum venit ex divisione materiae; dicendum, quod falsum est; sed1 multitudo per generationem venit ex divisione materiae, quia generans dat generato partem suae substantiae.  Diversitas autem Angelorum non est per multiplicationem unius ab altero, sed omnium Angelorum2 a Deo.  —  Et per hoc patet sequens obiectum de fine, quia ille non est finis multiplicationis, sed multiplicationis successivae.  Sed ratio potissima multiplicationis in hominibus et in Angelis est divinae potentiae et sapientiae et bonitatis declaratio et collaudatio, quae manifestantur in multitudine et gloriae Beatorum amplificatione, quia amor caritatis exsultat in multitudine bonae societatis.  Unde credo, quod erunt in magno numero et perfectissimo, secundum quod decet illam supernam civitatem,3 omni decore fulgentem.

1. 2. What, therefore, is objected, that diversity according to number comes out of the division of matter; it must be said, that it is false; but1 the multitude (which arises) through generation does come out of a division of matter, because the one generating gives to the one generated part of his own substance. But the diversity of the Angels is not through the multiplication of one from the other, but2 of all the Angels by God.  —  And through this the following objection concerning the end (of multiplication) is clear, because that is not the end of the multiplication, but of the successive multiplication.  But the most potent reason for multiplication among men and among Angels is the declaration and communal praise [collaudatio] of the Divine Power and Wisdom and Goodness, which are manifested in the multitude and amplification of the glory of the Blessed, because the love [amor] of charity exults in the multitude of a good society.  Wherefore I believe, that (the Blessed) shall be in a great and most perfect number, according to which it befits [decet] that supernal City,3 refulgent [fulgentem] with every ornament.

3. Quod obiicitur de medio, dicendum, quod Angelus non potest esse medium, quia, sicut in praecedentibus probatum est,4 quamvis in Angelo non sit tanta naturarum diversitas, quanta in homine, nihilominus aliqua est.  Et praeterea, quamvis non diversificetur in hominibus pluribus humana natura, tamen multiplicatur in illis; et ideo non est quaerere aliud medium.

3. What is objected concerning an intermediary (being), it must be said, that an Angel cannot be (such) an intermediary, because, just as has been proven in the preceding,4 though in an Angel there is not as great a diversity of natures, as in a man, nevertheless there is some (diversity).  And besides, though human nature is not diversified in several men, yet it is multiplied in them; and for that reason there is no seeking of another intermediary (being).

4. Quod ultimo obiicitur de origine, quod est principalis ratio discretionis personalis; dicendum, quod quamvis Richardus5 dicat, quod personae in hominibus distinguantur origine, tamen hoc non habent ratione principii; nam pauci homines sic distinguuntur per illam habitudinem.  Ad solum enim unum hominem habeo ego illam habitudinem, et tamen ab omnibus differo personaliter.  Sed ratio distinctionis personalis, quantum ad veritatem, venit ex principiis constituentibus et particulantibus, quantum ad notitiam, venit ex qualitatibus,6 quorum utrumque est in Angelis reperire secundum diversitatem; diversa enim habent principia individuantia et diversas proprietates innatas.  Sicut enim homines diversas habent facies, sic diversas habent mentes et proprietates mentales; ita intelligendum est in Angelis suo modo.

4. What is objected last concerning an origin, that it is the principal reason for a personal discretion; it must be said, that though Richard (of St. Victor)5 says, that persons among men are distinguished according to origin, yet this they do not have by reason of (their) principle; for few men are thus distinguished through that habitude.  For I have that habitude to one man alone, and yet I differ from all personally.  But the reason for a personal distinction, as much as regards (its) truth, comes from constituent and particulant principles,* as much as regards (its) being known, it comes from qualities,6 each of which there is a finding of among the Angels according to diversity; for diverse (beings) have individuating principles and diverse innate properties.  For just as men have diverse faces, so they have diverse minds and mental properties; thus must it be understood in the Angels in their own manner.

SCHOLION.

SCHOLIUM

I. Cum magnus sit numerus Angelorum (hic fundam. 1. et ad. 1. 2.), quaeritur, quomodo Angeli inter se distinguantur.  Ratio distinctionis numericae et individualis inter Angelos potest concipi vel ut eadem cum distinctione specifica, et tunc tot sunt species, quot individua; vel ut distincta ab ea et facta per aliud principium individuationis, et tunc in eadem specie possunt esse plures proprietate individuali distincti Angeli, et tunc, ut dicitur in corp., est « distinctio quantum ad personalitatem tantummodo », non quantum ad speciem.  —  Iterum quaestio circa hoc potest institui vel de facto, vel de possibilitate.

I. Since the number of the Angels is great (here in the 1st argument of the fundament, and in reply to nn. 1 and 2), there is asked, in what manner the Angels are distinguished among themselves.  The reason for a numerical and individual distinction [distinctionis] among the Angels can be conceived either as the same as a distinction of species [distinctione specifica], and then there are as many species (of Angels), as (there are) individuals; and/or as distinct from that and caused through another principle of individuation, and then there can be several Angels in the same species distinguished by an individual property, and than as is said in the body (of the Question), there is « a distinction as much as regards personality only », not as much as regards species.  —  Again the Question about this can be determined [institui] either concerning the fact, and/or the possibility (of such a distinction).

II. Quoad quaestionem de facto hoc loco tantum asseritur, saltem aliquos Angelos esse in eadem specie, quod etiam tenet Alex. Hal.  Sed infra d. 9. q. 1. praefertur cum B. Alberto ea sententia, quod omnes Angeli sint eiusdem speciei, sicut etiam omnes homines.  —  Alii putant, Angelos tantum eiusdem hierarchiae vel ordinis in eadem specie communicare.

II. In regard to the question concerning the fact (of such a distinction) there is only asserted in this Question, that at least some Angels are in the same species, which Alexander of Hales also holds.  But below in d. 9, q. 1, there is preferred, with Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Magnus), the sentence, that all the Angels belong to the same species, just as even all men (do).  —  Others think, that the Angels only communicate in the same species of the same hierarchy and/or order.

E contrario S. Thomas « in his a doctrina sui Magistri extreme recessit », ut dicit Dionys. Carth. (hic q. 3.), et negat tum de facto tum de possibili, duos Angelos esse eiusdem speciei, cum tot sint species, quot individua.  Non conveniunt discipuli Angelici, utrum illud impossibile ex mente S. Doctoris intelligendum sit absolute, an secundum potentiam ordinariam.  Ratio huius sententiae sumitur ex duplici principio, scil. quod nullatenus sit materia in Angelis, et quod in materia ponendum sit principium individuationis.  Idem fere sentit Aegid. R.; Petr. a Tar. autem, saltem quoad factum, has tres opiniones omnes aestimat probabiles.

Contrariwise, St. Thomas « in these (matters) withdrew in an extreme manner from the doctrine of his Master », as (Bl.) Dionysius the Carthusian says (here in q. 3), and he denies (this) both concerning the fact and concerning the possibility, that two Angels can be of the same species, since there are as many species, as individuals.  The disciples of the Angelic (Doctor) do not agree, whether that impossibility according to the mind of the saintly Doctor is to be understood absolutely, or according to (God’s) ordinary Power.  The reason for this sentence is take from a twofold principle, namely that matter is to no extent in the Angels, and that in matter is to be posited the principle of individuation.  Giles the Roman thinks nearly the same (thing); but (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, at least in regard to the fact, judges all of these three opinions as probable.

Haec autem sententia, quod impossibile Deo sit creare plures Angelos in eadem specie, si absolute intelligitur, illa aetate a multis vehementer impugnabatur, immo a. 1276 ab Episc. Parisiensi censurata est.  Hoc praeter Richardum a Med. et Henricum Gand. tradit Durandus (hic q. 3.) his verbis:  « Illa opinio condemnata est Parisius pluribus vicibus, et de eius condemnatione sunt tres articuli, videlicet 81, in quo dicitur sic:  quod quia intelligentiae non habent materiam, Deus non posset plures eiusdem speciei facere; supple:  Error est.  Idem habetur articulo 96, ubi dicitur sic:  quod Deus non potest multiplicare individua sub una specie sine materia. — Error est.  Et simliter articulo 191. dicitur sic:  quod formae non recipiant divisionem, nisi secundum materiam. — Est error, nisi intelligatur de formis eductis de potentia materiae ».  (Cfr. Collect. iudicior. p. 192. cap. 6. de Deo, n. 41; c. 7. de Angelo vel intelligentia, n. 17; c. 13. de natura generabilium, n. 1.).  Sed vide supra pag. 30, Scholium.

But this sentence, that it is impossible for God to create several Angels in the same species, if understood absolutely, was vehemently impugned by many in that age, nay was censured by the Bishop of Paris in A. D. 1276.  Besides Richard of Middleton and Henry of Ghent this (event) is reported by Durandus (here in q. 3) in these words:  « That opinion was condemned at Paris several times, and concerning its condemnation there are three articles, namely n. 81, in which there is thus said:  “that because intelligences do not have matter, God could not make several of the same species”; supple:  “Is an error.”  The same is had in article 96, where there is thus said:  “that God cannot multiply individuals under one species without matter. — Is an error.”  And similarly in article 191 there is thus said:  “that forms do not receive a division, except according to matter. — Is an error, unless it be understood of forms led forth from the potency of matter ».  (Cf. Collectio iudiciorum, p. 192, chapter 6, “On God”, n. 41; ch. 7 “On the Angel and/or an Intelligence”, n. 17; ch. 13, “On the Nature of Generables”, n. 1).  But see above d. 1, p. I, a. 2, q. 2, p. 30, in the Scholium.

III. Plerique Scholastici hanc et duas sequentes quaestiones in una quaest. tractant.  Praeter laudatos:  Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 20. m. 6. a. 2.  —  Scot., hic q. 7; Report. hic q. 1.  —  S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 4; S. I. q. 50. a. 4; S. c. Gent. II. c. 93.  —  B. Albert., hic a. 5; d. 9. a. 7; S. p. II. tr. 2. q. 8.  —  Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2.  —  Richard. a Med., hic a. 5. q. 1.  —  Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 3.  —  Biel, hic q. 1.

III. Very many Scholastics treat of this and of the two following Questions in one question.  Besides those (already) mentioned:  Alexander of Hales, Summa., p. II. q. 20. m. 6. a. 2.  —  (Bl. John Duns) Scotus, here in q. 7; Reportatio, hic q. 1.  —  St. Thomas, here in q. 1, a. 4; Summa., I, q. 50, a. 4; Summa contra Gentiles, Bk. II, c. 93.  —  Bl. (now St.) Albertus (Albertus), here in a. 5; d. 9, a. 7; Summa., p. II, tr. 2, q. 8.  —  (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, here in q. 2, a. 2.  —  Richard of Middleton, here in a. 5, q. 1.  —  Giles the Roman, here in q. 2, a. 3.  —  (Gabriel) Biel, here in q. 1.

1  Cod. A licet; in cod. I autem post sed multitudo subiungitur quae est.

2  Cod. E supplet multitudo, Vat. diversitas est.  Paulo inferius post finis multiplicationis cod. N addit simpliciter.

3  Plures codd. ut D E I K T bb civitatem Dei.

4  Hic a. 1. q. 1.

5  Libr. IV. de Trin. c. 14:  In humana pro certo natura, quam per experientiam novimus, personarum existentiam tam secundum personarum qualitatem, quam secundum ipsarum originem variari videmus.  Certe omni humanae personae est qualitas singularis et propria, per quam absque omni ambiguitate differt a qualibet alia. Sic etiam singulis quibuscumque est origo propria, ab omnibus aliis diversa et singulari proprietate discreta; nam aliud principium est isti et aliud illi, quoniam alius est pater istius et alius est pater illius.  Et ubi unus pater est pluribus, alia tamen est paternae substantiae decisio, unde propagatus est unus, et alia paternae substantiae decisio, unde propagatus alius . . . In angelica autem natura tot substantiae, quot personae, et idcirco oportet eas qualitate differre.  Nam si nulla qualitate differrent, procul dubio plures substantiae non essent.  —  Non pauci codd. cum ed. 1 habet pro habent, et dein plures codd. pro ratione principii substituunt pro ratione principii (codd. Y aa principali), ubi cod. A addit vel non est ratio principalis.  Cod. T omittit habent.

6  Hae enim nobis manifestiores sunt, et quoad homines hoc versiculo comprehenduuntur:

Forma, figura, locus, tempus, stirps, patria, nomen.

1  Codex A has though [licet] for but [sed]; in codex I, however, after but the multitude [sed multitudo] there is subjoined which is [quae est].

2  Codex E supplies the multitude [multitudo], the Vatican edition the diversity . . . is [diversitas est].  A little below this after the end of the multiplication [finis multiplicationis] codex N adds simply [simpliciter].

3  Several codices, such as D E I K T and bb, have City of God [civitatem Dei].

4  Here in a. 1, q. 1.

5  On the Trinity, Bk. IV, ch. 14:  For certain, in the human nature, which we know through experience, we see that existence of persons is varied both according to the quality of persons, and according to their origin.  Certainly there belongs to every human person a singular and proper quality, through which, without any ambiguity, he differs from any other.  Thus too for each one whomsoever there is proper origin, diverse from all others and discrete by a singular property; for one is the principle of this one, and another of that one, since one is the father of this one and another is the father of that one.  And where there is one father for several, yet there is one separation [decisio] from the paternal substance, whence one has been propagated, and another separation from the paternal substance, whence another has been propagated . . But in the angelic nature as many as (there are) substances, so many (are there) persons, and on this account it is necessary that they differ in quality. For if they differed by no quality, without doubt there would not be several substances.  —  Not a few codices, together with edition 1, have he does not have by reason of (his) etc. [habet] for they do not have by reason of (their) etc. [habent], and then several codices for by reason of (their) principle [ratione principii] substitute in virtue of the reckoning of (their) principle [pro ratione principii] (codices Y and aa there principal reason [pro ratione principali]), where codex A adds and/or it is not (their) principal reason [vel non est ratio principalis].  Codex T omits they do . . . have [habent].

6  For these are more manifest to us, and in regard to men (these qualities according to Aristotle) are comprehended in this versicle:

Form, figure, place, time, lineage [stirps], country [patria], name.

 

* [Trans. note:  A particulant principle is one which causes the thing caused to be separated into diverse individuals or particles, and hence the Seraphic Doctor, just below this, speaks of individuating principles.]

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.