Dist. 3, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 1
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/3/q/bon-sent-II-d3-p1-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article II. *On personal distinction.*

Next there is asked concerning the second attribute, namely concerning personal distinction. About which three [things] are asked. First it is asked whether in the angels there is a mere personal distinction. Secondly it is asked whether this property is accidental, or substantial. Thirdly indeed, whether it is material, or formal.

### Question I. *Whether in the angels there is a mere personal distinction.*

That in the angels there is a *mere* personal distinction, so that some angels differ by number alone, seems [to be the case].

1. Daniel the seventh: *Thousands of thousands ministered to him*; and it is established that they did not have as many ministries differing in species as Daniel enumerates: therefore neither did all the ministers differ in species: therefore some, or all, differed by number alone. *And if you say* that [there were] as many as [there were] ministries; *it is objected* from the second part of the authority: *And ten times a hundred thousand*  *stood beside him.* It is established that so great a diversity could not occur except according to number, since they had one state, namely to stand beside [him].

2. Likewise, it is a glory for a king to have many uniform ministers: therefore if « glorious is the kingdom in which all the Saints rejoice with Christ », it seems that many are uniform in that supernal palace, and so differing by number or person alone.

3. Likewise, personal distinction is in God, in the angels, and in men; and since the angelic nature is nearer to the divine than the human, therefore [there is] personal distinction also; but in God there are several persons differing by personality alone, likewise in men: therefore it seems [it is] similarly in the angels: therefore there are there *some* differing by number alone, or *all*.

4. Likewise, every animal by nature desires the fellowship of [what is] like in species — for *every animal will be coupled to what is like itself, and the flying things come together to what is like themselves* — therefore the angel by nature desires the fellowship of [what is] like in species. But its desire is not in vain, most of all in a beatified angel: therefore etc. *If you say* that that is true in animals, not in spiritual substances; *then I ask you* whether in the angels there is a social and amicable affection. It is established that [there is]; but in whatever it is to posit such an affection, it is to love the like and to desire to have [it]: therefore the same returns as before.

**On the contrary:** 1. Diversity which is by number alone is caused from the division of matter; hence it is that the *sun* is not multiplied, because its essence is from the whole of its matter, so that its matter is not divisible nor multipliable; but such a ground is in the angels: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the final ground of multiplication according to number comes from the side of corruptibility; for therefore is [a thing] multiplied according to number, that, since it could not be preserved in one, the species itself be preserved in many; whence the sun and the moon, because they are perpetual, have but a single individual in the same species; therefore etc.

3. Likewise, if it happens to find *extremes*, also [there is] a middle, if that is possible to be; but it happens to find a plurality of persons in one nature in God, and conversely a plurality of natures in one person, as in man and in Christ: therefore it happens to find a plurality of natures in several persons, so that there are as many differing natures as there are supposits, and as many species as individuals.

4. Likewise, pure personal distinction is in God with respect to *origin* and in man likewise, therefore it seems that *origin* is the whole and principal ground of personal distinction: since therefore in the angels origin is not found, neither [is there] pure personal distinction by consequence.

### Conclusion

> In the angels, whether in some or in all, there is a distinction only with respect to personality, not with respect to species.

**I respond:** It must be said that here there was a twofold position. For some said that in the angels there is personal distinction, but never *purely*; rather there are there as many species as individuals; they say likewise of the luminaries of the world. — But although this has some probability in bodies, yet it does not seem reasonable in spirits, that no one share with another in a special nature. For as is made known through Scripture, many angels are ordained to the same office and seem to have a common, identical operation. But to us neither through Scripture nor through the sayings of the Saints nor through the offices is so great a diversity made known; therefore it does not seem [to be anything] but presumption to say this, most of all since no compelling ground appears at hand.

Another is the position [that is] sober and catholic, that in the angels one is to posit a distinction with respect to personality only, either in all, or in  some. — And the grounds adduced for this are to be conceded, both from the side of ministry, and from the side of assimilation to God, and from the side of mutual assimilation.

1. 2. As to what therefore is objected, that diversity according to number comes from the division of matter; it must be said that it is false; but multitude through generation comes from the division of matter, because the generator gives to the generated a part of its substance. But the diversity of the angels is not through the multiplication of one from another, but of all the angels from God. — And through this is plain the following objection concerning the end, because that is not the end of *multiplication*, but of *successive multiplication.* But the most powerful ground of multiplication in men and in the angels is the declaration and joint-praise of the divine power and wisdom and goodness, which are manifested in the multitude and the amplification of the glory of the Blessed, because the love of charity exults in a multitude of good fellowship. Whence I believe that they will be in a great and most perfect number, according to what befits that supernal city, shining with all comeliness.

3. As to what is objected concerning the middle, it must be said that an angel cannot be a middle, because, as in the preceding [it] was proved, although in an angel there is not so great a diversity of natures as in man, nevertheless there is some. And *besides*, although human nature is not diversified in the several men, yet it is multiplied in them; and therefore there is no [need] to seek another middle.

4. As to what is objected last concerning origin, that it is the principal ground of personal distinction; it must be said that although Richard says that persons in men are distinguished by origin, yet they do not have this by the ground of a principle; for few men are thus distinguished through that relation. For I have that relation to one man alone, and yet I differ personally from all. But the ground of personal distinction, with respect to *truth*, comes from the constituting and particularizing principles, [and] with respect to *cognition*, comes from the qualities; both of which are to be found in the angels according to diversity; for they have diverse individuating principles and diverse innate properties. For just as men have diverse faces, so they have diverse minds and mental properties; so it is to be understood in the angels in their own mode.