title: Dist. 6, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 161 -->

### ARTICULUS I.

*De quo ordine mali angeli ceciderunt.*

### QUAESTIO I.

*Utrum lucifer fuerit de supremo ordine Angelorum.*

Quaeritur ergo primo, de quo ordine fuerit lucifer. Et quod fuerit de supremo, hoc ostenditur.

1. Iob quadragesimo[^1]: *Ipse est principium viarum Dei;* sed non ordine naturae: ergo ordine dignitatis: ergo fuit praecellens inter creaturas ceteras, ergo et inter Angelos.

2. Item, Gregorius trigesimo secundo Moralium[^2] tractans illud Ezechielis: *Tu Cherub extentus et protegens* etc.: «Quia comparatione claritatis suae ceterorum claritatem obumbrasse creditur, ideo ipse *extentus et protegens* perhibetur»; loquitur de lucifero: ergo etc. Et ibidem *iterum:* «Dum ceteris agminibus Angelorum praelatus, eorum claritatem transcendit, ex eorum comparatione clarior fuit». Et *iterum* in eodem libro: «Illa supernarum virtutum procerae altitudinis agmina in laetitiae aeternae viriditate plantata, quamvis excelsa fuerint condita, huic tamen nec praelata sunt nec coaequata».

3. Item, *ratione.* Lucifer appetiit omnibus praeesse et credidit, se posse obtinere, ut nulli subesset[^3]; sed hoc non est probabile, nisi vidisset, se omnes praecellere: ergo fuit de supremo ordine.

4. Item, peccatum eius maximum fuit inter peccata omnium Angelorum, immo omnium creaturarum; sed tanto maius est vitium, quanto in nobiliori natura[^4]: ergo si maximum peccatum habuit omnium aliorum, ergo quantum ad naturam ceteris maior fuit.

SED CONTRA: 1. Ezechielis vigesimo octavo[^5] dicitur ad luciferum: *Tu Cherub,* sicut exponit Gregorius; sed supremus ordo non est ordo Cherubim, sed Seraphim, sicut vult Dionysius: ergo non fuit de supremo ordine.

2. Item, Damascenus secundo libro, quarto capitulo[^6]: «Ex his angelicis virtutibus, quae praeerant terrestri ordini, id est, eius qui circa terrena est ordinis, et cui terrae custodia a Deo commissa erat, liberi arbitrii sui electione aversus est»: ergo lucifer secundum Damascenum fuit de infimo ordine.

3. Item, *ratione* videtur, quia si ipse fuit supremus, ergo magis fuit deiformis, ergo magis ad peccatum inhabilis: ergo non peccavit, aut si peccavit, non ita profunde, sicut alii, ut videtur.

4. Item, si supremus inter omnes Angelos, ergo inter omnes creaturas nobilior: ergo magis a Deo dilectus, qui diligit omnia quae fecit[^7]: ergo cum facillimum fuerit Domino ipsum conservare, non videtur probabile, quod ipsum permiserit ruere.

<!-- page 162 -->

CONCLUSIO.

*Lucifer fuit praecellens inter Angelos et de supremo ordine.*

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod sicut testantur auctoritates sacrae Scripturae et Sanctorum, lucifer valde excellens fuit, et si stetisset, in supremo ordine collocatus fuisset, cum ad hoc haberet idoneitatem ex parte naturae. Sicut enim patebit infra[^8], distinctio ordinum *consummata* venit ex parte gratiae, sed *dispositio* ex parte naturae. — Unde concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc inductae.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod dicitur Cherub; dicendum, quod Seraphim interpretatur *incendium*[^9], et hoc est per caritatem; Angelus autem, licet a sua conditione habuerit *plenitudinem scientiae*, non tamen habuit *incendium caritatis* nisi a gratia. Et quia Cherubim dicitur *plenitudo scientiae*, sed Seraphim *incendium caritatis*; hinc est, quod dicitur Cherub, non Seraph; et hoc non ideo, quia esset de ordine Cherubim, sed quia habebat habitum illi ordini convenientem, non sic habitum convenientem ordini Seraphim, quamvis ad illum esset praeparatus.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod praeerat terrestri ordini; dicendum, quod Damascenus hoc dicit quantum ad vim *administrativam*, quia ceteri ei erant subiecti quantum ad actum ministerii. Et quia actus ministerii omnibus aliquo modo competit ex natura, sicut infra patebit[^10], quia *omnes sunt administratorii spiritus*; ideo ex hoc non habetur, quod Angelus fuerit de ordine infimo, immo esse potuit de supremo et praesidere terrenorum ministerio.

Sed tunc est quaestio: cum in Angelo esset *vis contemplativa*, quare magis per *administrativam* eum describit? Et dicendum, quod vis *contemplativa* attenditur in comparatione ad superius, sed *administrativa* in comparatione ad inferius. Et quoniam Angelus sumsit occasionem peccandi, considerando suam praesidentiam respectu inferiorum; ideo secundum illam vim eum describit. Unde Augustinus[^11] dicit, quod consideratio Angeli in peccando fuit contrario modo considerationi centurionis, qui dixit Matthaei octavo: *Ego homo sum sub potestate constitutus et habens sub me milites.* Angelus e contrario primo consideravit milites et ministros sibi subditos; ideo elevatus est in superbiam.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod minus habilis ad peccandum; dicendum, quod verum est; attamen voluntas in omnibus Angelis libera erat et vertibilis, et ideo sine omni pronitate poterat quo volebat inclinari; et hinc est, quod ille gravius peccavit. Unde ad peccatum non necessario concurrit pronitas, sed vertibilitas; nec peccatum intenditur ex pronitate, sed magis ex naturae et donorum dignitate et conversionis profunditate. Et quia altior erat, ideo cecidit profundius; et quia fortior, ideo ad malum se convertit fortius et inseparabilius.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, quod videtur incredibile, quod Deus nobilissimam creaturam suam sic perire dimitteret; dicendum, quod mira in hoc ostenditur Dei iustitia, quae tantum servat iustitiam, ut ordinem institutum nullo modo infringat; tantum peccatum odit, ut propter peccatum quos carissimos reputavit abiicat. Unde credo, quod tam spectandum monstrum[^12] divinae severitatis in Angelo nobilissimo et primo homine, quorum utrumque propriis manibus plasmavit et decoravit, Deus nobis infirmis apposuit et ostendit, ut addiscamus, quantum Deus odit peccatum, et maxime superbiam, quod pro uno motu cordis nobilissima omnium creaturarum aeternaliter et sine spe veniae est damnata, et pro uno esu pomi et ipse Adam et tota posteritas usque ad finem mundi est mortalitati et multiplici poenalitati subiecta; et nisi *Dominus reliquisset nobis semen, quasi Sodoma fuissemus*[^13]. Ex his efficacissimum relinquitur argumentum, quod *horrendum est incidere in manus Dei viventis.* Si enim Deus non pepercit nobilissimo Angelo superbienti, quid erit de vilissimo cinere et abiectissimo, in altum se extollenti, cum iacere debeat in cinere et cilicio, immo in ipso sterquilinio?

SCHOLION.

I. Sententia, quam S. Bonav. hic exponit, est fere communis, tamen non omnino certa. S. Ioan. Damascenus (arg. 2. ad oppositum) aliter sensisse videtur (cfr. Richard. a Med., loc. cit.), cuius opinioni non esse praeiudicandum, dicit S. Thom. in Summa (loc. cit.), licet sententiam S. Bonaventurae probabiliorem esse censeat. — Pro praxi notanda est egregia doctrina in solut. ad 1.

II. Sequentem huius articuli quaest. specialiter tantum tractant Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 99. m. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2; Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. Alii paucis verbis eam solvunt secundum probabilitatem et in eodem sensu ac S. Bonav., ut S. Thom., S. 1. q. 63. a. 9. ad 3.

III. De hac quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. q. 98. m. 1. a. 1. 2. — Scot., apud H. de Montefortino t. II. p. 1. q. 63. a. 7. seq. — S. Thom., hic q. unica, a. 1; S. 1. q. 63. a. 7. — B. Albert., de hac et seq. q. hic a. 1; S. p. II. tr. 5. q. 20. m. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1.

---

english:
<!-- page 161 -->

### ARTICLE I.

*Of what order the evil angels fell from.*

### QUESTION I.

*Whether Lucifer was of the supreme order of Angels.*

It is asked, therefore, first, of what order Lucifer was. And that he was of the supreme [order], this is shown.

1. Job, fortieth [chapter][^1]: *He is the beginning of the ways of God;* but not by the order of nature: therefore by the order of dignity: therefore he was preeminent among the other creatures, therefore also among the Angels.

2. Likewise, Gregory in the thirty-second [book] of the *Morals*[^2], treating that [text] of Ezekiel: *Thou Cherub, stretched out and protecting* etc.: «Because by comparison with his own brightness he is believed to have overshadowed the brightness of the rest, therefore he himself is called *stretched out and protecting*»; he speaks of Lucifer: therefore etc. And in the same place *again:* «Set over the other hosts of Angels, he transcended their brightness, and by comparison with them he was the brighter». And *again* in the same book: «Those hosts of the lofty height of the supernal virtues, planted in the verdure of eternal joy, although they were created exalted, yet are neither set above this one nor made equal [to him]».

3. Likewise, *by reason.* Lucifer desired to be set over all and believed that he could obtain that he should be subject to none[^3]; but this is not probable, unless he had seen that he excelled all: therefore he was of the supreme order.

4. Likewise, his sin was the greatest among the sins of all the Angels, indeed of all creatures; but a vice is so much the greater, the nobler the nature [in which it is][^4]: therefore if he had the greatest sin of all the others, therefore as regards nature he was greater than the rest.

BUT ON THE CONTRARY: 1. In Ezekiel, twenty-eighth [chapter][^5], it is said to Lucifer: *Thou Cherub,* as Gregory expounds; but the supreme order is not the order of the Cherubim, but of the Seraphim, as Dionysius holds: therefore he was not of the supreme order.

2. Likewise, Damascene in the second book, fourth chapter[^6]: «From these angelic virtues, which were set over the terrestrial order, that is, of the order which is concerned with earthly things, and to whom the guardianship of the earth had been committed by God, he was turned away by the choice of his own free will»: therefore Lucifer, according to Damascene, was of the lowest order.

3. Likewise, *by reason* it seems [so], because if he was supreme, therefore he was the more deiform, therefore the more unapt for sin: therefore he did not sin, or if he sinned, not so profoundly as the others, as it seems.

4. Likewise, if [he was] supreme among all the Angels, therefore nobler among all creatures: therefore the more loved by God, who loves all things which he made[^7]: therefore, since it would have been most easy for the Lord to preserve him, it does not seem probable that he permitted him to fall.

<!-- page 162 -->

CONCLUSION.

*Lucifer was preeminent among the Angels and of the supreme order.*

I RESPOND: It must be said that, as the authorities of sacred Scripture and of the Saints testify, Lucifer was exceedingly excellent, and if he had stood [firm], he would have been placed in the supreme order, since for this he had the fitness on the part of nature. For as will be clear below[^8], the distinction of the orders *consummated* comes on the part of grace, but the *disposition* on the part of nature. — Hence the reasons brought forward for this are to be conceded.

1. To that which is objected, that he is called Cherub; it must be said that Seraphim is interpreted *burning*[^9], and this is through charity; but the Angel, although from his condition he had the *fullness of knowledge*, yet did not have the *burning of charity* except from grace. And because Cherubim is said [to be] *fullness of knowledge*, but Seraphim *the burning of charity*; hence it is that he is called Cherub, not Seraph; and this not because he was of the order of the Cherubim, but because he had a habit befitting that order, not in like manner a habit befitting the order of the Seraphim, although he was prepared for that.

2. To that which is objected, that he was set over the terrestrial order; it must be said that Damascene says this as regards the *administrative* power, because the rest were subject to him as regards the act of ministry. And because the act of ministry belongs to all in some manner from nature, as will be clear below[^10], because *they are all ministering spirits*; therefore from this it is not had that the Angel was of the lowest order, but rather he could be of the supreme [order] and preside over the ministry of earthly things.

But then there is a question: since in the Angel there was the *contemplative* power, why does he describe him rather by the *administrative*? And it must be said that the *contemplative* power is regarded in comparison with what is above, but the *administrative* in comparison with what is below. And since the Angel took the occasion of sinning from considering his own presidency in respect of inferiors; therefore he describes him according to that power. Hence Augustine[^11] says that the Angel's consideration in sinning was in a manner contrary to the consideration of the centurion, who said in Matthew, eighth [chapter]: *I am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers.* The Angel on the contrary first considered the soldiers and ministers subject to himself; therefore he was lifted up into pride.

3. To that which is objected, that [he was] less apt for sinning; it must be said that it is true; nevertheless the will in all the Angels was free and changeable, and therefore without any proneness it could be inclined whither it willed; and hence it is that he sinned the more grievously. Hence to sin there does not necessarily concur proneness, but changeableness; nor is sin intensified by proneness, but rather by the dignity of nature and of gifts and by the profundity of conversion. And because he was higher, therefore he fell more profoundly; and because [he was] stronger, therefore he turned himself to evil the more strongly and inseparably.

4. To that which is objected last, that it seems incredible that God would let his most noble creature so perish; it must be said that in this is shown the wondrous justice of God, which so keeps justice that it in no way breaks the order it has instituted; it so hates sin that for sin it casts away those whom it reputed most dear. Hence I believe that so notable a monstrous spectacle[^12] of divine severity in the most noble Angel and in the first man — both of whom he fashioned and adorned with his own hands — God has set before us weak ones and shown, that we may learn how much God hates sin, and especially pride, since for one motion of the heart the most noble of all creatures is damned eternally and without hope of pardon, and for one eating of the apple both Adam himself and the whole posterity, even to the end of the world, is subjected to mortality and to manifold penalty; and unless *the Lord had left us seed, we should have been as Sodom*[^13]. From these things a most efficacious argument is left, that *it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.* For if God did not spare the most noble Angel in his pride, what will become of vilest and most abject ash, exalting itself on high, when it ought to lie in ash and in sackcloth, indeed in the very dunghill?

SCHOLION.

I. The opinion which St. Bonaventure here expounds is almost common, yet not altogether certain. St. John Damascene (arg. 2 ad oppositum) seems to have thought otherwise (cf. Richard of Mediavilla, loc. cit.), to whose opinion it is not to be prejudicial, says St. Thomas in the *Summa* (loc. cit.), although he judges St. Bonaventure's opinion to be more probable. — For practice, the excellent doctrine in the solution to [argument] 1 is to be noted.

II. The following question of this article is treated specially only by Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 99, m. 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 2; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2. Others resolve it in few words according to probability and in the same sense as St. Bonaventure, as St. Thomas, *Summa* 1, q. 63, a. 9, ad 3.

III. On this question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. q. 98, m. 1, a. 1, 2. — Scotus, apud H. of Montefortino, t. II, p. 1, q. 63, a. 7 f. — St. Thomas, here the single question, a. 1; *Summa* 1, q. 63, a. 7. — Bl. Albert, on this and the following question, here a. 1; *Summa* p. II, tr. 5, q. 20, m. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1. — Giles of Rome, here q. 1, a. 1. — Durandus, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following question, here q. 1.

la: Vers. 14.

en: Verse 14.

la: Cap. 23. n. 48, ubi etiam secundus textus invenitur (de quo vide Homil. 34. in Evang. n. 7.). Tertius textus est ibid. n. 47. — Verba Ezechielis sunt c. 28, 14.

en: Ch. 23, n. 48, where also the second text is found (on which see Homily 34 on the Gospel, n. 7). The third text is in the same place, n. 47. — The words of Ezekiel are c. 28, 14.

la: Cfr. supra d. 5. a. 1. q. 2. in corp. et a. 2. q. 1, ubi etiam *maior* seq. argumenti insinuatur.

en: Cf. above, dist. 5, a. 1, q. 2 in the body and a. 2, q. 1, where also the major [premise] of the following argument is intimated.

la: Isidor., II. Sent. seu de Summo Bono, c. 18. n. 6: «Tanto enim maius cognoscitur esse peccatum, quanto maior qui peccat habetur». Idem docet August., in Ioan. Evang. tract. 110. n. 7. — Vat. *magis est vitium* pro *maius est vitium*, refragantibus codd. K T U X aa bb et edd. 1, 2.

en: Isidore, *Sentences* II or *On the Highest Good*, c. 18, n. 6: «For a sin is recognized to be so much the greater, the greater the one who is held [to be the one] who sins». Augustine teaches the same, on John's Gospel, tract. 110, n. 7. — The Vatican edition [reads] *magis est vitium* for *maius est vitium*, with codices K T U X aa bb and editions 1, 2 opposing.

la: Vers. 14. — Expositionem Gregorii vide supra fundam. 2. — Quod supremus ordo Angelorum sit ordo Seraphim, docet Dionys., de Caelest. Hierarch. c. 7. § 1.

en: Verse 14. — For Gregory's exposition see above, fundamentum 2. — That the supreme order of Angels is the order of the Seraphim, Dionysius teaches, *On the Celestial Hierarchy*, c. 7, § 1.

la: De Fide orthod. In textu originali post *commissa erat* interseruntur haec: non natura malus conditus, sed bonus existens bonique causa factus et nequaquam in se ipso a Conditore vestigium malitiae habens, splendorem illum ac honorem, quem Creator ipsi largitus fuerat, non ferens.

en: *On the Orthodox Faith.* In the original text, after *commissa erat* these things are inserted: not created evil by nature, but being good and made a cause of good, and in no way having in himself from the Creator a trace of malice, [but] not bearing that splendor and honor which the Creator had bestowed on him.

la: Sap. 11, 25: *Diligis enim omnia quae sunt, et nihil odisti eorum quae fecisti, nec enim odiens aliquid constituisti aut fecisti.* — Cod. T *inhabilior ad peccandum* pro *nobilior.*

en: Wisdom 11, 25: *For thou lovest all things that are, and hatest none of the things which thou hast made, for thou didst not appoint or make anything hating it.* — Codex T [reads] *inhabilior ad peccandum* (less apt for sinning) for *nobilior* (nobler).

la: Dist. 9. q. 2. — Paulo inferius ea quae post *ex parte gratiae* in responsione sequuntur, a pluribus mss. omittuntur.

en: Dist. 9, q. 2. — A little below, the things which follow after *ex parte gratiae* in the response are omitted by several manuscripts.

la: De interpretatione nominum, quibus Angelorum ordines insigniuntur, cfr. Dionys., de Caelest. Hierarch. c. 7. seqq.; Isidor., VII. Etymol. c. 5. et de Ordine creaturarum, c. 2; Gregor., Homil. 34. in Evang. n. 9. seqq.

en: On the interpretation of the names by which the orders of Angels are distinguished, cf. Dionysius, *On the Celestial Hierarchy*, c. 7 ff.; Isidore, *Etymologies* VII, c. 5, and *On the Order of Creatures*, c. 2; Gregory, Homily 34 on the Gospel, n. 9 ff.

la: Dist. 10. a. 1. q. 2. — Mox respicitur Hebr. 1, 14.

en: Dist. 10, a. 1, q. 2. — Presently Hebrews 1, 14 is referred to.

la: Enarrat. in Ps. 46, n. 12. seq. — Eandem explicationem habet S. Bernard., Epist. 42. seu Tract. de moribus et officio episcoporum, c. 8. n. 32. et Epist. 392. — Seq. textus est loc. cit. v. 9.

en: *Exposition on Psalm 46*, n. 12 f. — St. Bernard has the same explanation, Epist. 42 or the Treatise on the morals and office of bishops, c. 8, n. 32, and Epist. 392. — The following text is loc. cit., v. 9.

la: Cod. aa *mysterium.* Paulo inferius codd. K cc et ed. 1 *nobis infimis* pro *nobis infirmis.*

en: Codex aa [reads] *mysterium* (mystery). A little below, codices K cc and edition 1 [read] *nobis infimis* (to us lowest ones) for *nobis infirmis* (to us weak ones).

la: Isai. 1, 9. — Sequens textus est Hebr. 10, 31.

en: Isaiah 1, 9. — The following text is Hebrews 10, 31.

translators_notes:
- This chunk is ARTICULUS I, QUAESTIO I of the Commentary on Distinction VI: *Whether Lucifer was of the supreme order of Angels.* The short `ARTICULUS I.` opener + title *De quo ordine mali angeli ceciderunt* (raw 11847, lower on p.161) is folded in per the Vol II convention (no standalone article-divisio chunk). 4 *videtur* (quod fuit de supremo: Iob 40 *principium viarum Dei* / Gregory *Moralia* 32 *Tu Cherub* / *ratione* — desire to be subject to none / the greatest sin in the noblest nature) + 4 *Sed contra* (Ezech. 28 *Tu Cherub* = Cherubim not Seraphim per Dionysius / Damascene *De Fide orthod.* 2.4 = lowest order / *ratione* the deiform is less apt to sin / the noblest is most loved, so God would have preserved him) + *Conclusio* (blockquote) + *Respondeo* (Lucifer was excellent, fit by nature for the supreme order; the *consummata*/*dispositio* distinction) + the *Solutio* in 4 numbered replies (Ad 1 Cherub/Seraph habitus; Ad 2 Damascene = *vis administrativa* + the incidental *cur per administrativam* sub-question + the centurion-contrast from Augustine; Ad 3 free/changeable will, not proneness; Ad 4 the great *Doctrina egregia* on divine justice/severity) + editorial **SCHOLION I–III**. Spans printed pp.161–162 (= PDF 183–184); QUAESTIO II opens on p.163 (next chunk `bon-sent-II-d6-a1-q2`).
- **Source discipline (Vol II override).** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (raw 11847–11970) over the 450 dpi pp.161–162 column-band crops (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 161-163 --dpi 450`; `tools/colcrop.py vol2 161` / `162` / `163`), read **Left column top→bottom then Right column**, body bands then footer bands. The *videtur*/*Sed contra* prose is fairly clean in OCR but two-column-bled; the CONCLUSIO/RESPONDEO/Solutio + all page-footers are cascade-shattered and authoritative from the crops. OCR header garbles (`Do quo ordine rnalt angeli`, `Ulrum lucifcr fueril de supremo`) corrected against the crops.
- **Incoming divisio→a1-q1 boundary — RECEIVED CLEAN, no backfill.** The committed `bon-sent-II-d6-divisio`'s Notes state it owns only the p.160 R-column `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` block (its [^1]); the p.161 footer is entirely this chunk's. Verified on the crops: the whole p.161 footer is a single 7-note stream (L-column ¹–⁴, R-column ⁵–⁷), every note anchoring this quaestio's *videtur*/*Sed contra* body → [^1]–[^7]. `d6-divisio` not modified.
- **Apparatus crosswalk (per-page footer → continuous renumber 1–13).** p.161 (7 notes): ¹ *Vers. 14.* (Iob 40, *Iob quadragesimo*¹, vid. 1) → [^1]; ² *Cap. 23. n. 48 …* (Gregor. *Moral.* 32, *Moralium*², vid. 2) → [^2]; ³ *Cfr. supra d. 5. a. 1. q. 2. …* (*subesset*³, vid. 3) → [^3]; ⁴ *Isidor., II. Sent. … Vat. magis est vitium …* (*nobiliori natura*⁴, vid. 4) → [^4]; ⁵ *Vers. 14. — Expositionem Gregorii … Dionys.* (Ezech. 28, *octavo*⁵, contra 1) → [^5]; ⁶ *De Fide orthod. …* (Damascene, *capitulo*⁶, contra 2) → [^6]; ⁷ *Sap. 11, 25 … Cod. T inhabilior …* (*fecit*⁷, contra 4) → [^7]. p.162 left-column (3 notes): ¹ *Dist. 9. q. 2. …* (RESPONDEO *patebit infra*¹) → [^8]; ² *De interpretatione nominum …* (Ad 1 *incendium*²) → [^9]; ³ *Dist. 10. a. 1. q. 2. — Mox … Hebr. 1, 14.* (Ad 2 *infra patebit*³) → [^10]. p.162 right-column (3 notes): ⁴ *Enarrat. in Ps. 46 … S. Bernard. …* (incidental-q *Augustinus*⁴) → [^11]; ⁵ *Cod. aa mysterium …* (Ad 4 *monstrum*⁵) → [^12]; ⁶ *Isai. 1, 9. — … Hebr. 10, 31.* (Ad 4 *fuissemus*⁶) → [^13].
- **No scholion apparatus.** The editorial SCHOLION I–III (the "almost common but not certain" disposition + the literature for the following question + the doctrinal survey Alex. Hal./Scotus/S. Thom./Albert/Petr. a Tar./Richard. a Med./Aegid./Durand./Dionys. Carth.) carries no numbered Quaracchi footnotes — translated in full, no `[^N]`.
- **Outgoing a1-q1→a1-q2 boundary — CLEAN, no split.** The SCHOLION I–III tail ends on p.162 R-column ("…Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1.") with no numbered apparatus; the whole p.162 footer (notes ¹–⁶ → [^8]–[^13]) anchors this quaestio's RESPONDEO/Solutio body. On p.163 the `DIST. VI. ART. I. QUAEST. II.` running head + `QUAESTIO II.` (raw 11971 = next chunk `bon-sent-II-d6-a1-q2`) opens fresh, so all of p.163's footer is a1-q2's. The no-apparatus-scholion-tail clean-boundary pattern (as d4/d5 a1-q1→a1-q2). No backfill either direction.
- **No `[?]` flags.** All 13 superscripts + both page-footers verified on the crops; the p.161 footer-note-3 distinction digit (OCR garble `d. .1`) was confirmed `d. 5` on a high-zoom crop (`p161-L-foot3b-zoom.png` — *Cfr. supra d. 5. a. 1. q. 2. in corp. et a. 2. q. 1*). The footnote-1 Iob locus is rendered with the Quaracchi editors' own verse citation *Vers. 14.* verbatim (their apparatus text, not corrected).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 6, Art. 1, Q. 2

title_alt: Utrum de quolibet ordine Angelorum aliqui ceciderint.

title_alt: Whether some fell from every order of Angels.

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 163 -->

### QUAESTIO II.

*De quo ordine lapsi sint minores Angeli.*

Secundo quaeritur, de quo ordine lapsi sunt minores Angeli. Et quod de omnibus, videtur.

1. Hugo[^1]: «De quolibet ordine aliqui ceciderunt».

2. Item, Gregorius dicit in homilia Pentecostes[^2], quod ad omnes Angelorum ordines aliqui homines assumuntur; sed hoc non erit nisi ad restaurandam ruinam Angelorum: ergo de quolibet aliqui corruerunt.

3. Item, probatum est[^3], quod lucifer fuit de supremo ordine: ergo si de illo ceciderunt, videtur, quod multo fortius de aliis.

4. Item, omnes Angelorum ordines procurant hominum salutem — unde *omnes sunt administratorii spiritus*[^4] etc. — ergo videtur, quod omnibus ordinibus suo modo homines recompensent obsequium, ut nutriatur caritatis solatium; sed sicut Angeli subveniunt hominibus ministrando, ita homines Angelis eorum lapsum reparando: ergo quilibet ordo habuit ruinam.

SED CONTRA: 1. Secundae Petri secundo[^5]: *Deus angelis peccantibus non pepercit:* ergo omnes labentes sunt de infimo ordine, quia infimus ordo censetur nomine Angelorum, ut inferius patebit.

2. Item, Apostolus vocat daemones, ad Ephesios ultimo[^6], *principatus et potestates,* et diversa nomina Angelorum dicuntur de daemonibus praeter Seraphim et Thronos: ergo videtur, quod de his ordinibus nulli ceciderint, aut si ceciderunt, cum non possit probari per Scripturam, nullo modo est asserendum.

3. Item, Angeli eiusdem ordinis sunt similiores in natura; sed qui sunt similiores in natura, similiores sunt in affectionibus, quia *omne animal ad sibi simile copulabitur*[^7]; et qui similiores sunt in affectionibus similiores sunt in moribus, et qui similiores sunt in moribus similiores sunt in bonitate et malitia: ergo probabilius videtur ponere, quod si de aliquo ordine steterunt aliqui, quod omnes per consequens; et si ruerunt aliqui, quod omnes de illo ordine: ergo non est ponere, quod de omnibus ordinibus aliqui ruerint, aliqui steterint.

CONCLUSIO.

*De omnibus ordinibus Angelorum aliqui lapsi sunt.*

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod secundum quod Sancti dicunt et accipiunt ex Scriptura, de omnibus ordinibus aliqui lapsi sunt; et hoc expresse dicit Hugo, et ratio persuadet. Cum enim de supremo ordine aliqui avulsi sint, ut lucifer, credendum est, quod omnes senserint aliquam ruinam.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod omnes dicuntur angeli; dicendum, quod *angelus,* secundum quod est nomen officii, quod est *mitti,* commune omnium est, ut patebit infra[^8]; appropriatur tamen inferiori ordini, de quo frequentius mittuntur aliqui; et ideo beatus Petrus, generaliter loquens, comprehendit.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Scriptura non nominat omnia nomina; dicendum, quod sicut in malis quaedam sunt, «quae mox nominata coniuncta sunt malo[^9]», ita in bonis quaedam sunt, quae mox nominata coniuncta sunt bono, ut Seraphim, quia dicit *caritatis incendium,* et Throni, quia dicit *sedem,* ubi Dominus requiescit ad iudicandum. Et ideo nomina horum ordinum daemonibus non attribuuntur; quamvis ipsi ex natura dispositi essent ad hos ordines, sicut ad alios, tamen nomina aliorum tenent, quia communia sunt bonis et malis, ut sunt principatus et potestates[^10].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de amore similitudinis, dicendum, quod illud habet locum in amore *naturali;* in amore vero *electivo,* ubi quis fertur secundum dominium voluntatis, non habet veritatem. Nam Medea occidit filium[^11], et plus odit homo hominem quam serpentem frequenter, et maior est discordia voluntatum; et quia lapsus et status fuit secundum voluntatem *electivam,* non *naturalem,* ideo non habet hic locum[^12].

---

english:
<!-- page 163 -->

### QUESTION II.

*Of what order the lesser Angels fell from.*

Secondly it is asked, of what order the lesser Angels fell from. And that [some fell] from all [orders], it seems [so].

1. Hugh[^1]: «From every order some fell».

2. Likewise, Gregory says in the homily for Pentecost[^2] that to all the orders of Angels some men are taken up; but this will not be except to restore the ruin of the Angels: therefore from every [order] some fell.

3. Likewise, it has been proved[^3] that Lucifer was of the supreme order: therefore if [some] fell from that one, it seems that much more strongly [some fell] from the others.

4. Likewise, all the orders of Angels procure the salvation of men — whence *they are all ministering spirits*[^4] etc. — therefore it seems that men should requite homage in their own manner to all the orders, that the solace of charity may be nourished; but just as the Angels assist men by ministering, so men [assist] the Angels by repairing their fall: therefore every order had a ruin.

BUT ON THE CONTRARY: 1. Second [letter] of Peter, second [chapter][^5]: *God did not spare the angels that sinned:* therefore all that fall are of the lowest order, because the lowest order is reckoned by the name of Angels, as will be clear below.

2. Likewise, the Apostle calls the demons, in [the letter] to the Ephesians, last [chapter][^6], *principalities and powers,* and the various names of the Angels are said of the demons except Seraphim and Thrones: therefore it seems that none fell from these orders, or if they did fall, since it cannot be proved through Scripture, it is in no way to be asserted.

3. Likewise, the Angels of the same order are more alike in nature; but those who are more alike in nature are more alike in affections, because *every animal will be coupled to its like*[^7]; and those who are more alike in affections are more alike in morals, and those who are more alike in morals are more alike in goodness and malice: therefore it seems more probable to hold that, if some of any order stood [firm], then all consequently; and if some fell, then all of that order: therefore it is not to be held that from all orders some fell and some stood.

CONCLUSION.

*From all the orders of Angels some fell.*

I RESPOND: It must be said that, according as the Saints say and take from Scripture, from all the orders some fell; and Hugh says this expressly, and reason persuades [it]. For since from the supreme order some were torn away, as Lucifer, it must be believed that all felt some ruin.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that all are called angels; it must be said that *angel,* according as it is a name of office, which is *to be sent,* is common to all, as will be clear below[^8]; yet it is appropriated to the lower order, from which more frequently some are sent; and therefore blessed Peter, speaking generally, comprehends [them all].

2. To that which is objected, that Scripture does not name all the names; it must be said that, just as among evils there are certain things «which once named are conjoined to evil[^9]», so among goods there are certain things which once named are conjoined to good, as Seraphim, because it means *the burning of charity,* and Thrones, because it means *seat,* where the Lord rests to judge. And therefore the names of these orders are not attributed to demons; although they themselves were by nature disposed to these orders, as to the others, yet they hold the names of the others, because [those] are common to good and evil, as are *principalities and powers*[^10].

3. To that which is objected concerning the love of likeness, it must be said that this holds place in *natural* love; but in *elective* love, where one is borne according to the dominion of the will, it does not hold true. For Medea killed her son[^11], and frequently a man hates a man more than a serpent, and the discord of wills is greater; and because the fall and the standing was according to the elective will, not the natural, therefore it does not hold place here[^12].

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. V. c. 30. — Vat. post *ceciderunt* prosequitur *et unum ordinem contrarium fecerunt*, ubi non est ordo, sed sempiternus horror inhabitat.

en: *On the Sacraments*, bk. I, p. V, c. 30. — The Vatican edition after *ceciderunt* continues *et unum ordinem contrarium fecerunt* (and made one contrary order), where there is no order, but everlasting horror dwells.

la: Homil. 34. in Evang. n. 11. (habita Dominica III. post Pent.). — In conclusione post *ergo de quolibet* cod. cc et ed. 1 supplent *ordine.*

en: Homily 34 on the Gospel, n. 11 (delivered on the third Sunday after Pentecost). — In the conclusion, after *ergo de quolibet*, codex cc and edition 1 supply *ordine.*

la: Quaest. praeced.

en: The preceding question.

en: Hebrews 1, 14.

la: Vers. 4. — Quod Angelorum nomine specialiter appelletur infimus ordo, vide infra d. 9. in praenotatis.

en: Verse 4. — That by the name of Angels the lowest order is specially called, see below, dist. 9, in the prefatory notes.

la: Vers. 12. Vulgata *principes* pro *principatus.*

en: Verse 12. The Vulgate [reads] *principes* (princes) for *principatus* (principalities).

la: Eccli. 13, 19. seq. Cfr. supra pag. 103, nota 2.

en: Ecclesiasticus 13, 19 f. Cf. above, p. 103, note 2.

la: Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 6. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 32, nota 6. — Cod. aa subiungit *ut diabolus, quia dicit deorsum fluens*, de quo vide supra pag. 147, nota 8; Vat. autem *ut fornicari et occidere.*

en: Aristotle, *Ethics* II, c. 6. Cf. tom. I, p. 32, note 6. — Codex aa subjoins *ut diabolus, quia dicit deorsum fluens* (as 'devil', because it means 'flowing downward'), on which see above, p. 147, note 8; but the Vatican edition [subjoins] *ut fornicari et occidere* (as 'to fornicate' and 'to kill').

la: Cfr. infra a. 3. q. 1.

en: Cf. below, a. 3, q. 1.

la: Aristot., de Poetica, c. 11. (c. 14.): *Fit enim interdum sic ipsa actio, quemadmodum antiqui observabant, perinde ac ab scientibus et agnoscentibus; ut Euripides fecit, qui filios necantem Medeam induxit.* — Vat. addit *libro septimo Metamorph. fabula quarta.* — Paulo inferius post *discordia voluntatum* supple: *quam naturae.*

en: Aristotle, *Poetics*, c. 11 (c. 14): *For sometimes the action itself happens thus, as the ancients observed, just as if by those knowing and recognizing; as Euripides did, who brought in Medea slaying her sons.* — The Vatican edition adds *libro septimo Metamorph. fabula quarta* (in book seven of the Metamorphoses, fable four). — A little below, after *discordia voluntatum*, supply: *quam naturae* (than [the discord] of natures).

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
- This chunk is ARTICULUS I, QUAESTIO II of the Commentary on Distinction VI: *Of what order the lesser Angels fell from* (whether some fell from every order of Angels). 4 *Fundamenta* (quod de omnibus: Hugh *De Sacramentis* / Gregory's Pentecost homily — men taken to all orders to restore the ruin / Lucifer was of the supreme order, so a fortiori the others / all orders procure men's salvation, so all had a ruin) + 3 *Sed contra* (2 Peter 2 = the fallen are of the lowest order / Eph. last ch. = the demons' names exclude Seraphim & Thrones / likeness-of-nature argument: a whole order stands or falls together) + *Conclusio* (blockquote) + *Respondeo* (with Hugh and reason: from all orders some fell, since some were torn from the supreme) + 3 numbered *Solutio* replies (Ad 1 *angelus* as nomen officii = *mitti*; Ad 2 Seraphim/Thrones names conjoined to good vs *principatus/potestates* common to good & evil; Ad 3 likeness holds in *natural* not *elective* love — the Medea example). Wholly on printed p.163 (= PDF 185).
- **Source discipline (Vol II override).** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (raw 11971–12033) over the 450 dpi p.163 column-band crops (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 163 --dpi 450`; `tools/colcrop.py vol2 163`), read **Left column top→bottom then Right column**, body bands then footer bands. The *Fundamenta*/*Sed contra* prose is fairly clean in OCR but two-column-bled; the CONCLUSIO/RESPONDEO/Solutio + the page-footer are cascade-shattered and authoritative from the crops. OCR garbles corrected against the crops: header `De qiio ordine lapsi sinl`; Solutio 1's `avi(/ e/iw` → *angelus* (the word being glossed as *nomen officii … mitti*); the OCR's stray `'` after *beatus Petrns* is comma noise, not a marker (no superscript on *Petrus* in the crop).
- **No scholion** (`has_scholion: false`). Quaracchi footer note 12, `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`, explicitly refers the reader back to the SCHOLION of the preceding question — the editorial SCHOLION I–III committed in `bon-sent-II-d6-a1-q1` covers this question too (the sibling-scholion convention; read on the crop, not assumed). The marginal glosses on the crop (`Fundamenta.`, `Ad oppositum.`, `Conclusio.`, `Solutio oppositorum.`) are trimmed per CLAUDE.md.
- **Incoming a1-q1→a1-q2 boundary — RECEIVED CLEAN, no backfill.** The committed `bon-sent-II-d6-a1-q1`'s Notes state its SCHOLION I–III ended on p.162 with no numbered apparatus and that all of p.163's footer is this chunk's. Verified on the crops: p.163's footer is a single 12-note stream (L-column ¹–⁸, R-column ⁹–¹²), every note anchoring this quaestio's body. `d6-a1-q1` not modified.
- **Apparatus crosswalk (single page p.163, renumber 1–12).** L-column ¹ *Libr. I. de Sacram. …* (Hugh, *Hugo*¹, Fund. 1) → [^1]; ² *Homil. 34. in Evang. n. 11. …* (Gregory, *Pentecostes*², Fund. 2) → [^2]; ³ *Quaest. praeced.* (*probatum est*³, Fund. 3) → [^3]; ⁴ *Hebr. 1, 14.* (*administratorii spiritus*⁴, Fund. 4) → [^4]; ⁵ *Vers. 4. …* (2 Petr. 2, *secundo*⁵, contra 1) → [^5]; ⁶ *Vers. 12. Vulgata principes …* (Eph. ult., *ultimo*⁶, contra 2) → [^6]; ⁷ *Eccli. 13, 19. seq. …* (*copulabitur*⁷, contra 3) → [^7]; ⁸ *Dist. 10. a. 1. q. 2.* (Ad 1 *patebit infra*⁸) → [^8]. R-column ⁹ *Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 6. … Cod. aa … Vat. …* (Ad 2 *coniuncta sunt malo*⁹) → [^9]; ¹⁰ *Cfr. infra a. 3. q. 1.* (Ad 2 *principatus et potestates*¹⁰) → [^10]; ¹¹ *Aristot., de Poetica … Medeam …* (Ad 3 *Medea occidit filium*¹¹) → [^11]; ¹² *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* (Ad 3 *non habet hic locum*¹²) → [^12].
- **Outgoing a1-q2→a2-q1 boundary — CLEAN, no split.** a1-q2 has no scholion of its own; its body and the whole p.163 footer (notes ¹–¹² → [^1]–[^12]) are entirely on p.163. On p.164 the `SENTENTIARUM LIB. II.` running head + `ARTICULUS II.` *In quid ceciderint angeli lapsi* (raw 12034 = next chunk `bon-sent-II-d6-a2-q1`) opens fresh, so all of p.164's footer is a2-q1's. No backfill either direction.
- **No `[?]` flags.** All 12 superscripts + the single-page footer verified on the p.163 crops; the OCR-only ambiguities (header garble, *angelus* in Solutio 1, the stray comma after *Petrus*) were all resolved against the crops, none parked.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 6, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 164 -->

### ARTICULUS II.

*In quid ceciderint angeli lapsi.*

Consequenter quaeritur quantum ad lapsum, in quid ceciderunt. Primo, utrum ceciderunt in infernum quantum ad locum. Secundo, utrum in infernale supplicium.

### QUAESTIO I.

*Utrum angeli in locum infernalem ceciderint.*

Quod autem ceciderint in locum infernalem, videtur:

1. Quia casus tanto profundior, quanto gradus excelsior: ergo si ceciderunt de loco altissimo, ut de empyreo, videtur, quod detrusi sunt in locum infimum, et ita in infernum.

2. Item, Angelis sanctis propter munditiam et lucem sapientiae debetur locus mundissimus et lucidissimus, sicut empyreum[^1]: ergo *a contrariis* daemonibus immundis et obtenebratis debetur locus tenebrosissimus et immundus; sed iste locus est infimus et subterraneus, qui dicitur *infernus:* ergo etc.

3. Item, homines mali post mortem statim descendunt in infernum, sicut dicit Iob vigesimo primo[^2]: *Ducunt in bonis dies suos, et in puncto ad inferna descendunt:* ergo cum «hoc sit Angelis casus quod hominibus mors», ergo statim ceciderunt in locum infernalem. *Si tu dicas,* quod sunt relicti extra infernum ad nostram exercitationem; *contra:* homo de se pronus est sufficienter ad malum et satis potest exercitari a passionibus carnis: ergo videntur superfluere exercitationes daemonum; et si Deus hoc permittit, videtur immisericorditer agere.

CONTRA: 1. Ad Ephesios secundo[^3]: *Aliquando ambulastis secundum principem potestatis aeris huius; huius* demonstrat aerem materialem: ergo potestas diaboli maxime est in hoc aere; sed ubi est potestas eius, et substantia: ergo etc.

2. Item, constans est, quod diabolus nos tentat, et tentavit Christum, ut dicitur Matthaei quarto[^4], de nobis autem non tantum Scriptura docet, sed etiam experientia: ergo cum Angelus ibi sit, ubi operatur; et circa nos operatur: ergo etc.

3. Item, *in inferno nulla est omnino redemptio*[^5], unde qui descendunt in infernum, nunquam ascendunt: ergo si daemones deiecti essent in inferno, nequaquam possent ad nos venire; sed veniunt: ergo in infernum nunquam descenderunt.

CONCLUSIO.

*Locus daemonum post lapsum ordinarie est aer caliginosus.*

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod, sicut patet ex Scripturis, locus daemonum post lapsum usque ad diem iudicii non est locus subterraneus, quem vocamus infernum, sed aer caliginosus, in quo generaliter daemonum multitudo inhabitat. — Utrum autem aliqui *detrusi* sint in infernum, hoc ego nescio nec invenio a Sanctis determinatum. Hoc autem bene credo, quod aliqui *descendunt* ad torquendas animas, secundum quod habent deputata inter se maledictionis officia.

Ratio autem, quare in hoc aere sunt, est propter humanum exercitium. Sicut enim dicit Augustinus[^6]: «Nunquam Deus, quos praesciebat futuros malos, eos fecisset, nisi pariter nosset, quibus bonorum usibus eos accommodaret». Unde divina dispositio hoc exigit, ut etiam de praevaricantibus[^7] Angelis obsequium quodam modo electorum trahat et eliciat. Scit enim bene uti malorum pravis voluntatibus; et ideo non eos detrusit in infernum, sed locum dedit aptum ipsis daemonibus tum quantum ad statum *peccati,* tum quantum ad statum *exercitii* sive belli. Aer enim caliginosus propter *caliginem* convenit tenebrositati culpae, sed propter *mobilitatem* et *subtilitatem* convenit velocitati angelicae; unde, sicut aliquibus viris sanctis ostensum est, frequenter circa nos volitant sicut muscae.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod de altissimo in profundissimum; dicendum, quod verum concluderet, si esset omnino retributum quod meruerunt; sed Dominus non statim retribuit, sed simul cum hominibus eos illuc exspectat proiicere, quo ipsi sua perversitate inducunt peccatorem[^8].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Angelis beatis locus debetur altissimus; dicendum, quod quamvis <!-- page 165 -->sit eis debitus, non tamen ibi sunt semper, sed et circa nos ad explendum suum ministerium. Similiter dico, quod quamvis locus infimus et vilissimus sit daemonibus debitus, tamen eis differtur propter nostrum exercitium.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de hominibus malis post mortem etc., dicendum, quod non est simile *omnino,* sed solum quoad statum *impoenitentiae.* Nam quoad statum *demeriti* vel *exercitii* non est simile, sicut infra melius patebit[^9]; anima enim non est deputata ad ministrandum, sicut Angelus.

Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, quod Deus immisericorditer agit cum homine; dicendum, quod non, immo *misericordia superexultat iudicium*[^10]: quia contra *fomitem* dat scintillam conscientiae, contra *daemonem* dat bonum Angelum, et supra hoc dat suam gratiam et Spiritum sanctum suum, qui vincit omnem potestatem: *quia neque mors, neque vita, neque principatus, neque potestates possunt nos separare a caritate Dei*[^11]. Unde ille amor est adiutorium praevalens omnibus et omnia vincens. Propter hoc, ut haberent exercitium, quia *virtus in infirmitate perficitur,* dat Deus sanctis suis *angelum satanae, qui eos colaphizet;* sicut colaphizavit Paulum[^12].

SCHOLION.

I. De utraque huius articuli quaestione alii doctores fere omnes simul agunt. Ipsi tantum quoad q. 2. inter se dissident, scil. utrum et quomodo daemones iam poenam *ignis* patiantur, supposito, quod non sint in loco infernali, sed in aere caliginoso. Quod poena *ignis,* non autem damni, *differatur* usque ad extremum iudicium, probabilius esse censet S. Bonav. (cfr. infra d. 7. p. I. a. 1. q. 3.). Hoc idem, vel saltem, quod poena sensus sit minus intensa, quando daemones non sunt actualiter in inferno, opinantur Alex. Hal., Richard. a Med. et Dionys. Carth., qui etiam citat Henr. Gand. et laudat, quod de modo, quo ignis possit agere passionem in spiritum, scribat «bene subtiliter, catholice et diffuse, Quodl. 8.» [q. 34.]. Opposita autem sententia, quod daemones eandem poenam sustineant, sive sint intra infernum, sive extra, videtur nunc communius esse recepta, non autem tanquam sit de fide. S. Thomas (S. 1. q. 64. a. 4. ad 3.) docet: «Licet daemones non actu alligentur gehennali igni, dum sunt in aere isto caliginoso; tamen ex hoc ipso, quod sciunt, illam alligationem sibi deberi, eorum poena non *diminuitur*», (cfr. Comment. hic q. unica, a. 3.). Consentit Aegid. R. (hic q. 2. a. 2.) quoad *factum,* quod daemones portent secum ignem inferni (non autem materialem), sed non approbat assignatam *rationem,* hoc usus argumento, quod «actionem quantumcumque spiritualem *practicam* impedit distantia»; unde ipse illam rationem ponit in *supernaturali* divina actione, «qua sic afficiuntur mediante divina virtute, ac si essent coniuncti igni affligenti eos, ut instrumentum divinae iustitiae». De hoc docte disputat Seraphicus, IV. Sent. d. 44. a. 3. q. 2. — Radix huius qualiscunque dissensionis inter SS. Thomam et Bonaventuram consistere videtur in diversa sententia de *principio passionis in Angelis.* Secundum enim S. Thomam in eis dolor est in voluntate, quatenus est *operativa,* non *receptiva,* sive «secundum quod [affectus] nominant simplices actus voluntatis» (S. 1. q. 64. a. 3.). Aliter sentit S. Bonav. (supra d. 3. p. I. a. 1.).

II. In 3. fundam. quaestionis 2. asseritur, quod daemones tentantes hominem aliquatenus delectentur, scil. «gaudio impuro», vel «omni amaritudine resperso» (d. 11. a. 2. q. 3. ad 6.), ut dicit Alex. Hal. (loc. mox cit. m. 4. a. 1.) et similiter Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2.; quae sententia videtur esse communis.

III. Praeter citatos de utraque quaest. diffuse disputat Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 100. m. 5. a. 1. 2. 3. et m. 4, q. 102. m. 3. a. 9. — B. Albert., hic a. 5-8; S. p. II. tr. 5. q. 25. m. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 1. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3. — Biel, II. Sent. d. 8. q. unica in fine.

---

english:
<!-- page 164 -->

### ARTICLE II.

*Into what the fallen angels fell.*

It is consequently asked, as regards the fall, into what they fell. First, whether they fell into hell as regards place. Secondly, whether into the infernal punishment.

### QUESTION I.

*Whether the angels fell into the infernal place.*

That they fell into the infernal place, it seems [so]:

1. Because the fall is so much the deeper, the loftier the rank: therefore if they fell from the highest place, as from the empyrean, it seems that they were thrust down into the lowest place, and thus into hell.

2. Likewise, to the holy Angels, on account of [their] cleanness and the light of wisdom, the cleanest and most luminous place is due, as the empyrean[^1]: therefore *conversely* to the demons, unclean and darkened, the most shadowy and unclean place is due; but that place is the lowest and subterranean, which is called *hell:* therefore etc.

3. Likewise, evil men after death descend at once into hell, as Job, twenty-first [chapter], says[^2]: *They spend their days in good things, and in a moment they go down to hell:* therefore since «this is to the Angels a fall, what to men is death», therefore they fell at once into the infernal place. *If thou sayest* that they are left outside hell for our exercising; *on the contrary:* man of himself is sufficiently prone to evil and can be sufficiently exercised by the passions of the flesh: therefore the exercisings by demons seem superfluous; and if God permits this, he seems to act unmercifully.

ON THE CONTRARY: 1. To the Ephesians, second [chapter][^3]: *At one time you walked according to the prince of the power of this air; this* points to the material air: therefore the power of the devil is most of all in this air; but where his power is, [there] also [his] substance: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, it is constant that the devil tempts us, and tempted Christ, as is said in Matthew, fourth [chapter][^4]; and about us not only Scripture teaches, but also experience: therefore since the Angel is there where he operates, and he operates around us: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, *in hell there is no redemption at all*[^5], whence those who descend into hell never ascend: therefore if the demons had been cast down into hell, they could in no way come to us; but they do come: therefore they never descended into hell.

CONCLUSION.

*The place of the demons after the fall is ordinarily the murky air.*

I RESPOND: It must be said that, as is clear from the Scriptures, the place of the demons after the fall, until the day of judgment, is not the subterranean place which we call hell, but the murky air, in which generally the multitude of demons dwells. — But whether some have been *thrust down* into hell, this I do not know, nor do I find it determined by the Saints. But this I well believe, that some *descend* to torment souls, according as they have among themselves the appointed offices of malediction.

Now the reason why they are in this air is on account of human exercising. For as Augustine says[^6]: «God would never have made those whom he foreknew would be evil, unless he had likewise known for what uses of the good he would accommodate them». Hence the divine disposition requires this, that even from the prevaricating[^7] Angels it should draw and elicit in some manner the homage of the elect. For he knows well how to use the depraved wills of the evil; and therefore he did not thrust them into hell, but gave a place fitting for the demons themselves, both as regards the state of *sin* and as regards the state of *exercising* or warfare. For the murky air, by its *murk,* befits the shadowiness of fault, but by its *mobility* and *subtlety* befits angelic swiftness; whence, as has been shown to some holy men, they frequently fly around us like flies.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that [they fell] from the highest to the deepest; it must be said that it would conclude truly, if what they merited were wholly requited; but the Lord does not requite at once, but waits to cast them down thither together with men, to which the [demons] themselves by their perversity lead the sinner[^8].

2. To that which is objected, that to the blessed Angels the highest place is due; it must be said that, although <!-- page 165 -->it is due to them, yet they are not always there, but also around us to fulfill their ministry. Likewise I say that, although the lowest and vilest place is due to the demons, yet it is deferred for them on account of our exercising.

3. To that which is objected concerning evil men after death etc., it must be said that it is not alike *altogether,* but only as regards the state of *impenitence.* For as regards the state of *demerit* or of *exercising* it is not alike, as will be better clear below[^9]; for the soul is not appointed to minister, as the Angel [is].

To that which is objected last, that God acts unmercifully with man; it must be said that [it is] not [so], but rather *mercy exalts itself above judgment*[^10]: because against the *tinder* [of concupiscence] he gives the spark of conscience, against the *demon* he gives the good Angel, and above this he gives his grace and his Holy Spirit, who conquers every power: *because neither death, nor life, nor principalities, nor powers can separate us from the charity of God*[^11]. Hence that love is a help prevailing over all and conquering all. For this [reason], that they might have exercising, because *virtue is perfected in infirmity,* God gives to his holy ones an *angel of Satan, that he may buffet them;* as he buffeted Paul[^12].

SCHOLION.

I. On both questions of this article almost all the other doctors treat together. They differ among themselves only as regards q. 2, namely whether and how the demons already suffer the punishment of *fire,* supposing that they are not in the infernal place, but in the murky air. That the punishment of *fire,* but not of loss, is *deferred* until the last judgment, St. Bonaventure judges to be more probable (cf. below, d. 7, p. I, a. 1, q. 3). This same [view], or at least that the punishment of sense is less intense when the demons are not actually in hell, is the opinion of Alexander of Hales, Richard of Mediavilla, and Dionysius the Carthusian, who also cites Henry of Ghent and praises [him], that concerning the manner in which fire can effect a passion upon a spirit he writes «well subtly, catholically, and at length, Quodlibet 8» [q. 34]. But the opposite opinion, that the demons sustain the same punishment whether they are within hell or outside, seems now to be more commonly received, yet not as if it were of faith. St. Thomas (*Summa* 1, q. 64, a. 4, ad 3) teaches: «Although the demons are not actually bound by hellish fire, while they are in this murky air; yet from this very [fact], that they know that binding to be owed to them, their punishment is not *diminished*», (cf. the Commentary here, the single question, a. 3). Giles of Rome (here q. 2, a. 2) agrees as to the *fact,* that the demons carry with them the fire of hell (not however material [fire]), but he does not approve the assigned *reason,* using this argument, that «distance impedes any however spiritual *practical* action»; whence he himself places that reason in a *supernatural* divine action, «by which they are so affected by means of divine power, as if they were joined to a fire afflicting them, as an instrument of divine justice». On this the Seraphic [Doctor] disputes learnedly, IV *Sentences* d. 44, a. 3, q. 2. — The root of this dissension of whatever kind between Sts. Thomas and Bonaventure seems to consist in a diverse opinion concerning the *principle of passion in the Angels.* For according to St. Thomas in them grief is in the will, inasmuch as it is *operative,* not *receptive,* or «according as [affections] name simple acts of the will» (*Summa* 1, q. 64, a. 3). St. Bonaventure thinks otherwise (above, d. 3, p. I, a. 1).

II. In the 3rd fundamentum of question 2 it is asserted that the demons tempting man are to some extent delighted, namely with «impure joy», or «besprinkled with all bitterness» (d. 11, a. 2, q. 3, ad 6), as Alexander of Hales says (loc. cit. just [cited], m. 4, a. 1) and similarly Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 2; which opinion seems to be common.

III. Besides those cited, on both questions there dispute at length Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 100, m. 5, a. 1, 2, 3, and m. 4, q. 102, m. 3, a. 9. — Bl. Albert, here a. 5-8; *Summa* p. II, tr. 5, q. 25, m. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 1. — Giles of Rome, here q. 2, a. 1, 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3. — Biel, II *Sentences* d. 8, the single question, at the end.

la: Cfr. supra d. 2. p. II. a. 1. q. 1.

en: Cf. above, dist. 2, p. II, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Vers. 13. — Sententia illa, quod «hoc sit Angelis casus quod hominibus mors», est Damasc., II. de Fide orthod. c. 3; ideoque cod. F post *mors* adiungit *sicut dicit Damascenus.*

en: Verse 13. — That saying, that «this is to the Angels a fall, what to men is death», is from Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith* II, c. 3; and therefore codex F after *mors* adds *sicut dicit Damascenus* (as Damascene says).

la: Vers. 2: In quibus aliquando ambulastis secundum saeculum mundi huius, secundum principem etc. — Vat. perperam *Non ambuletis secundum* etc., quae subinde etiam secundum *huius* omittit. — De *minori,* scil. quod ubi est potestas (operatio) diaboli, sit etiam ipsius substantia, vide supra pag. 79, nota 5.

en: Verse 2: *In which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince* etc. — The Vatican edition wrongly [reads] *Non ambuletis secundum* etc., which thereupon also omits the second *huius.* — On the minor [premise], namely that where the power (operation) of the devil is, there is also his substance, see above, p. 79, note 5.

la: Vers. 1. seqq.

en: Verse 1 ff.

en: From the responsory of the 7th lesson of the Office of the Dead.

la: Libr. XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 18.

en: *On the City of God*, bk. XI, c. 18.

la: Plures codd. ut F K T W bb bene *praevaricatoribus.*

en: Several codices, as F K T W bb, well [read] *praevaricatoribus.*

la: Ita codd. T U aa; Vat. cum aliis mss. *quos ipsi sua perversitate inducunt peccare* (plures codd. *in peccatum*).

en: Thus codices T U aa; the Vatican edition with other manuscripts [reads] *quos ipsi sua perversitate inducunt peccare* (whom they themselves by their perversity lead to sin) (several codices *in peccatum* — into sin).

en: Dist. 7, p. I, a. 1, q. 3; d. 10, a. 1, q. 1 f. and in the same place dub. 1; d. 11, a. 1, q. 1 f. and a. 2, q. 2.

en: James 2, 13.

la: Rom. 8, 38. 39, nonnullis omissis et mutatis.

en: Romans 8, 38, 39, with some [words] omitted and changed.

la: Epist. II. Cor. 12, 9. et 7.

en: Second Letter to the Corinthians 12, 9 and 7.

translators_notes:
- This chunk is ARTICULUS II, QUAESTIO I of the Commentary on Distinction VI: *Whether the angels fell into the infernal place.* The short `ARTICULUS II.` opener + title *In quid ceciderint angeli lapsi* + the 2-question sub-divisio (Primo quantum ad locum / Secundo quantum ad infernale supplicium) is folded in per the Vol II convention. 3 *videtur* (quod ceciderint in locum infernalem: depth-of-fall / the *a contrariis* place-symmetry argument / evil men descend at once + the *Si tu dicas … contra* exchange) + 3 *Contra* (Eph. 2 *potestas aeris huius* = the material air / the devil tempts us here, so he is here / *in inferno nulla redemptio* = they could not return) + *Conclusio* (blockquote) + *Respondeo* (the demons' place until judgment is the murky air, not the subterranean hell; two *conclusiones* + the *Ratio* of human exercising) + 4 *Solutio* replies (Ad 1 deferred requital; Ad 2 the blessed Angels are not always in their place either; Ad 3 unlike *quoad statum demeriti/exercitii*; Ad ultimo *misericordia superexultat iudicium* + the Pauline *angelus satanae*) + editorial **SCHOLION I–III** (which covers *both* art. II questions). Spans printed pp.164–165 (= PDF 186–187).
- **Source discipline (Vol II override).** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (raw 12034–12138) over the 450 dpi pp.164–165 column-band crops (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 164-166 --dpi 450`; `tools/colcrop.py vol2 164` / `165`), read **Left column top→bottom then Right column**, body bands then footer bands. The *videtur*/*Contra* prose is fairly clean in OCR but two-column-bled; the CONCLUSIO/RESPONDEO/Solutio + SCHOLION + all page-footers are cascade-shattered and authoritative from the crops. OCR header garbles (`In qnid ceciderint aiigeli lapsi`, `QU,\ESTIO I.`, `Uirum angeli iii locum infernalcm`) corrected against the crops.
- **Incoming a1-q2→a2-q1 boundary — RECEIVED CLEAN, no backfill.** The committed `bon-sent-II-d6-a1-q2` is wholly on p.163 with no scholion; its Notes documented that the whole p.164 footer is this chunk's. Verified on the crops: ARTICULUS II + QUAESTIO I open fresh at the top of p.164, and the whole p.164 footer (8 notes) anchors this quaestio's body. `d6-a1-q2` not modified.
- **Apparatus crosswalk (per-page footer → continuous renumber 1–12).** p.164 (8 notes): ¹ *Cfr. supra d. 2. p. II. a. 1. q. 1.* (*empyreum*¹, vid. 2) → [^1]; ² *Vers. 13. — … Damasc. …* (Iob 21, *primo*², vid. 3) → [^2]; ³ *Vers. 2: In quibus … Vat. perperam … — De minori … pag. 79, nota 5.* (Eph. 2, *secundo*³, contra 1; **L→R footer runover** — the *De minori* clause continues at the head of the right-column footer) → [^3]; ⁴ *Vers. 1. seqq.* (Matth. 4, *quarto*⁴, contra 2) → [^4]; ⁵ *Ex responsorio lect. 7. Officii defunctorum.* (*redemptio*⁵, contra 3) → [^5]; ⁶ *Libr. XI. de Civ. Dei, c. 18.* (*Augustinus*⁶, Ratio) → [^6]; ⁷ *Plures codd. … praevaricatoribus.* (*praevaricantibus*⁷, Ratio) → [^7]; ⁸ *Ita codd. T U aa; Vat. …* (*peccatorem*⁸, Sol 1) → [^8]. p.165 (notes ¹–⁴ are this chunk's): ¹ *Dist. 7. p. I. a. 1. q. 3; d. 10. … d. 11. …* (Sol 3 *infra melius patebit*¹) → [^9]; ² *Iac. 2, 13.* (Ad ultimo *misericordia superexultat iudicium*²) → [^10]; ³ *Rom. 8, 38. 39 …* (Ad ultimo *a caritate Dei*³) → [^11]; ⁴ *Epist. II. Cor. 12, 9. et 7.* (Ad ultimo *colaphizavit Paulum*⁴) → [^12].
- **No scholion apparatus.** The editorial SCHOLION I–III — I = the S. Thomas/S. Bonav. dissension on whether the fire-punishment is deferred + the *principium passionis in Angelis* root; II = the *gaudio impuro* note on q.2's 3rd fundamentum; III = the doctrinal literature list (Alex. Hal./Albert/Petr. a Tar./Richard. a Med./Aegid./Dionys. Carth./Biel) — carries no numbered Quaracchi footnotes; translated in full, no `[^N]`. It is printed at the end of QUAESTIO I but explicitly covers *both* art. II questions ("De utraque huius articuli quaestione …"), so `bon-sent-II-d6-a2-q2` will have no scholion of its own (the sibling-scholion convention).
- **Outgoing a2-q1→a2-q2 boundary — DISCOVERED SPLIT at p.165.** The SCHOLION I–III ends on p.165 right-column ("…Biel, II. Sent. d. 8. q. unica in fine."); QUAESTIO II (*Utrum daemones ceciderint in infernale supplicium*, raw 12139 = next chunk `bon-sent-II-d6-a2-q2`) opens at the **foot of p.165 left-column** and continues through the right-column, so QUAESTIO II's *videtur* body begins on p.165. The p.165 footer therefore **splits by body anchor**: notes ¹–⁴ (this chunk's [^9]–[^12]) anchor this quaestio's Solutio; notes ⁵ (`Vers. 6. — Glossa formata … Beda … Lyranum.`) and ⁶ (`Codd. F bb peccato mortali.`) anchor QUAESTIO II's *videtur* 1 (*Iacobi tertio*⁵) and *videtur* 3 (*in peccato*⁶). **`bon-sent-II-d6-a2-q2` build: start its p.165 apparatus at footer note ⁵, no backfill into a2-q1.**
- **No `[?]` flags.** All 12 superscripts + both page-footers (incl. the p.164 note-³ L→R runover) + the p.165 by-anchor a2-q1/a2-q2 footer split verified on the crops.


title: Dist. 6, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 165 -->

### QUAESTIO II.

*Utrum daemones ceciderint in infernale supplicium.*

Secundo quaeritur circa hoc, utrum ceciderint in infernale supplicium, utrum scilicet crucientur ubicumque sunt. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Super illud Iacobi tertio[^1]: *Lingua inflammata a gehenna,* Glossa: «Gehenna est diabolus, propter quem facta est. Sicut enim gehenna semper ardet, sic diabolus ubicumque sit, vel in aere, vel sub terra, semper fert secum tormenta flammarum».

2. Item, hoc videtur *ratione per simile.* Angeli conversi, quamvis non sint a ministerio absoluti, tamen in ipso ministerio habent praemium suae conversionis, scilicet beatam visionem: ergo pari ratione daemones poenam infernalem.

3. Item, videtur *a minori,* quia gravius est in conspectu Dei iuste omnia ponderantis peccatum angelicum quam humanum; sed homo decedens in peccato[^2] sine aliquo intervallo statim punitur poena gehennali et incendio: ergo multo fortius videtur de angelis malis.

4. Item, in peccato duo sunt: *aversio* et *conversio,* et utrique respondet sua poena, scilicet carentia visionis *aversioni,* et afflictio ignis *conversioni;* sed statim ut peccavit, amisit irremediabiliter visionem et punitus est carentia visionis: ergo pari ratione poena afflictionis. Sed haec est poena illius ignis: ergo etc.

<!-- page 166 -->

CONTRA: 1. Matthaei octavo[^3] dicitur: *Iesu, fili Dei, ut quid venisti ante tempus torquere nos?* ergo angeli nondum torquebantur.

2. Item, si punirentur poena ignis materialis, cum ille agat in creaturam passibilem et condignam pati: ergo cum diabolus corporaliter obsidet aliquem, si secum fert ignem, videtur, quod eum totum comburat, nisi virtutem ignis per miraculum Deus restringat. Sed non est ibi ponendum miraculum: ergo etc.

3. Item, si ita torquerentur igne materiali, cum ille sit summe afflictivus, non delectarentur in peccato hominis sive in faciendo alios peccare: ergo cum hoc multum desiderent, non videtur esse probabile[^4].

4. Item, si torquerentur igne materiali, cum non sint nisi tres species: *carbo, flamma* et *lux*[^5]; quaero, qua specie? Non *luce;* constat, quia non affligit, nec decet eos secum ferre lucem: ergo vel *flamma* vel *carbone.* Sed neutra istarum latet sensum: ergo etc.

CONCLUSIO.

*Videtur esse probabilius, quod poena ignis differtur usque post iudicium.*

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod circa hoc sunt diversae positiones doctorum.

Quidam enim, innitentes praedictae Glossae et considerantes ultionem divinae iustitiae sive rigorem, dicunt, daemones, ubicumque sunt, puniri supplicio ignis materialis, licet minus intense quam post ultimam damnationem. Et cum hoc non sit intelligibile, quod ignem cremantem ubique secum circumferant, nisi habeant corpora alligata, coguntur ponere, quod daemones a sui lapsu primario habuerunt sibi aptata corpora, in quibus punirentur, et in quibus circumferrent quasi intrinsecus materiale incendium, quocumque discurrant, sicut febricitans ubique circumfert ardorem, in qualicumque loco ponatur[^6].

Sed quoniam illud est difficile sustinere, quod daemones habeant corpora inseparabiliter unita, sicut infra melius patebit[^7]; et *praeterea,* non videntur acriter puniri, tum ex verbis Evangelii, tum etiam quod intenti sunt mala facere et mala multa multiplicare: ideo aliorum positio est, quod daemonibus differtur poena ignis usque post iudicium, tum ut eorum exercitium ostendatur, tum etiam ut divina misericordia ostendatur, quae *sustinet vasa irae apta in interitum in multa patientia*[^8] usque in diem, quo retribuet omnibus *secundum fructum adinventionum suarum.*

Quae harum positionum sit verior, nescio; haec tamen, quae ultimo dicta est, videtur probabilior.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Glossa, patet responsio, si aspiciantur sequentia[^9]: quod non intelligit de flamma ignis materialis, sed de flammis vitiorum, scilicet irae et invidiae, quibus etiam torquentur.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Angelis bonis, dicendum, quod non est simile, quia Deus pronior est ad miserendum quam ad condemnandum. *Praeterea,* ministerium Angelorum non impeditur ex gloria, sed expeditur; sed poena omnino retraheret malos ab exercitando.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de damnatis hominibus, dicendum, quod non est simile, quia damnati statim sunt extra statum demeriti, et ideo non oportet, quod differatur supplicium; non sic daemones, quia demerentur, sicut infra melius patebit[^10].

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de aversione, dicendum, quod non est simile, quia visio Dei non potest stare cum culpa; unde inseparabilis poena a culpa est visionis carentia; non sic est de poena afflictiva[^11].

---

english:
<!-- page 165 -->

### QUESTION II.

*Whether the demons fell into the infernal punishment.*

Secondly it is asked concerning this, whether they fell into the infernal punishment, namely whether they are tortured wherever they are. And that [it is] so, it seems [thus].

1. Upon that [text] of James, third [chapter][^1]: *The tongue, inflamed by gehenna,* the Gloss: «Gehenna is the devil, for whom it was made. For just as gehenna always burns, so the devil, wherever he is, whether in the air or under the earth, always carries with him the torments of flames».

2. Likewise, this seems [so] *by reason, through a similitude.* The converted Angels, although they are not freed from ministry, yet in the ministry itself have the reward of their conversion, namely the blessed vision: therefore by parity of reasoning the demons [have] the infernal punishment.

3. Likewise, it seems [so] *from the lesser,* because in the sight of God, who justly weighs all things, the angelic sin is graver than the human; but a man departing in sin[^2], without any interval, is at once punished with hellish punishment and burning: therefore much more strongly [it seems so] concerning the evil angels.

4. Likewise, in sin there are two [things]: *aversion* and *conversion,* and to each its own punishment corresponds, namely the lack of vision to the *aversion,* and the affliction of fire to the *conversion;* but as soon as he sinned, he irremediably lost the vision and was punished with the lack of vision: therefore by parity of reasoning [also] the punishment of affliction. But this is the punishment of that fire: therefore etc.

<!-- page 166 -->

ON THE CONTRARY: 1. In Matthew, eighth [chapter][^3], it is said: *Jesus, son of God, why hast thou come to torment us before the time?* therefore the angels were not yet being tormented.

2. Likewise, if they were punished with the punishment of material fire, since that acts upon a creature passible and worthy to suffer: therefore when the devil bodily besets someone, if he carries fire with him, it seems that he would burn him wholly, unless God restrained the power of the fire by a miracle. But a miracle is not to be posited there: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, if they were thus tortured by material fire, since it is supremely afflictive, they would not delight in the sin of man or in making others sin: therefore since they desire this much, it does not seem probable[^4].

4. Likewise, if they were tortured by material fire, since there are only three species: *coal, flame,* and *light*[^5]; I ask, by which species? Not by *light;* it is clear, because it does not afflict, nor is it fitting for them to carry light with them: therefore either by *flame* or by *coal.* But neither of these escapes the senses: therefore etc.

CONCLUSION.

*It seems more probable that the punishment of fire is deferred until after the judgment.*

I RESPOND: It must be said that concerning this there are diverse positions of the doctors.

For some, relying on the aforesaid Gloss and considering the vengeance of divine justice or [its] rigor, say that the demons, wherever they are, are punished with the punishment of material fire, though less intensely than after the last damnation. And since this is not intelligible, that they carry burning fire everywhere with them, unless they have bodies bound [to them], they are forced to hold that the demons from their first fall had bodies fitted to them, in which they might be punished, and in which they would carry about, as it were inwardly, a material burning, wherever they run, just as one with a fever carries heat everywhere, in whatever place he is put[^6].

But since that is difficult to sustain, that the demons have bodies inseparably united [to them], as will be better clear below[^7]; and *moreover,* they do not seem to be sharply punished, both from the words of the Gospel and also because they are intent on doing evil and on multiplying many evils: therefore the position of others is that the punishment of fire is deferred for the demons until after the judgment, both that their exercising may be shown, and also that the divine mercy may be shown, which *endures the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction with much patience*[^8] until the day on which he will repay all *according to the fruit of their devices.*

Which of these positions is the truer, I do not know; this one, however, which was said last, seems more probable.

1. To that, then, which is objected concerning the Gloss, the response is clear, if the following [words] are looked at[^9]: that it does not understand [it] of the flame of material fire, but of the flames of the vices, namely of anger and envy, by which also they are tortured.

2. To that which is objected concerning the good Angels, it must be said that it is not alike, because God is more inclined to have mercy than to condemn. *Moreover,* the ministry of the Angels is not impeded by glory, but expedited; but punishment would altogether withdraw the evil ones from exercising.

3. To that which is objected concerning the damned men, it must be said that it is not alike, because the damned are at once outside the state of demerit, and therefore it is not necessary that the punishment be deferred; not so the demons, because they continue to demerit, as will be better clear below[^10].

4. To that which is objected concerning the aversion, it must be said that it is not alike, because the vision of God cannot stand together with fault; whence the punishment inseparable from fault is the lack of vision; it is not so concerning the afflictive punishment[^11].

la: Vers. 6. — Glossa formata videtur ex iis quae Beda super hunc locum dicit, et legitur apud Lyranum.

en: Verse 6. — The Gloss seems to be formed from those [things] which Bede says upon this passage, and is read in Lyra.

la: Codd. F bb *peccato mortali.*

en: Codices F bb [read] *peccato mortali* (in mortal sin).

la: Vers. 29: Quid nobis et tibi, Iesu, Fili Dei? venisti huc ante tempus torquere nos?

en: Verse 29: *What have we to do with thee, Jesus, Son of God? hast thou come hither to torment us before the time?*

la: Supple cum cod. bb (a secunda manu) *quod ubicumque sunt, secum ferant poenam ignis.*

en: Supply, with codex bb (by a second hand), *quod ubicumque sunt, secum ferant poenam ignis* (that wherever they are, they carry with them the punishment of fire).

la: Aristot., V. Topic. c. 3. (c. 5.): Non enim est una species ignis; nam diversum est carbo et flamma et lux specie, cum unumquodque horum sit ignis. — Paulo inferius post *quia* cod. aa interserit *lux.* In fine argumenti Vat. substituit *patet sensui* pro *latet sensum.*

en: Aristotle, *Topics* V, c. 3 (c. 5): For there is not one species of fire; for coal and flame and light are diverse in species, although each of these is fire. — A little below, after *quia*, codex aa inserts *lux.* At the end of the argument the Vatican edition substitutes *patet sensui* (it is clear to the sense) for *latet sensum* (it escapes the sense).

la: Hoc exemplum adducitur etiam a Beda, Iac. 3, 6.

en: This example is also adduced by Bede, on James 3, 6.

la: Rom. 9, 22. — Sequens textus est Ier. 17, 10. et 32, 19.

en: Romans 9, 22. — The following text is Jeremiah 17, 10 and 32, 19.

la: Lyranus, in Iac. 3, 6. Glossam sic exhibet: Et hac poena (flammarum) commotus, flammam vitiorum suggerit hominibus, et ea quae eis invidendo suggessit, per linguae incontinentiam aperit, per cetera membra ad effectum perducere cogit.

en: Lyra, on James 3, 6, presents the Gloss thus: And moved by this punishment (of flames), he suggests the flame of the vices to men, and the things which he suggested to them by [his] envying, he opens through the incontinence of the tongue, [and] compels [them] to be brought to effect through the other members.

translators_notes:
- This chunk is ARTICULUS II, QUAESTIO II of the Commentary on Distinction VI: *Whether the demons fell into the infernal punishment* (whether they are tortured wherever they are). 4 *videtur* (quod sic: the James-3 Gloss on gehenna / *ratione per simile* from the converted Angels' reward / *a minori* — the angelic sin is graver, yet man is punished at once / the *aversio/conversio* twofold-punishment argument) + 4 *Contra* (Matth. 8 *ante tempus torquere* = not yet tormented / the material-fire-would-burn-the-possessed argument / they would not delight in sin if so tortured / the three-species-of-fire dilemma) + *Conclusio* (blockquote) + *Respondeo* (two positions: material fire now via fitted bodies *vs.* the punishment of fire deferred until after judgment — the latter judged more probable) + 4 numbered *Solutio* replies. Spans printed pp.165–166 (= PDF 187–188).
- **RE-CHUNK FIX (session 38).** The session-34 decade-batch rechunk mapped d.6 as 7 chunks (littera/divisio/a1-q1/a1-q2/a2-q1/a2-q2/dubia) and **lost ARTICULUS III**: the old `bon-sent-II-d6-a2-q2` skeleton's raw range was 12139–12397, which wrongly absorbed the whole of ARTICULUS III (*De ordine et de praelatione post casum* — opener + QUAESTIO I + SCHOLION + QUAESTIO II). The d6-divisio TRACTATIO ("tria incidunt quaerenda … Tertium est de ordine sive praelatione eorum post casum") and the ARTICULUS III opener's own 2-question sub-divisio confirm three articles, so **d.6 is 9 chunks**, not 7. This chunk's `line_end` is corrected 12397→**12210** (ART II QUAESTIO II only); ARTICULUS III (raw 12211–12397) is split into the new chunks `bon-sent-II-d6-a3-q1` (12211–12317) and `bon-sent-II-d6-a3-q2` (12318–12397).
- **Source discipline (Vol II override).** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (raw 12139–12210) over the 450 dpi pp.165–166 column-band crops (`tools/extract-pages.py --volume vol2 --pages 164-166 --dpi 450`; `tools/colcrop.py vol2 165` / `166`), read **Left column top→bottom then Right column**, body bands then footer bands. The *videtur*/*Contra* prose is fairly clean in OCR but two-column-bled; the CONCLUSIO/RESPONDEO/Solutio + the page-footers are cascade-shattered and authoritative from the crops. OCR garbles corrected against the crops (header `Utriim daemones ceciderint in infernale supplicium`; the *Iacobi tertio* / *Matthaei octavo* loci).
- **No scholion** (`has_scholion: false`). Quaracchi p.166 footer note 9 (`Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`) refers the reader back to the SCHOLION I–III of the preceding chunk `bon-sent-II-d6-a2-q1`, which explicitly covers *both* questions of Article II (*De utraque huius articuli quaestione …*). Read on the crop, not assumed. The marginal glosses (`Ad oppositum.`, `Fundamenta.`, `Opinio 1.`, `Ratio non probatur.`, `Opinio 2.`, `Conclusio.`, `Solutio oppositorum.`) are trimmed per CLAUDE.md.
- **Incoming a2-q1→a2-q2 boundary — RECEIVED SPLIT at p.165, no backfill.** The committed `bon-sent-II-d6-a2-q1`'s Notes documented the p.165 footer split: its SCHOLION I–III ended on p.165 R-column and QUAESTIO II opens at the foot of p.165 L-column, so p.165's footer splits by body anchor. a2-q1 took p.165 footer notes ¹–⁴ (its Solutio); **this chunk takes p.165 footer notes ⁵ and ⁶** (anchoring its *videtur* 1 *Iacobi tertio*⁵ and *videtur* 3 *in peccato*⁶). `d6-a2-q1` not modified.
- **Apparatus crosswalk (renumber 1–11).** p.165 footer (this chunk's portion): ⁵ *Vers. 6. — Glossa formata … Beda … Lyranum.* (*Iacobi tertio*⁵, vid. 1) → [^1]; ⁶ *Codd. F bb peccato mortali.* (*in peccato*⁶, vid. 3) → [^2]. p.166 footer (9 notes, all this chunk's): ¹ *Vers. 29: Quid nobis et tibi …* (Matth. 8, *octavo*¹, contra 1) → [^3]; ² *Supple cum cod. bb …* (*probabile*², contra 3) → [^4]; ³ *Aristot., V. Topic. c. 3. … Vat. patet sensui …* (*lux*³, contra 4) → [^5]; ⁴ *Hoc exemplum … a Beda, Iac. 3, 6.* (opinio 1 *ponatur*⁴) → [^6]; ⁵ *Dist. 8. p. I. a. 1. q. 1.* (opinio 2 *infra melius patebit*⁵) → [^7]; ⁶ *Rom. 9, 22. — … Ier. 17, 10. et 32, 19.* (opinio 2 *in multa patientia*⁶) → [^8]; ⁷ *Lyranus, in Iac. 3, 6. Glossam sic exhibet …* (Sol 1 *sequentia*⁷) → [^9]; ⁸ *Dist. 7. p. I. a. 1. q. 3.* (Sol 3 *infra melius patebit*⁸) → [^10]; ⁹ *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* (Sol 4 *poena afflictiva*⁹) → [^11].
- **Outgoing a2-q2→a3-q1 boundary — CLEAN, no split.** a2-q2 has no scholion; its body ends on p.166 right-column ("…non sic est de poena afflictiva⁹.") and the whole p.166 footer (notes ¹–⁹ → [^3]–[^11]) anchors its body. The centered `ARTICULUS III.` header + *De ordine et de praelatione post casum* + the 2-question sub-divisio (*Primo … utrum sit inter eos ordinum distinctio; Secundo, utrum inter malos angelos sit praelatio*) begins lower on p.166 (raw 12211) and carries **no footnote markers**; it folds into the new chunk `bon-sent-II-d6-a3-q1`, whose apparatus begins on p.167. No backfill either direction.
- **No `[?]` flags.** All 11 superscripts + the p.165 received-split (notes ⁵–⁶) + the p.166 footer (notes ¹–⁹) + the no-apparatus ART III opener verified on the crops.