XLI. I may be told, that the corporeality of Angels has been condemned, and their incorporeality defined, in the second Council of Nice, and the fourth Lateran one. But in the first place, is it certain, that these Councils declared the incorporeality of angels to be undeniable, and that they declared affirming the contrary is erroneous; for it is somewhat doubtful, whether the incorporeality was defined in them or not; because, although mention was made in these Councils of this matter, it was not done with an express design to discuss the point, but was only touched upon, as we may say by _incidence_; which is an exception that all eminent theologians admit, to our being bound to observe things that are canvassed in that way even in Councils; as we are not obliged to suppose any matters defined in them, that are not debated and settled with an express intention. For which reason, the most learned Cano (_lib. 5. de Considerat._) took the liberty of saying, that the opinion that angels were corporeal, although it might be false, was not heretical; and long before him, St. Thomas in his book _de Malo_, (_quæst. 16. art. 1._) had said, that this question was no part of the Catholic Dogmas. My father Saint Bernard (_lib. 5. de Considerat._) goes further; for he seems to think, the opinion which denies the corporeality of angels, to be void of probability; and it will not be improper to remark here, that he was much posterior to the second Council of Nice, and Saint Thomas, not only to the second Council of Nice, but to the fourth Lateran one also. This may likewise be alledged as an answer, to the objections that are made in consequence of some texts of Scripture, which give the epithet of spirits to the angels; for it is certain, that the fathers who considered it as defensible to maintain the corporeality of angels, were not ignorant of those texts; the exposition of which, in truth is not difficult, for we may fairly conclude, the Scripture calls them by this name, on account of their being airy or light bodies, and we may also suppose, that it is for this reason, that in various places it gives the name of spirit to the air. _Spiritus procellarum. Advenientis spiritus vehementis, &c._ XLII. The second reply I shall make, is, that supposing it to be determined that the angels are incorporeal, this truth is not established by philosophy, but by faith; and as upon the knowledge of this truth, depends the certainty, that the definition of a rational animal does not belong to an angel; it follows, that by the help of philosophy alone, we should never have hit upon giving a definition of a man; and with respect to defining other things besides a man, its insufficiency is admitted. What sort of philosophy is this? It ought rather to be called a total want of philosophy.