Question Six. Whether Angel and Soul differ in Species

296. Sixth - and finally - about this distinction, where the Master [Lombard] deals with the purely spiritual creature and with the creature composed of the spiritual and corporeal, I ask whether angel and soul differ in species.a

a.a [Interpolation] About this second distinction, where the Master deals specifically with the issue of the existence of creatures, and first of the purely spiritual creature - there are thirteen questions to ask (and they all pertain to the present discourse); the first is whether angel and rational soul (which are creations purely spiritual) differ in species; the second is whether in the actual existence of an angel there is some succession formally; the third is whether in an actually existing angel something should be posited that is the measure of the angel’s existence, or of the duration of his existence, which is really other than his existence; the fourth is whether there is one eternity to all the eternities; the fifth is whether the operation of an angel is measured by an eternity; the sixth is whether an angel is in a place; the seventh is whether an angel requires a determinate place such that he cannot be in a larger or a smaller space but precisely in so much space (and there is included in this seventh question whether an angel can be in a point of space and whether he can be in any space however small); the eighth is whether one angel can be in several places at the same time; the ninth is whether two angels can be in one place at the same time; the tenth is whether an angel can be moved from place to place by continuous motion; the eleventh is whether an angel can move himself; the twelfth is whether an angel can be moved in an instant; the thirteenth is whether an angel can be moved from extreme to extreme without passing through what is in between. About the first question the argument is... [d.1 n.296, d.2nn.1, 84, 126, 143, 189, 197, 254, 273, 439, 486, 507].

297. Proof that they do not:

Because if the essences differ in species then the powers also do that are founded on them; and if the powers differ then so do the operations - and further, the objects then differ as well, from On the Soul 2.4.415a18-22. The consequent is false, because an angel’s intellect and mine have the same object.

298. Secondly as follows: Augustine On Free Choice of the Will 3.11 n.32 says, “Angel and soul are equal in nature but unequal in office;” but an equality of nature does not exist in things differing in species;     therefore etc     .

299. Thirdly as follows, that if they are of different species, then one of them will, as to its totality, be nobler than the other, and consequently each individual of the nobler kind will be nobler than any individual of the less noble kind; and then either any angel at all will be more perfect than any soul at all, or conversely; and then further, since capacity follows nature, either the capacity of any angel at all will be greater than the capacity of any soul at all, or conversely; and since blessedness requires the whole capacity of the soul to be satisfied, it follows that there is necessarily a greater perfection in any angel (so that it may be blessed) than in any soul, or conversely - each one of which is false, because angel and soul are disposed as exceeding and as exceeded in blessedness.

300. On the contrary:

The more noble a created form is, the more it is distinguished into degrees of nobility (as there are more forms of mixed things than there are elementary forms, and more forms of animate things than of inanimate ones, and perhaps more animals than plants); so there will be more differences in species in the case of intellective nature than of non-intellective nature, which cannot be if angel and soul do not differ in species;     therefore etc     .

I. To the Question

A. About the Conclusion in Itself

301. The conclusion of this question [n.296] is certain, namely that angel and soul differ in species - because forms of the same idea have the same idea of perfecting and not perfecting; but the soul is naturally perfective of an organic body as form of it, but an angel is not naturally perfective of any matter;     therefore etc     .

B. On the first Reason for this Distinction

302. But what is the first reason for this distinction in species?

1. First Opinion

303. Some say [Alexander of Hales, Thomas Aquinas] that the first reason is unitability with matter and non-unitability with matter.

304. On the contrary: form is the end of matter, from Physics 2.8.199a30-32, and so the distinction of matter is for the distinction of form and not conversely (hence the bodily members of a deer are different from the bodily members of a lion, because soul differs from soul [1 d.2 n.332]); so the first distinction of this thing and of that will not be through matter and non-matter, but will be prior in itself to those acts.

305. There is a confirmation; for because this nature is such and that nature is not, so this nature is not that nature; therefore this idea of perfecting and of not perfecting [matter] will not be the first reason for distinction.

2. Second Opinion

306. In another way it is said [Thomas Aquinas] that a greater or lesser degree, in angel and in soul, is what first distinguishes one from the other.

307. There is a confirmation through a likeness, because the sensitive soul does not seem to be distinguished in the brutes save because of diverse degrees of perceiving, and yet there is there a specific difference; therefore it can be like this here with diverse modes of understanding, namely a more perfect mode and a more imperfect one.

308. But what is this distinct mode of understanding? - What is posited is that an angel understands non-discursively and a soul understands discursively (speaking of the natural intellect); and these modes are distinct in species and are intellectualities of different species.

309. On the contrary:

The soul is not discursive as to principles and is discursive as to conclusions; therefore if knowing in this way and knowing in that way are different species, and if that is why they require intellectualities of different species, then there will be two intellectualities of different species in the soul, one insofar as it understands principles and another insofar as it understands conclusions.

310. Besides, the soul of the blessed is not discursive about the beatific object, but it is discursive about an object known naturally; therefore there will be one intellectuality in species insofar as the soul understands God beatifically and another insofar as it understands something naturally.

311. Again, third as follows: if the intellectuality of angel and soul differ in species, then things that essentially depend on the one and on the other differ in species; but essentially dependent on these is the beatific vision of an angel and of a soul (for although an angel is not the total cause of his vision nor the soul of its, yet each vision essentially depends on the intellectuality of the nature it belongs to); therefore this beatific vision and that differ in species - but this is false, because all diverse species have a determinate order according to more perfect and more imperfect, such that any individual of the more perfect species exceeds any individual of the more imperfect species; and then it follows that any blessedness of any angel would exceed any blessedness of any soul, or conversely, both of which are false.

312. Again, fourth: what is meant by the statement ‘an angel does not understand discursively’?

Either that an angel does not have a power by which he can know the conclusions when he knows the principles (supposing the conclusions were not known to him in act or habit before); and then this does not seem to be a mark of perfection in an intellect; rather it seems to be a mark of imperfection in a created intellect, because it is a perfection in our intellect - supplying an imperfection - that it can from known things that virtually include other things acquire knowledge of those other things.

313. Or what is meant is that an angel can for this reason not know discursively, because all conclusions are actually known to him from the beginning (and so he cannot know them through the principles); but this is false, because he does not actually and distinctly know and understand everything from the beginning.

314. Or for this reason, that everything is known to him habitually from the beginning (and therefore he cannot acquire an habitual knowledge of them from principles); and this does not posit an essential difference of intellectuality in soul and angel, because it might be thus in the case of my soul, that if all conclusions were known to it from the beginning (God impressing on it knowledge of the conclusions at the same time as knowledge of the principles), it could not know them discursively - not because of an inability of nature but because it would have knowledge of the conclusions beforehand and cannot acquire de novo what it would already have (in this way the soul of Christ was not discursive but knew habitually all the principles, and the conclusions in the principles, and yet his soul was not angelic in nature).

3. Scotus’ own Solution

315. I say then to the question [n.302] that whatever is able to act is some being possessed of first act; and by nature the idea there of first act in itself is prior to first act in comparison with second act, of which first act is the principle, such that, although that by which such a being is the principle of second act is not other than its own nature, yet its primary entity is not its nature as its nature is principle of such second act, but it is its nature as its nature is in itself a ‘this’; and so the first distinction of being is not through its nature as its nature is principle of such operation but through its nature as it is ‘this nature’, although it is by identity the principle of second act.

316. So I say in the issue at hand that, although the angelic nature is the principle of understanding and willing, and the soul likewise (such that these powers do not state anything added to the essence of the soul), yet what is first - in this case and that - is this nature and that nature, in relation to itself. And so the first distinction is that on which there follows the distinction of principles of operating, whether operating the same act or different ones; for it is because it is this nature that is the principle of such operation, and not contrariwise.

317. There is an example of this: the sun has the virtue of generating many mixed bodies inferior to it. And if you ask for the first reason for the distinction of sun from plant, the first reason for the distinction of one from the other is not through the power of generating a plant on the part of the sun, because, if that power were communicated to another, yet not for this reason would that other be the sun, nor would it be distinguished from a plant as the sun is distinguished. The first distinguishing reason then is that the form of the sun is such and such a form and the form of a plant is such and such a form, and on this follows the fact that this form can be the principle of such operations and the other cannot be.

318. So I say in the issue at hand, that because an angel is such a nature in itself and because the soul is such a nature in itself, therefore are they first distinct in species; not indeed as two species but as species and part of a species, because the soul is not properly a species but a part of a species; and yet soul is the first reason for distinguishing its species - the species of which it is a part - from an angel, and so the first reason for specific distinction on the part of its species is itself.

319. One can also add (although it is not absolutely necessary for the solution of the question) that the intellectuality of an angel, qua intellectuality, does not differ in species from the intellectuality of the soul qua intellectualitya - this is because, although this first act and that first act differ in species as these acts are considered absolutely in themselves, yet not as they are considered according to the perfection that they virtually contain, namely the perfection according to which they are principles of second acts; the point is seen from this, that these acts are about objects of the same idea and in relation to objects of the same idea (and a likeness of this is that, if the soul of ox and eagle differ in species, yet not for this reason do the powers of seeing of the one and of the other, insofar as they are this sort of perfection and that sort of perfection, differ in species).

a.a [Interpolated note from Appendix A] Opinion of venerable Alexander of Hales. - Angel and soul can be considered:

    Philosophically, and thus they differ essentially in being “separate in substance” and in being “unitable in substance.”

    Logically, and thus ‘they differ by the essential powers that they add over and above the genus’, as is ‘to be intellectual with reason’ and ‘to be intellectual without reason’. “And I mean that ‘intellect with reason’ combines and divides and proceeds discursively through middles from an extreme, and the angelic intellect is not of this sort.”

    Metaphysically, and thus “they differ essentially through an intellect with a possibility for species existing in phantasms and through an intellect abstracted from this possibility,” of which latter sort is the angelic intellect, because “an angel does not have a sensitive power.”

    Theologically, and thus they differ because an angel “is changeable immutably and the soul is changeable mutably.”

320. Now this is very possible, because some containing things differ in species and yet what they contain does not differ in species, as the properties of being are contained by identity in beings ever so distinct and yet these properties in them are not distinct in species; for the oneness of a stone (which is not really other than the stone) and the oneness of a man (which is really the same as the man) are not as formally distinct in species as man and stone are; rather, this oneness and that oneness seem to differ only in number.

321. This is also made clear through something else, that just as things, whose formal distinction is as it were one of species, can be by identity contained in the same thing (as in the same soul are included the intellective and sensitive perfections such that they are as formally distinct as if they were two things), so conversely something ‘formally non-distinct’ can be contained in distinct things.

322. And if this is true [sc. that formally non-distinct things can be contained in formally distinct things, as an intellective power not distinct in species can be contained in specifically distinct angel and soul], then it is plain that angel and soul are not in this way distinguished first in species, namely by such and such an intellectuality - rather, neither first nor not-first are they distinguished in species ‘because such and such an intellectuality exists in them’. Or, if this not be true, but be left now as in doubt, at least the first statement [sc. that angel and soul differ specifically on the part of their absolute natures, nn.315-318] seems sufficiently clear, because their first distinction is not through this [sc. through distinct intellectualities].

II. To the Principal Arguments

323. As to the first principal argument [n.297], one can concede that the essences of angel and soul can differ in species and that yet the powers do not, if the final statement in the solution of the question [nn.319-21] is true - and in that case the argument [n.297] does not proceed.

324. Yet one can say that powers, different in species on the part of the foundation (but not on the part of the object), can have acts different in species insofar as the acts depend on the foundation of the power, though the acts are of the same species insofar as they depend on the objects; and then it would be conceded that the intellection of angel and of man about the same intelligible thing is the same in species on the part of the object, but on the part of the foundation - insofar as the foundation is the power’s reason of acting - is different in species.

325. One should then also say that the operations simply differ in species -because the identity on the part of the object is not simply an identity in species but is a diversity simply and an identity in a certain respect (for any difference suffices for drawing a distinction between certain things but not any identity suffices for a perfect identity between them); and then the same unacceptable result seems to follow as was inferred against the second opinion, the one about beatific acts [n.311], unless perhaps it be said that the total cause of the beatific act is the object and that the powers are disposed there in respect of the act as merely receptive and passive - and receptive things do not distinguish received forms in species, as is plain about whiteness when received in a stone and in wood.

326. As to the second argument [n.298] (and all like authorities), the answer is plain from the authority of Augustine [On 83 Diverse Questions q.51 n.4] ‘the soul is formed by truth alone’; indeed for this reason nothing is superior to the soul - for this is true by reason of the object in which it rests; and to this extent the soul is equal to an angel, because no intellectual nature can be made to rest save in an infinite object. And thus must the authority be understood, and all like authorities.

327. As to the third [n.299] it can be conceded that any individual of one species exceeds any individual of the other - but what that means does not have to be explained before book 3, when comparing the soul of Christ with the angelic nature [2 d.13 qq.1-4 nn.2, 5-6, 9, 19]. And the whole argument should be conceded up to the phrase that ‘the whole capacity of nature is satisfied in blessedness’ [n.299]; for that proposition is not true when speaking of merely natural capacity; for this capacity is precisely satisfied in proportion to its merits (commonly speaking), and in this is deliberative appetite sufficiently satisfied. But as to how blessedness from only such satisfaction can stand perfect even though there can be natural appetite for a further and added perfection - this can be dealt with elsewhere, in the subject matter of blessedness in book 4 (Suppl. d.50 p.2 qq.1-3 n.3).