Dist. 8, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2
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/8/q/bon-sent-II-d8-p1-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### QUESTION II.

*Whether the Angels sometimes assume bodies to themselves.*

Secondly, it is asked whether the Angels sometimes assume bodies. And that they do, [thus] it seems.

1. Bernard *On the Canticle*, homily three: «To run hither and thither and to be moved from place to place belongs only to bodies»; but the Angel runs to his ministry and comes from place to place: therefore either he is a body, or he has a body naturally united, or [a body] assumed; but [it is] not [the case] in the first way, nor in the second: therefore in the third.

2. Likewise, the duty of hospitality can be paid to no one unless he has a body naturally united, or assumed; but to the Angels at times these offices have been paid, as is said in the last [chapter of the Epistle] to the Hebrews, that certain ones pleased God by receiving Angels with hospitality: therefore either they had bodies united [to themselves], or assumed [ones]; but they did not have [bodies] naturally united: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, no spiritual substance, of its [own] consortium, affords solace to sense, unless it become visible through the inhabitation of a body; but the Angels frequently afford solaces not only according to the spirit, but also according to sense, as is plain in the Angel of Tobit: therefore they inhabit bodies. But they do not always have them united [to themselves]: therefore [they have them] voluntarily assumed.

4. Likewise, no spirit can be shown visibly, by the showing of a body, unless he be in some way joined to that body; but the Angel who spoke with Tobit could be shown visibly, and could truly be said: *here is Raphael*, or: *here is an Angel*: therefore he had that body joined to himself in some way; but not by a natural conjunction: therefore by a voluntary assumption.

5. Likewise, nothing is an immediate organ or instrument of anyone unless it be immediately assumed by him, or be naturally joined to him; but the Angel performs many works concerning us, such as *speaking* and *eating*, which cannot be performed save by means of an organic body or an instrument: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. The rational soul has a greater agreement with a body than has the angelic spirit; but the soul stripped [of its body] does not assume a body: therefore neither [does] the angelic spirit.

2. Likewise, there must be a proportion of the one assuming to that which is assumed; but the angelic spirit is altogether incorporeal: therefore he has no proportion to a body: therefore he never assumes one.

3. Likewise, either it befits the Angel to have a body, or it does not befit [him]. If it befits him to have [one], then it seems that the Angels are not perfect when they do not have a body. If it does not befit him, then when he assumes one, he has what is not seemly for himself: therefore, since a good Angel does nothing save what is seemly for himself, he does not assume a body.

4. Likewise, if he assumes [a body], either [it is] for the sake of something, or for nothing. If for nothing, then in vain; if for the sake of something, [that something is] either good or evil. If good, then by the assumed body he merits; if evil, then by the assumed body he demerits: therefore the Angel must be punished and rewarded with the assumed body; which is unfitting and plainly false.

5. Likewise, wherever there is an assumption, there is some union, either in *person* or in *nature*, as is plain in the assumption of human nature by the Son of God: therefore if the Angel assumes a body, he unites it to himself either in person or in nature. But [he] does not unite it to himself in *nature*, because no third [thing] results; nor in *person*, because there is no communication of idioms: therefore in no way is there a union there, and therefore neither an assumption.

### Conclusion.

> *The good Angels at times assume human bodies as instruments, signs, and dwellings.*

**I respond:** It must be said that in the Angels there is a twofold power, namely the *contemplative* and the *administrative* [or ministerial]. According to the *contemplative* they are turned toward God; and so they have no need of the solace of an assumed body. According to the *administrative*, they descend to us, and condescend to us; and that they may more fittingly condescend to us, they need the solace of an assumed body — they need [it], I say, for performing certain operations, they need [it] for manifesting themselves, they need [it] for gladdening or comforting us. — And so they assume bodies as *instruments* or *organs* for operating, as *signs* for manifesting, as *coverings* or *dwellings* for conversing. Hence the assumed body is joined to them as an instrument to its mover, as a sign to its signifier, as a dwelling to its inhabitant. — But this is exacted more by the need on our side than by need on theirs; and because the end imposes necessity on those things which are ordered to the end, and because a body fashioned or organized in the human form most befits the operations of a rational spirit, and signifies [them] more expressively, and as a beautiful garment in some way adorns: therefore the Angel assumes a body, not [a body] of any sort, but [one] marked with the human form. — And the arguments showing this must be conceded. To the arguments on the opposite side the response is now plain.

**To the arguments on the opposite side:** 1. To that which is objected concerning the soul stripped [of its body], the response is plain enough. For [the case] is not similar, because [the separated soul] has neither the administrative power nor the use of administering; and so it neither assumes a body nor is said to have the potency of assuming [one].

2. To that which is objected — that the proportion is of the one assuming etc. — it must be said that the proportion is to be considered and is found there according to that mode by which the assumption is. For since [the Angel] does not assume into the unity of nature, it is not required that there be there a proportion such as [that] of perfection to the perfectible; but it suffices that there be a proportion such as [that] of mover to moved.

3. To that which is asked — whether it befits the Angel to have a body, etc. — it must be said that it befits [him] to have a body as voluntarily assumed for the completing of [his] ministry, but it does not befit [him] for his complete being; and so neither does the lack [of a body] generate a need, nor does the assumption [of one] generate unseemliness.

4. To that which asks: for the sake of what does he assume? — whether for the sake of something or for nothing — it must be said that [he assumes] for the sake of something, as has been said above. Yet that for the sake of which he assumes [a body], he does not accomplish through the body as the soul [accomplishes things] through its own body, but as a craftsman [accomplishes things] through his instrument; and therefore, just as the instrument by which one merits is not rewarded, so neither [is] the body assumed by the Angel.

5. To that which is objected — that where there is an assumption, there must be a union in *person* or in *nature* — it must be said that [the objection] does not divide sufficiently, because a man assumes a garment when he clothes himself, yet he does not unite it to himself in person or in nature; but that [requirement] has its place in that assumption in which there is a *perfect* union, such as is [the case] when the Son of God assumed human nature.

From what has been said, then, the proposed question is plain, and the response to the objections; it is also plain in what sense the Angel is said to assume a body, [namely] because not only is he moved [in it] or performs something concerning a body, but [also because] he takes it to himself, that he may operate in it, that he may be manifested in it, that he may converse in it. And because in that conjunction or acceptance the body rather follows the mode of the spirit than the converse, since it is formed and conserved and ruled by it; therefore the Angel stands in the relation of the one assuming and having, but the body in the relation of the assumed and the had.