Dist. 10, Dubia
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/2/d/10/q/bon-sent-II-d10-dubia
----------------------------------------
### Doubts concerning the text of the Master.

### Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first there is inquiry concerning that which he says in the text: *Those who by nature are spirits become at times angels, that is, messengers.* For since there are not only good Angels, but also evil ones, it seems that God sends not only good spirits, but even evil ones. And this seems [so] through that which is said in the third [book] of Kings, the last [chapter], where the Lord said to the spirit of lying: *Go forth, and do so*; for it seems that God sent an evil angel. And more expressly in the Psalm, upon that [verse]: *Sendings-in through evil angels*; there the Gloss says that «evil angels are sent». And most expressly in Matthew, chapter eight: *Send us into the swine.* — To the opposite: because, since the intention of the evil angels is to destroy all, and God's intention is to save, it does not seem that he ought in any way to send them, but rather to hinder [them]. — Likewise, if he sends these, then they are messengers of the Lord: therefore they ought to be called angels of the Lord; which, however, Scripture does not say.

**I respond:** It must be said that in the exercising by which the devil exercises us, two things are considered: both the power and the use. The power has been conferred upon him by God, but the use of the power is not from God commanding, but rather permitting. Since, therefore, mission properly bespeaks command and authority, therefore the demons are not properly said to be sent by God, nor [are they called] angels, but rather are called angels of the devil, because they are directed by their own prince and intend to obey him. — But to all those authorities the answer must be given that they are understood not imperatively, but rather permissively.

### Doubt II.

Likewise there is inquiry concerning that which he says — that the middle orders receive the divine command from the higher ones and convey [it] to the lower. For from this it seems that one Angel sends another, with which the exposition of Gregory in the *Morals* agrees, arguing from that which is read in Zechariah, that one Angel said to another: *Speak to that boy* — where Gregory himself says: «An Angel sends an Angel to the Prophet, and him whom he beholds rejoicing in God in common with himself, [him] he both teaches and instructs». — This also is proved by a likeness, both in the demons and in men, where the higher send the lower. — To the opposite: because, if Angels are sent by Angels, then Angels are messengers of Angels, and an Angel is the minister of an Angel, and an Angel has authority over an Angel. If, then, God alone is [the one] with whom authority resides, and the Angels are said to be ministers and messengers of God alone — as it is said in the Psalm: *Who makes his Angels spirits* — it seems that they ought to be sent by God alone.

**I respond:** It must be said that "to send" bespeaks authority; it can therefore bespeak the principal authority; or it can bespeak a power in some way, or an authority subject to the principal authority. If "to send" bespeak the first and chief authority: then it belongs to God alone to send the Angels, both the higher and the lower; for the whole ministry of the Angels is referred to the divine authority and to the fulfilling of its will; and therefore they are called messengers and ministers of God alone. But if "to send" bespeak authority in the second way: then one Angel can be sent by another, as Gregory says, and as the following authorities show; and so that word of the Master in the text is understood.

### Doubt III.

Likewise there is inquiry concerning that which he says: *These spirits who are sent receive the appellation of those whose office they perform*; which is a word of Dionysius. For a spirit is sent either to his own office, or to one not his own. If to his own, then, since he is denominated from his own, he ought not to be allotted any name other than his proper one. If to one not his own, then he usurps for himself what is another's; and this is disordered.

**I respond:** It must be said that to be sent to one's own office is [taken] in two ways: either [an office] one's own through truth, because one has been appointed for this; or one's own through appropriation. In the first way, everyone who is sent is sent to his own office, that is, to that for which he is suited. In the second way, an Angel is sometimes sent to perfect the use of that gift which is not appropriated to him; therefore he is not denominated from it according to the first imposition of the name; nevertheless he is allotted a name befitting that gift, that it may be shown to what he is sent.

---