|
Objection 1: It would seem that the angels are not in great
numbers. For number is a species of quantity, and follows the
division of a continuous body. But this cannot be in the angels,
since they are incorporeal, as was shown above (Article 1).
Therefore the angels cannot exist in any great number.
Objection 2: Further, the more a thing approaches to unity, so
much the less is it multiplied, as is evident in numbers. But among
other created natures the angelic nature approaches nearest to God.
Therefore since God is supremely one, it seems that there is the
least possible number in the angelic nature.
Objection 3: Further, the proper effect of the separate substances
seems to be the movements of the heavenly bodies. But the movements of
the heavenly bodies fall within some small determined number, which we
can apprehend. Therefore the angels are not in greater number than the
movements of the heavenly bodies.
Objection 4: Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "all
intelligible and intellectual substances subsist because of the rays of
the divine goodness." But a ray is only multiplied according to the
different things that receive it. Now it cannot be said that their
matter is receptive of an intelligible ray, since intellectual
substances are immaterial, as was shown above (Article 2).
Therefore it seems that the multiplication of intellectual substances
can only be according to the requirements of the first bodies---that
is, of the heavenly ones, so that in some way the shedding form of the
aforesaid rays may be terminated in them; and hence the same conclusion
is to be drawn as before.
On the contrary, It is said (Dan. 7:10): "Thousands of
thousands ministered to Him, and ten thousands times a hundred
thousand stood before Him."
I answer that, There have been various opinions with regard to the
number of the separate substances. Plato contended that the separate
substances are the species of sensible things; as if we were to
maintain that human nature is a separate substance of itself: and
according to this view it would have to be maintained that the number of
the separate substances is the number of the species of sensible
things. Aristotle, however, rejects this view (Metaph. i, text
31) because matter is of the very nature of the species of sensible
things. Consequently the separate substances cannot be the exemplar
species of these sensible things; but have their own fixed natures,
which are higher than the natures of sensible things. Nevertheless
Aristotle held (Metaph. xi, text 43) that those more perfect
natures bear relation to these sensible things, as that of mover and
end; and therefore he strove to find out the number of the separate
substances according to the number of the first movements.
But since this appears to militate against the teachings of Sacred
Scripture, Rabbi Moses the Jew, wishing to bring both into
harmony, held that the angels, in so far as they are styled immaterial
substances, are multiplied according to the number of heavenly
movements or bodies, as Aristotle held (Metaph. xi, text 43);
while he contended that in the Scriptures even men bearing a divine
message are styled angels; and again, even the powers of natural
things, which manifest God's almighty power. It is, however,
quite foreign to the custom of the Scriptures for the powers of
irrational things to be designated as angels.
Hence it must be said that the angels, even inasmuch as they are
immaterial substances, exist in exceeding great number, far beyond all
material multitude. This is what Dionysius says (Coel. Hier.
xiv): "There are many blessed armies of the heavenly intelligences,
surpassing the weak and limited reckoning of our material numbers."
The reason whereof is this, because, since it is the perfection of
the universe that God chiefly intends in the creation of things, the
more perfect some things are, in so much greater an excess are they
created by God. Now, as in bodies such excess is observed in regard
to their magnitude, so in things incorporeal is it observed in regard
to their multitude. We see, in fact, that incorruptible bodies,
exceed corruptible bodies almost incomparably in magnitude; for the
entire sphere of things active and passive is something very small in
comparison with the heavenly bodies. Hence it is reasonable to
conclude that the immaterial substances as it were incomparably exceed
material substances as to multitude.
Reply to Objection 1: In the angels number is not that of discrete
quantity, brought about by division of what is continuous, but that
which is caused by distinction of forms; according as multitude is
reckoned among the transcendentals, as was said above (Question
30, Article 3; Question 11).
Reply to Objection 2: From the angelic nature being the nighest
unto God, it must needs have least of multitude in its composition,
but not so as to be found in few subjects.
Reply to Objection 3: This is Aristotle's argument (Metaph.
xii, text 44), and it would conclude necessarily if the separate
substances were made for corporeal substances. For thus the immaterial
substances would exist to no purpose, unless some movement from them
were to appear in corporeal things. But it is not true that the
immaterial substances exist on account of the corporeal, because the
end is nobler than the means to the end. Hence Aristotle says
(Metaph. xii, text 44) that this is not a necessary argument,
but a probable one. He was forced to make use of this argument, since
only through sensible things can we come to know intelligible ones.
Reply to Objection 4: This argument comes from the opinion of such
as hold that matter is the cause of the distinction of things; but this
was refuted above (Question 47, Article 1). Accordingly, the
multiplication of the angels is not to be taken according to matter,
nor according to bodies, but according to the divine wisdom devising
the various orders of immaterial substances.
|
|