title: Dist. 10, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 261 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum omnium Angelorum sit mitti.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum omnium Angelorum sit mitti. Et videtur, quod non.

*Fundamenta.* 1. Danielis septimo[^1]: *Millia millium ministrabant ei, et decies* etc.: ergo ibi fit distinctio inter ministrantes et assistentes: ergo non omnium est ministrare, ergo nec mitti.

2. Item, Dionysius in libro de Angelica Hierarchia[^2]: « Superna illa agmina ab intimis nunquam recedunt, quoniam ea quae praeeminent, usum exterioris officii nunquam habent ».

3. Item, ratione videtur. Plus distat actus ministrandi ab actu contemplandi, quam ministerium a ministerio — et hoc patet, quia penes primam differentiam fit distinctio hierarchiarum, penes secundam fit distinctio ordinum[^3] — si ergo secundum diversos ordines distincta sunt ministeria, ut unus ordo ministerium alterius ordinis non assumat, videtur, quod aliqui ordines Angelorum ita contemplationi assistant, quod ad ministeria complenda nec mittantur nec exeant.

4. Item, maior est ordinatio in hierarchia angelica, quam sit in ecclesiastica; sed in ecclesiastica ita sunt aliqui intenti contemplationi, quod non actioni: ergo multo fortius videtur in Ierusalem superna: ergo non omnium Angelorum est mitti.

*Ad oppositum.* Ad oppositum arguitur sic: 1. Primo auctoritate, ad Hebraeos primo[^4]: *Omnes sunt administratorii spiritus, in ministerium missi propter eos, qui haereditatem capiunt salutis.*

2. Item, Isaiae sexto[^5]: *Volavit ad me unus de Seraphim*: ergo aliquis de ordine Seraphim missus fuit ad Isaiam prophetam; sed constat, quod ordo Seraphim est ordo supremus: ergo si ille mittitur, videtur, quod omnes alii mittantur.

3. Item, ratione videtur. Tantum Deus dilexit salutem nostram, ut mitteret Filium et Spiritum sanctum[^6]; sed non fecit nisi quod decebat: ergo si missio ad nos non derogat Filio, videtur, quod non deroget alicui Angelo: ergo videtur omnibus competere.

4. Item, de hominibus assumuntur ad omnes ordines Angelorum[^7]: ergo si quilibet Angelus debet restaurationem sui ordinis procurare, et Deus debet ad hoc mittere, videtur, quod omnes Angeli aliquando ad nos mittantur.

5. Item, caritas Angelorum eminens facit, eos sollicitari circa nostram salutem, et per hoc ad nos venire divina iussione[^8]: si ergo in supremis ordinibus est maxima caritas, videtur, quod ipsi maxime nostram salutem procurent: ergo et eos maxime debet Deus ad nos mittere.

<!-- page 262 -->

6. Item, promptior est caritas ad adiuvandum, quam sit nequitia ad nocendum: ergo si ab Angelis, qui ceciderunt de omnibus ordinibus, impugnamur[^9], multo fortius videtur, quod ab Angelis persistentibus de singulis ordinibus adiuvemur: ergo si ad hoc mittuntur, ut nos adiuvent, patet etc.

### Conclusio

> Exteriore missione inferiores tantum Angeli ad nos mittuntur, sed interiore missione superiores ad inferiores mittuntur, et quidem propter nos.

**Respondeo:** Ad hoc dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Magister in littera[^10], diversae fuerunt opiniones propter diversas auctoritates, quae videntur in hac materia sibi contrariae. Unde quidam adhaerentes quibusdam et intelligentes eas ad litteram, alias vero exponentes, formaverunt sibi opiniones varias.

*Opinio 1.* Quidam enim dixerunt, quod soli Angeli ultimae hierarchiae ad nos mittuntur; et dicunt, hoc sensisse Dionysium, nec esse hoc contra Apostolum, quia illa distributio, quam facit Apostolus, intelligenda est esse accommoda[^11], cum dicit: *Omnes sunt administratorii* etc.; intelligitur enim de illis qui sunt de ultima hierarchia.

Sed quia ista expositio sensui et intentioni Apostoli non concordat — vult enim hic probare, quod Christus nobilior est omnibus Angelis, non tantum inferioribus, sed superioribus — *Opinio 2.* ideo est secunda opinio, quod omnium Angelorum est mitti, quae innititur illi auctoritati Apostoli. Et haec opinio dicit, verbum Apostoli non esse contrarium verbo Dionysii, qui[^12] dicit, superiora agmina non mitti, aut quia non ita frequenter mittuntur, aut quia non ex officio ita competit eis mitti, sicut Angelis hierarchiae inferioris.

Sed quia expositio ista verbi Dionysii videtur esse valde extranea, cum ipse dicat, quod « usum exterioris officii nunquam habent », et pro indubitanti credendum est, esse verum in hac parte tam verbum Apostoli quam verbum Dionysii; *Opinio 3.* ideo est tertius modus dicendi, per distinctionem utrumque verbum salvans et ad concordiam reducens et ex illis duobus expressam veritatem eliciens. Distingui enim oportet in missione. Est enim missio exterior, quae est ad nos; et est missio interior, quae est ad Angelos, sed propter nos. Si de missione exteriori loquamur; *Conclusio 1.* sic non competit omnibus Angelis, quia non competit superioribus agminibus, sicut dicit Dionysius, « quia ea quae praeeminent, usum exterioris officii nunquam habent »; in quo significat, quod intelligit de missione exteriori, quae est ad nos. Si autem intelligamus de missione interiori, quae est ad Angelos propter nos; *Conclusio 2.* sic mitti competit omnibus, quoniam superiores mittuntur ad medios, et medii ad infimos, dum revelando purgant et illuminant ea quae nobis expediunt; et hoc totum est propter nos; et ideo signanter dicit Apostolus: *Missi propter eos*; non inquit: *missi ad eos*. — Concedendae igitur sunt rationes ostendentes, quod non omnium est ad nos mitti.

*Solutio oppositorum.* 1. Et patet iam ex dictis responsio ad verbum Apostoli.

2. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur de sexto Isaiae, dicendum, quod Angelus missus ad eum non dicitur esse unus de Seraphim, quia esset de supremo ordine, sed quia mittebatur labia eius incendere; et haec responsio sumitur a Dionysio in libro de Angelica Hierarchia[^13].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod missio competit Filio, ergo cuilibet ordini angelico; dicendum, quod non valet. Missio enim aut est ad redimendum et ad salvandum, aut est ad ministrandum. Prima est tantae dignitatis, quod nulli alii potest competere nisi soli Deo; secunda vero non est tantae dignitatis, quod competat agmini supremo.

4. 5. 6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ordines Angelorum omnes restaurabuntur per homines; dicendum tam ad hoc quam ad duo sequentia, quod revera omnes Angeli sunt nobis in adiutorium, et omnes nos adiuvant vel mediate, vel immediate, sive in ministrandis revelationibus, sive in perferendis et offerendis nostris orationibus. Dum enim agmina suprema quae sunt nobis necessaria inferioribus agminibus revelant; et dum simul cum illis pro nobis ad Deum interpellant[^14] et petitiones nostras Deo exponunt, non ut Deum instruant, sed ut petitiones nostras igneis suis affectionibus Deo acceptas faciant, sicut advocati decoris orationibus aliorum causam defendunt et ornant: absque dubio nobis magnum auxilium praestant, et sic faciunt ad ordinum suorum reparationem, et nihilominus sequuntur caritatis sollicitudinem et efficacius nos adiuvant, quam alii impugnent[^15].

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether it belongs to all the Angels to be sent.*

Secondly it is asked whether it belongs to all the Angels to be sent. And it seems that it does not.

*The grounds.* 1. Daniel, chapter seven[^1]: *Thousands of thousands ministered to him, and ten times* etc.: therefore there a distinction is made between those who minister and those who stand by: therefore it does not belong to all to minister, therefore neither to be sent.

2. Likewise, Dionysius in the book *On the Angelic Hierarchy*[^2]: «Those upper hosts never withdraw from the innermost things, since those which are preeminent never have the use of an outward office».

3. Likewise, it seems [so] by reason. The act of ministering is farther distant from the act of contemplating than [one] ministry [is] from [another] ministry — and this is plain, because according to the first difference the distinction of hierarchies is made, [and] according to the second the distinction of orders is made[^3] — if, then, the ministries are distinguished according to the diverse orders, so that one order does not assume the ministry of another order, it seems that some orders of Angels so attend upon contemplation that they are neither sent nor go out to the completing of ministries.

4. Likewise, the ordering in the angelic hierarchy is greater than [the ordering] in the ecclesiastical [hierarchy]; but in the ecclesiastical [hierarchy] some are so intent on contemplation that [they are] not [intent] on action: therefore much more strongly does it seem [so] in the heavenly Jerusalem: therefore it does not belong to all the Angels to be sent.

*To the opposite.* To the opposite it is argued thus: 1. First, by authority, to the Hebrews, chapter one[^4]: *They are all ministering spirits, sent into ministry for the sake of those who receive the inheritance of salvation.*

2. Likewise, Isaiah, chapter six[^5]: *There flew to me one of the Seraphim*: therefore someone of the order of the Seraphim was sent to Isaiah the prophet; but it is established that the order of the Seraphim is the highest order: therefore, if that one is sent, it seems that all the others are sent.

3. Likewise, it seems [so] by reason. So greatly did God love our salvation that he sent the Son and the Holy Spirit[^6]; but he did nothing except what was fitting: therefore, if mission to us is no derogation to the Son, it seems that it is no derogation to any Angel: therefore it seems to befit all.

4. Likewise, from among men [some] are taken up into all the orders of the Angels[^7]: therefore, if every Angel ought to procure the restoration of his own order, and God ought to send [him] for this, it seems that all the Angels are at some time sent to us.

5. Likewise, the eminent charity of the Angels makes them be solicitous about our salvation, and through this come to us by divine command[^8]: if, then, in the highest orders there is the greatest charity, it seems that they most of all procure our salvation: therefore God ought most of all to send them to us.

<!-- page 262 -->

6. Likewise, charity is readier to help than wickedness is to harm: therefore, if we are assailed by the Angels who fell from all the orders[^9], much more strongly does it seem that we are helped by the Angels persisting [in good] from the individual orders: therefore, if they are sent for this, that they may help us, the point is clear, etc.

### Conclusion

> By exterior mission only the lower Angels are sent to us; but by interior mission the higher are sent to the lower, and indeed for our sake.

**I respond:** To this it must be said that, as the Master says in the text[^10], there were diverse opinions on account of the diverse authorities, which seem in this matter to be contrary to one another. Hence some, adhering to certain [authorities] and understanding them according to the letter, but expounding the others, formed for themselves various opinions.

*Opinion 1.* For some said that only the Angels of the lowest hierarchy are sent to us; and they say that Dionysius held this, and that this is not against the Apostle, because that distribution which the Apostle makes is to be understood as being accommodated[^11], when he says: *They are all ministering* etc.; for it is understood of those who are of the lowest hierarchy.

But because this exposition does not accord with the sense and intention of the Apostle — for he wishes here to prove that Christ is nobler than all the Angels, not only the lower but the higher — *Opinion 2.* therefore there is a second opinion, that it belongs to all the Angels to be sent, which relies on that authority of the Apostle. And this opinion says that the word of the Apostle is not contrary to the word of Dionysius, who[^12] says that the upper hosts are not sent — either because they are not sent so frequently, or because it does not befit them by office to be sent in the way it does the Angels of the lower hierarchy.

But because this exposition of the word of Dionysius seems to be quite far-fetched — since he himself says that «they never have the use of an outward office» — and since it must be believed as beyond doubt that in this matter both the word of the Apostle and the word of Dionysius are true, *Opinion 3.* therefore there is a third manner of speaking, which by a distinction saves both words and brings [them] back to concord and draws out from the two the express truth. For a distinction must be made in mission. For there is exterior mission, which is to us; and there is interior mission, which is to the Angels, but for our sake. If we speak of exterior mission, *Conclusion 1.* then it does not befit all the Angels, because it does not befit the upper hosts, as Dionysius says, «because those which are preeminent never have the use of an outward office»; in which he signifies that he understands [it] of exterior mission, which is to us. But if we understand [it] of interior mission, which is to the Angels for our sake, *Conclusion 2.* then to be sent befits all, since the higher are sent to the middle, and the middle to the lowest, while by revealing they purge and illuminate the things which are expedient for us; and all this is for our sake; and therefore the Apostle pointedly says: *Sent for the sake of those*; he does not say: *sent to those*. — Therefore the arguments showing that it does not belong to all to be sent to us are to be conceded.

*The solution of the opposing arguments.* 1. And the reply to the word of the Apostle is now plain from what has been said.

2. But to that which is objected from the sixth [chapter] of Isaiah, it must be said that the Angel sent to him is not called one of the Seraphim because he was of the highest order, but because he was being sent to kindle his lips; and this reply is taken from Dionysius in the book *On the Angelic Hierarchy*[^13].

3. To that which is objected — that mission befits the Son, therefore [it befits] any angelic order — it must be said that it does not hold. For mission is either for redeeming and for saving, or it is for ministering. The first is of such great dignity that it can befit no other than God alone; but the second is not of such great dignity that it should befit the highest host.

4, 5, 6. To that which is objected — that all the orders of the Angels will be restored through men — it must be said, both to this and to the two following [arguments], that in truth all the Angels are for our help, and all help us either mediately or immediately, whether in ministering revelations or in conveying and offering our prayers. For while the upper hosts reveal to the lower hosts the things which are necessary for us, and while together with them they intercede for us before God[^14] and lay out our petitions to God — not that they may instruct God, but that they may make our petitions, by their fiery affections, acceptable to God, just as advocates by becoming speeches defend and adorn the cause of others — without doubt they furnish us great aid, and so they work toward the restoration of their own orders, and nonetheless they follow the solicitude of charity and more efficaciously help us than the others assail [us][^15].

---

la: Vers. 10. — In codd. et primis edd. deest *videtur*.

en: [Daniel ch. 7,] v. 10. — In the codices and the first editions the word *videtur* is absent.

la: Vide de hoc textu supra pag. 258, nota 2. Cfr. tamen Dionys., de Caelest. Hierarch. c. 6. § 2. et c. 5, ubi exponit, quo modo supremi ordines a theologis vocantur angeli; in cuius expositione Hugo de S. Vict. ait, illos vocari Angelos « in eo quod, licet ad exteriora nuntianda non exeant, tamen eis qui post se sequuntur ordinibus divinam illuminationem ... manifestant ».

en: On this text see above, p. 258, note 2. Cf. nonetheless Dionysius, *On the Celestial Hierarchy* c. 6, § 2, and c. 5, where he sets out in what manner the highest orders are called angels by the theologians; in expounding which Hugh of St. Victor says that they are called Angels «in this, that, although they do not go out to announce outward things, they nonetheless manifest the divine illumination ... to the orders which follow after them».

la: Cfr. d. 9. in praenotatis.

en: Cf. d. 9, in the prefatory notes.

la: Vers. 14.

en: [Hebrews ch. 1,] v. 14.

la: Vers. 6.

en: [Isaiah ch. 6,] v. 6.

la: Vide supra d. 9. q. 5.

en: See above, d. 9, q. 5.

la: Codd. F M U V *missione*.

en: Codices F, M, U, V read *missione* (*by mission*) [for *iussione*].

la: Hic c. 1. — Paulo inferius non pauci codd. *contrarie* pro *contrariae*. Dein Vat. *alii* pro *alias*.

en: Here, c. 1. — A little below, not a few codices [read] *contrarie* for *contrariae*. Then the Vatican edition [reads] *alii* for *alias*.

la: Vide tom. 1. pag. 517, nota 3.

en: See volume 1, p. 517, note 3.

la: Plurimi codd., exceptis codd. F cc et ed. 1, *quia*. Mox post *non mitti* cod. cc et ed. 1 subiungunt *hoc enim dicit*.

en: Most codices, except codices F, cc, and edition 1, [read] *quia* [for *qui*]. Soon after *non mitti* codex cc and edition 1 add *hoc enim dicit*.

la: Cap. 13. § 2. seq., ubi affert duas rationes, quare ille Angelus, qui fuit de infima hierarchia, vocetur Seraph, scil. propter effectum in Isaia producendum, « propter igneam et caelestem dictorum ablutionem peccatorum et purgationem in divinam obedientiam resuscitationum », vel propter exsecutionem mandati, quod acceperat ab Angelo supremae hierarchiae Seraphim, « quia propriam purgativam sacrificationem magnus ille qui tunc erat, visionem formans Angelus in docendum divina theologum, in Deum et post Deum in praeoperatricem hierarchiam reposuit ». Has autem rationes recitat Magister, hic in lit. c. 2.

en: [*On the Celestial Hierarchy*] c. 13, § 2 and following, where he brings forward two reasons why that Angel, who was of the lowest hierarchy, is called a Seraph: namely, on account of the effect to be produced in Isaiah — «on account of the fiery and heavenly washing-away of the sins of [his] utterances and [their] purgation unto resuscitations into divine obedience» — or on account of the carrying-out of a command which he had received from an Angel of the highest hierarchy, the Seraphim — «because that great one who then was — an Angel forming a vision for the teaching of the theologian in divine matters — referred his own purgative sanctification to God, and after God to the hierarchy that operates beforehand». And these reasons the Master recounts here, in the text, c. 2.

la: Alluditur ad Rom. 8, 34. et Hebr. 7, 25, ubi de Christo dicitur, quod interpellet pro nobis, et in seqq. ad I. Ioan. 2, 1, ubi asseritur, quod advocatum habemus apud Patrem, Iesum Christum.

en: Allusion is made to Romans 8, 34, and Hebrews 7, 25, where it is said of Christ that he intercedes for us; and, in what follows, to I John 2, 1, where it is asserted that we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion on the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
- Two printed pages (pp.261–262 = PDF 283–284). Two-column. Built from IA djvu OCR base over 450 dpi PDF column-band crops.
- Structure: 4 *Fundamenta* arguments (not all are sent) + 6 *Ad oppositum* arguments (all are sent) + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (the Master's three-opinion survey: opinio 1 = only the lowest hierarchy; opinio 2 = all the Angels; opinio 3 = the Bonaventurean distinction — *missio exterior* to us vs *missio interior* to the Angels for our sake) + Solutio oppositorum 1 / 2 / 3 / 4-5-6 (combined).
- No own SCHOLION — closing footnote [^15] (= p.262 footer ⁷, `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`) redirects to `d10-a1-q1`'s SCHOLION II, which treats this question explicitly (`Circa sequentem quaestionem...`). `has_scholion: false`.
- **Apparatus crosswalk.** p.261 footer block runs ¹–⁹; note ¹ (`Dist. 2. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.`) belongs to `d10-a1-q1`, so this chunk's [^1]–[^8] = p.261 footer ²–⁹. p.262 footer ¹–⁷ = [^9]–[^15].
- Boundary: incoming from `d10-a1-q1` CLEAN (QUAESTIO II opens on p.261 below q1's SCHOLION III). Outgoing CLEAN — the Solutio closes p.262; `ARTICULUS II. — Ad quid boni Angeli mittantur.` opens on p.263 and belongs to `bon-sent-II-d10-a2-q1`.
- OCR garbles cleaned silently: `videlur`→videtur, `ministralare`→ministrare, `prituam`→primam, `secnndum`→secundum, `uiversos`→diversos, `rontemplationi`→contemplationi, `conloinplationi`→contemplationi, `rnulto iortius`→multo fortius, `aclministralorii`→administratorii, `haereciitalem`→haereditatem, `rcUione`→ratione, `conipetere`→competere, `assunmntur`→assumuntur, `Angelornm`→Angelorum, `iortius`→fortius, `coiitrariae`→contrariae, `aiictoritates`→auctoritates, `iutelligenda`→intelligenda, `othcii`→officii, `exterioin`→exteriori, `interpeUant`→interpellant, `impngnent`→impugnent, `affectioiiibus`→affectionibus.
- The [^13] note quotes a notoriously dense Dionysian passage (*Celestial Hierarchy* c.13 on the Seraph who purified Isaiah's lips); the bracketed `« »` Latin renderings are translated as literally as the OCR + 450 dpi crop allow.
- No `[?]` flags.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 263 -->

### Articulus II. *Ad quid boni Angeli mittantur.*

Consequenter quaeritur de secundo articulo, scilicet ad quid mittuntur. Et est prima quaestio, utrum mittantur ad accendendum nostrum affectum. Secundo, utrum mittantur ad illuminandum intellectum.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum Angeli mittantur ad inflammandum affectum.*

Circa primum sic proceditur. Et quod mittantur ad inflammandum affectum, videtur.

*Ad oppositum.* 1. Angelus, qui missus est ad Isaiam, sicut dicit Dionysius[^1], dicitur esse unus de Seraphim, quia missus est ad incendendum et inflammandum: sed inflammatio respicit affectum: ergo etc.

2. Item, actus hierarchiarum, sicut vult Dionysius, de Angelica Hierarchia[^2], sunt « illuminare, purgare, perficere »: ergo si purgatio respicit remotionem sordium, et sordidatio respicit affectum quantum ad concupiscentiae vitium; videtur e contrario, quod Angelus mittatur ad inflammandum affectum per amorem sanctum et mundum.

3. Item, hoc videtur *ratione*. Bonum, secundum quod bonum, est diffusivum sui[^3]; sed Angelus beatus est perfecte bonus: ergo potest bonitatem diffundere. Sed bonum ut bonum respicit affectum: ergo videtur, quod cum affectus noster secundum susceptionem bonitatis habeat perfici et inflammari, quod ad hoc possit et debeat Angelus mitti, ut nostrum affectum inflammet et perficiat.

4. Item, nos videmus in naturalibus, quod illud quod est inflammatum, dum alteri rei inflammabili approximat, ipsam inflammat: ergo si affectus angelicus est igne divini amoris inflammatus et repletus, et in sua missione nobis approximat, ergo affectus nostros inflammat.

Ad oppositum arguitur ita: *Fundamenta.* 1. Secundum affectum nostrum potissime consistit arbitrii libertas; sed nihil nisi solus Deus potest super liberum arbitrium, cum sit sub Deo potentissimum[^4]: ergo nulla creatura, quantumcumque nobilis et perfecta, potest inflammare vel perficere affectum nostrum.

2. Item, secundum affectum nostrum maxime consistit iustitia et aequitas — « iustitia enim est rectitudo voluntatis propter se servata », ut dicit Anselmus[^5] — sed solius summae iustitiae est voluntatem nostram rectificare: ergo eius solius est affectum inflammare.

3. Item, secundum rectam inflammationem affectus consistit caritas: ergo si caritas vel est Spiritus sanctus, vel immediate a Spiritu sancto[^6], inflammatio affectus nostri non potest esse ab aliquo alio.

4. Item, secundum affectum nostrum maxime consistit animae nostrae deiformitas[^7]: si ergo solius Dei est deiformem efficere, solius Dei est in affectum nostrum influere: ergo illud non spectat ad ministerium Angelorum.

### Conclusio

> Angeli boni affectum nostrum inflammant, non principaliter efficiendo, sed excitando et adiuvando.

**Respondeo:** *Distinctio.* Ad praedictorum intelligentiam notandum est, quod affectum nostrum inflammari ab aliquo dupliciter potest intelligi: aut ita, quod inflammetur ab aliquo sicut a *principali agente et efficiente*, aut sicut ab *excitante et adiuvante*. Et secundum istum duplicem modum intelligendi dupliciter intellexerunt aliqui affectum nostrum ab Angelis inflammari et perfici; sed primus intellectus est haereticus, secundus vero catholicus.

*Opinio haeretica.* Primum intellectum habuerunt aliqui philosophorum[^8]. Posuerunt enim, quod intelligentia esset animae instrumentum, et quod intelligentia influeret super animam, sicut influit agens super instrumentum; unde dixerunt, quod anima triplicem habet

<!-- page 264 -->

operationem: *animalem, intellectualem et divinam*. Animalem ex se ipsa, intellectualem ex influentia angelica, sed divinam ex influentia divina. — *Improbatur.* Sed ista positio est contra veritatem catholicam et piam. Qui enim hoc posuerunt, non intellexerunt arbitrii libertatem neque animae dignitatem neque beatitudinis sublimitatem; quae si intellexissent, sicut beatus Augustinus[^9], egregius doctor, posuit, animam immediate a Deo compleri et moveri et beatificari dixissent, ut beatus Augustinus. Unde beatus Augustinus ubicumque de mente loquitur, istum errorem exstirpat, ostendens, quod ita immediate anima secundum mentem unitur Deo, sicut et mens angelica.

*Conclusio.* Si autem intelligatur secundo modo, sic habet veritatem; et hoc modo intellexit beatus Dionysius in libro de Angelica Hierarchia, et per hunc etiam modum ab Angelo dicitur Propheta fuisse incensus.

*Solutio oppositorum.* 1. 2. Et per hoc patet responsio ad duo prima.

3. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod bonum est diffusivum sui: dicendum, quod diffusio dupliciter potest esse a bono: aut per modum *multiplicationis*, sicut calor vel lumen dicitur se diffundere; aut per modum *utilis operationis*, per quem modum dicitur bonus homo bonitatem suam diffundere, dum ad hoc operatur et laborat, ut alii bonitatem non ab ipso, sed a Deo suscipiant. Et per hunc modum intelligenda est diffusio in bonitate vel caritate angelica.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod inflammatum coniunctum inflammabili inflammat; dicendum, quod verum est, quando illa inflammatio est per eductionem alicuius de materia; ibi enim quod est in actu potest educere aliquid, quod est in potentia. Quando vero aliquid habet inflammari per caloris infusionem, non habet veritatem, quia hoc modo non inflammatur aliquid nisi per coniunctionem sui cum principio caloris, quod calorem natum est infundere. Et per hunc modum est inflammari in spiritualibus[^10], ubi flamma est amor divinus, non ex ipsa anima productus, sed potius a Deo infusus; et ideo hunc calorem non potest in nobis angelicus spiritus efficere, quamquam aliquo modo ad eius susceptionem possit nos excitare.

english:
### Article II. *To what end the good Angels are sent.*

Next there is inquiry concerning the second article, namely, to what end they are sent. And the first question is whether they are sent to kindle our affection. Secondly, whether they are sent to illuminate the intellect.

### Question I. *Whether the Angels are sent to inflame the affection.*

Concerning the first one proceeds thus. And that they are sent to inflame the affection, [thus] it seems.

*To the opposite.* 1. The Angel who was sent to Isaiah, as Dionysius says[^1], is said to be one of the Seraphim, because he was sent to set on fire and to inflame: but inflaming regards the affection: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the acts of the hierarchies, as Dionysius wishes, *On the Angelic Hierarchy*[^2], are «to illuminate, to purge, to perfect»: therefore, if purging regards the removal of filth, and defilement regards the affection as to the vice of concupiscence, it seems on the contrary that an Angel is sent to inflame the affection through holy and pure love.

3. Likewise, this seems [so] *by reason*. The good, insofar as [it is] good, is diffusive of itself[^3]; but a blessed Angel is perfectly good: therefore he can diffuse goodness. But the good as good regards the affection: therefore it seems that, since our affection is to be perfected and inflamed according to the reception of goodness, an Angel can and ought to be sent for this, that he may inflame and perfect our affection.

4. Likewise, we see in natural things that that which is inflamed, when it draws near to another inflammable thing, inflames it: therefore, if the angelic affection is inflamed and filled with the fire of divine love, and in his mission draws near to us, then he inflames our affections.

To the opposite it is argued thus: *The grounds.* 1. The freedom of choice consists especially in our affection; but nothing except God alone has power over free choice, since it is most powerful under God[^4]: therefore no creature, however noble and perfect, can inflame or perfect our affection.

2. Likewise, justice and equity consist especially in our affection — «for justice is rectitude of will preserved for its own sake», as Anselm says[^5] — but it belongs to the highest justice alone to rectify our will: therefore it belongs to it alone to inflame the affection.

3. Likewise, charity consists according to the right inflaming of the affection: therefore, if charity either is the Holy Spirit, or [is] immediately from the Holy Spirit[^6], the inflaming of our affection cannot be from any other.

4. Likewise, the deiformity of our soul consists especially according to our affection[^7]: if, then, it belongs to God alone to make [a thing] deiform, it belongs to God alone to flow into our affection: therefore that does not pertain to the ministry of the Angels.

### Conclusion

> The good Angels inflame our affection, not by effecting [it] principally, but by stirring [it] up and helping.

**I respond:** *A distinction.* For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that the inflaming of our affection by something can be understood in two ways: either thus, that it be inflamed by something as by a *principal agent and efficient [cause]*, or as by something that *stirs up and helps*. And according to this twofold mode of understanding, some understood in two ways our affection to be inflamed and perfected by the Angels; but the first understanding is heretical, the second indeed catholic.

*A heretical opinion.* The first understanding certain philosophers held[^8]. For they posited that the intelligence was the soul's instrument, and that the intelligence flowed into the soul as an agent flows into an instrument; whence they said that the soul has a threefold

<!-- page 264 -->

operation: an *animal*, an *intellectual*, and a *divine* [operation]. The animal [operation] from itself, the intellectual from angelic influence, but the divine from divine influence. — *It is disproved.* But this position is against the catholic and pious truth. For those who posited this did not understand the freedom of choice, nor the dignity of the soul, nor the sublimity of beatitude; which if they had understood, they would have said — as blessed Augustine[^9], the excellent doctor, posited — that the soul is completed and moved and beatified immediately by God, as blessed Augustine [held]. Hence blessed Augustine, wherever he speaks of the mind, roots out that error, showing that the soul, according to the mind, is so immediately united to God, just as the angelic mind also [is].

*Conclusion.* But if it be understood in the second way, then it has truth; and in this way blessed Dionysius understood [it] in the book *On the Angelic Hierarchy*, and in this manner too the Prophet is said to have been set on fire by an Angel.

*The solution of the opposing arguments.* 1, 2. And by this the reply to the first two [arguments] is plain.

3. But to that which is objected — that the good is diffusive of itself — it must be said that diffusion can be from the good in two ways: either by way of *multiplication*, as heat or light is said to diffuse itself; or by way of *useful operation*, in which manner a good man is said to diffuse his goodness, while he works and labors to this end, that others may receive goodness — not from him, but from God. And in this manner is to be understood the diffusion in angelic goodness or charity.

4. To that which is objected — that the inflamed [thing], joined to an inflammable [thing], inflames [it] — it must be said that this is true when that inflaming is by the eduction of something from matter; for there what is in act can educe something which is in potency. But when something is to be inflamed by the infusion of heat, it does not hold true, because in this manner a thing is not inflamed except by the joining of itself with the principle of heat, which is fitted by nature to infuse the heat. And in this manner is the inflaming in spiritual things[^10], where the flame is divine love, not produced from the soul itself, but rather infused by God; and therefore this heat the angelic spirit cannot effect in us, although in some way it can stir us up to the reception of it.

la: De Caelest. Hierarch. c. 13. § 2. Cfr. supra pag. 262, nota 5.

en: [Dionysius,] *On the Celestial Hierarchy* c. 13, § 2. Cf. above, p. 262, note 5.

la: Cap. 3. § 2. Cfr. infra q. 2. in fine.

en: [*On the Celestial Hierarchy*] c. 3, § 2. Cf. below, q. 2, at the end.

la: Cfr. Dionys., de Caelest. Hierarch. c. 4. § 1. et de Div. Nom. c. 4. § 1. seq. — Quod bonum respiciat affectum, vide tom. 1. pag. 800, nota 3.

en: Cf. Dionysius, *On the Celestial Hierarchy* c. 4, § 1, and *On the Divine Names* c. 4, § 1 ff. — That the good regards the affection, see volume 1, p. 800, note 3.

la: Secundum Bernardum. Cfr. supra pag. 115, nota 6. — Plures codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 *potissimum*.

en: According to Bernard. Cf. above, p. 115, note 6. — Several codices, with editions 1, 2, 3, [read] *potissimum* [for *potentissimum*].

la: Dialog. de Veritate, c. 12.

en: [Anselm,] *Dialogue on Truth*, c. 12.

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 17. p. 1. q. 1. et infra d. 26. a. 1. q. 2. — Non pauci codd. omittunt *a Spiritu sancto*, et dein substituunt *potest* pro *non potest*; perperam.

en: Cf. [book] I of the Sentences, d. 17, part 1, q. 1, and below, d. 26, a. 1, q. 2. — Not a few codices omit *a Spiritu sancto*, and then substitute *potest* for *non potest*; wrongly.

la: Vide infra d. 16. a. 2. q. 3.

en: See below, d. 16, a. 2, q. 3.

la: Praesertim Neoplatonici, inter quos eminet Proclus. Quod Proclus diffusius docet (Element. theol. et phys. prop. 201.) brevius in libro de Causis, prop. 3. sic exhibetur: *Omnis anima nobilis tres habet operationes. Nam ex operationibus eius est operatio animalis et operatio intelligibilis et operatio divina. Operatio autem divina est, quoniam ipsa praeparat naturam cum virtute, quae est in ipsa a causa prima; eius autem operatio intelligibilis est, quoniam ipsa scit res per virtutem intelligentiae, quae est in ipsa; operatio autem eius animalis est, quoniam ipsa movet primum corpus et omnia corpora naturalia; quoniam ipsa est causa motus corporum et causa operationis naturae* etc. Cfr. etiam prop. 9.

en: Especially the Neoplatonists, among whom Proclus is eminent. What Proclus teaches more at length (*Elements of Theology and Physics*, prop. 201) is set forth more briefly in the book *On Causes*, prop. 3, thus: *Every noble soul has three operations. For among its operations is the animal operation and the intelligible operation and the divine operation. The divine operation is so [called] because [the soul] itself prepares nature with the power which is in it from the first cause; its intelligible operation is so [called] because it itself knows things through the power of intelligence which is in it; its animal operation is so [called] because it itself moves the first body and all natural bodies — since it is the cause of the motion of bodies and the cause of the operation of nature* etc. Cf. also prop. 9.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 43, nota 3. et pag. 226, nota 3.

en: Cf. above, p. 43, note 3, and p. 226, note 3.

la: Plures codd. *spiritibus*.

en: Several codices [read] *spiritibus* (*in spirits*) [for *spiritualibus*]. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Eadem principia, quae in hac et seq. quaest. applicantur quoad Angelos bonos, supra d. 8. p. II. q. 1. 5. respectu daemonum posita sunt; quae ab aliis Commentatoribus Lombardi adhibentur, ut explicent actus hierarchicos, quibus Angeli superiores purgant, illuminant et perficiunt inferiores (cfr. ibi scholion n. II.). De duabus his quaestionibus alii antiqui doctores explicite non tractant praeter B. Albert., S. p. II. tr. 9. q. 34. m. 4. 5; Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 5. 6; Richard. a Med., (de q. 2.) hic a. 2. q. 2; Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

**II.** Quoad 1. quaestionem iuvat ex Petro a Tar. (loc. cit. a. 5.) haec transcribere: « Affectum nostrum incendi vel inflammari tripliciter potest intelligi: vel *efficiendo*, sic solus Deus potest inflammare affectum; vel *movendo*, sicut obiectum movet potentiam...; vel *excitando*, sicut qui offert speciem rei desiderabilis inflammat affectum. Hoc autem ultimo modo Angelus potest inflammare vel incendere affectum nostrum. Primo modo ignis incendit lignum; secundo modo lignum incendit ignem; tertio modo qui lignum suggerit igni accendit ». Quoad 2. quaestionem, quae est non exigui momenti, idem Petrus (a. 6.) docet, tria requiri, ut intellectus noster aliquid, maxime aliud a se, cognoscat, scil. « *species*, qua cognoscatur, et *lumen*, in quo cognoscatur, et *intentio*, qua convertit se intellectus super speciem. Angelus non potest in intellectu novam speciem producere, sed nec habitum *novi luminis*, sed nec eius intentionem quo vult convertere. Unde... illuminat tantum *excitando et disponendo*. Facit enim in phantasia *transmutationem specierum*, componendo et dividendo secundum exigentiam rei, quam vult revelare; irradiat etiam *lumen intellectus agentis sui* super illas, ut moveant intellectum, et sic operatur quasi lumen intellectus nostri agentis augendo, et sic plura et subtiliora videri possunt in lumine duplicato; et *excitat* etiam aliquo nutu *intentionem* animae, ut se convertat super illa phantasmata abstrahendo; et sic dicitur animam purgare, illuminare, perficere ». — Notandum, quantum urgeat S. Bonav., quod sacrarium mentis nostrae non dependeat nisi a Deo.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The same principles which in this question and the following are applied with respect to the good Angels were set down above, d. 8, part II, q. 1, 5, with respect to the demons; which [principles] are employed by the other Commentators of Lombard to explain the hierarchical acts by which the higher Angels purge, illuminate, and perfect the lower (cf. the scholion there, n. II). On these two questions the other ancient doctors do not treat explicitly, except B. Albert, *Summa* part II, tr. 9, q. 34, m. 4, 5; Peter of Tarentaise, here, the sole question, a. 5, 6; Richard of Middleton (on q. 2), here, a. 2, q. 2; Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. 1.

**II.** As to the first question, it is helpful to transcribe these [words] from Peter of Tarentaise (in the place cited, a. 5): «That our affection is set on fire or inflamed can be understood in three ways: either *by effecting* — thus God alone can inflame the affection; or *by moving*, as an object moves a power...; or *by stirring up*, as one who presents the appearance of a desirable thing inflames the affection. And in this last way an Angel can inflame or set on fire our affection. In the first way fire sets wood on fire; in the second way wood sets fire on fire; in the third way one who supplies the wood kindles the fire». As to the second question, which is of no small moment, the same Peter (a. 6) teaches that three things are required for our intellect to know something, especially something other than itself, namely «a *species* by which it may be known, and a *light* in which it may be known, and an *intention* by which the intellect turns itself upon the species. An Angel cannot produce a new species in the intellect, nor [produce] the habit of a *new light*, nor turn its intention whither he will. Hence... he illuminates only *by stirring up and disposing*. For he makes in the imagination a *transmutation of the species*, by composing and dividing according to the requirement of the thing which he wishes to reveal; he also irradiates *the light of his own agent intellect* upon them, that they may move the intellect, and so he operates as it were by augmenting the light of our agent intellect, and so more and subtler things can be seen in the doubled light; and he also *stirs up* by some prompting the *intention* of the soul, that it may turn itself upon those phantasms by abstracting; and so he is said to purge, illuminate, [and] perfect the soul». — It is to be noted how greatly S. Bonaventure insists that the sanctuary of our mind depends on none but God.

---

translators_notes:
- Two printed pages (pp.263–264 = PDF 285–286). Two-column. Built from IA djvu OCR base over 450 dpi PDF column-band crops.
- ARTICULUS II (`Ad quid boni Angeli mittantur`) header + the `Consequenter quaeritur de secundo articulo` opener fold into this chunk per locked Vol II convention.
- Structure: 4 *Ad oppositum* arguments (Angels are sent to inflame — Isaiah's Seraph, hierarchical acts, the good is self-diffusive, the inflamed inflames) + 4 *Fundamenta* arguments (only God can — free choice, justice, charity, deiformity) + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (the *Distinctio*: inflaming as *principal efficient* — the heretical philosophers' view, *improbatur* — vs as *exciter/helper* — the catholic, Dionysian view) + Solutio oppositorum 1-2 / 3 / 4 + 2-paragraph SCHOLION (I–II, the latter transcribing Peter of Tarentaise on the threefold inflaming and on angelic illumination).
- **Apparatus crosswalk.** p.263 footer ¹–⁸ = [^1]–[^8]. p.264 footer ¹–² = [^9]–[^10]; p.264 footer ³ (`Cap. 13. § 3...`) anchors the body of `d10-a2-q2` (which opens lower on p.264) and is reserved for that chunk. The SCHOLION is set full-width and carries no footnote markers (its citations are inline).
- Boundary: incoming from `d10-a1-q2` CLEAN (ARTICULUS II opens at the head of p.263). Outgoing CLEAN — SCHOLION II closes p.264 with `...non dependeat nisi a Deo`; `QUAESTIO II. — Utrum Angeli mittantur ad illuminandum nostrum intellectum.` opens immediately below and belongs to `bon-sent-II-d10-a2-q2`.
- OCR garbles cleaned silently: `miUfxntur`→mittuntur, `cendendum`→accendendum, `inflammandiim`→inflammandum, `affeclum`→affectum, `Serapliim`→Seraphim, `nilhiminare`→illuminare, `conlrario`→contrario, `inflammalus`→inflammatus, `potentissinumi`→potentissimum, `inflaramalionera`→inflammationem, `deiformitas`→deiformitas, `inlelligentiam`→intelligentiam, `effwiente`→efficiente, `intelleclus`→intellectus, `intlammari`→inflammari, `araor`→amor, `transmiitationem`→transmutationem.
- No `[?]` flags.

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. 10, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 264 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum Angeli mittantur ad illuminandum nostrum intellectum.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum Angelus mittatur ad illuminandum nostrum intellectum. Et quod sic, videtur.

*Ad oppositum.* 1. Ita dicit Dionysius in libro de Angelica Hierarchia[^1]: « Ordinatio congruae dilucidationis claritatem primo apparentem ut in copiosis effusionibus excellentissimis manifestat essentiis, et per eas, quae post sunt essentiae, divinum participant radium ». Ex hac littera manifeste colligitur, quod Deus nos illuminat mediantibus Angelis.

<!-- page 265 -->

2. Item, in libro de Motu cordis[^2] ita definitur anima: « Anima est substantia incorporea, intellectualis, earum illuminationum, quae sunt a primo, ultima relatione perceptiva ». Ergo inter relationem animae ad Deum, cum percipit illuminationem, cadit alia relatio media; sed haec non est nisi relatio substantiae angelicae: ergo videtur, quod anima illuminetur a Deo, mediante Angelo.

3. Item, Angeli sunt lumina spiritualia[^3]; sed quia intellectus noster agens lumen est, dum se convertit super phantasmata, abstrahit et depurat et hoc modo illuminat: ergo si angelicus intellectus multo magis in actu est quam noster, ergo multo magis intellectum nostrum possibilem illuminare potest.

4. Item, planum est, quod Angeli multa nobis revelant spiritualia, quae non sunt nata cadere et recipi nec in sensu nec in imaginatione: ergo videtur, quod immediate possint intellectui nostro similitudines imprimere; sed talis impressio non potest esse sine illuminatione: ergo etc.

5. Item, Angelus dicitur purgare, illuminare et perficere[^4]: ergo si hoc solum conveniret ei per modum excitantis, cum similiter unus homo excitet alterum, videtur, quod homo diceretur illuminare, purgare et perficere. Quodsi homo non dicitur esse purgator nec illuminator, sicut Angelus, videtur, quod Angelus possit animam a superiori illuminare.

6. Item, multo plus potest Angelus beatus quam diabolus; sed daemon potest in nobis varias cogitationes excitare et ab inferiori suggerere: ergo videtur, quod Angelus illuminatus per gloriam, cum sit anima nostra superior et luminosior, ipsam possit a superiori illuminare.

Ad oppositum: *Fundamenta.* 1. Augustinus in libro Octoginta trium Quaestionum[^5]: « Mentem dicimus, quae ita ad imaginem Dei facta est, ut immediate a prima veritate formetur »; et in pluribus locis dicit, quod « inter mentem et Deum nihil cadit medium »: ergo si intelligentia nostra attenditur secundum animae supremum, videtur, quod non possit illuminari ab Angelo.

2. Item, super illud Psalmi[^6]: *Manus tuae, Domine, fecerunt me et plasmaverunt me* etc., dicit Glossa: « Deus per semetipsum irradiat pias mentes »: ergo non videtur, quod per angelicum ministerium.

3. Item, facilius est producere formas corporales, quam sit dare illuminationes spirituales; sed Angelus formam naturalem non potest producere tanquam principale agens, sed solum exterius disponere[^7]: ergo multo fortius nec illuminationem spiritualem potest animae dare.

4. Item, si Angelus illuminat animam, aut illuminat immittendo ei lumen *proprium*, aut creando *novum*. Si immittendo lumen *proprium*, cum lumen suum non sit extra ipsum: ergo Angelus illabitur animae; quod est solius Dei proprium[^8]. Si dando *novum*, aut producendo ex *aliquo*, aut de *nihilo*. Si ex *aliquo*, quaero, ex quo? Quod cum non sit dare, sequitur, quod Angelus producat ex *nihilo*, et ita, quod sit creator.

5. Item, si Angelus illuminat animam, aut *per medium*, aut *sine medio*. Si *per medium*, quaero, quid sit illud medium deferens spiritualem illuminationem; et cum deferens spiritualem illuminationem non possit esse nisi spiritus, inter animam illuminatam et Angelum illuminantem est ponere *medium*[^9]. Et iterum quaeritur de illo, sicut de primo: ergo vel erit abire in infinitum, vel non est ponere *medium*. Si *immediate* illuminat ipsam animam, ergo videtur, quod sit in ipsa anima, et ita quod illabatur animae.

6. Item, ita immediate nata est ferri in Deum intelligentia, ut voluntas: ergo si Angelus non potest voluntatem rectificare[^10], non poterit intelligentiam illuminare.

*Quaestio incidens.* Iuxta hoc quaeritur, penes quid accipiantur isti tres actus, videlicet illuminare, purgare et perficere.

### Conclusio

> Angelus inferiorem animae portionem potest illuminare, non lumen infundendo nec tantum offerendo sicut obiectum vel speculum, sed etiam vivaciter excitando.

**Respondeo:** *Conclusio 1.* Dicendum, quod animam quoad superiorem portionem rationis illuminare solius Dei est proprium, sicut in pluribus locis ostendit Augustinus; *Opinio 1.* quamvis aliqui[^11], non intelligentes totius veritatis principium, posuerint aliud, videlicet intellectum nostrum non pervenire ad lumen primum, sed perfici et illuminari a primo lumine per lumen

<!-- page 266 -->

intelligentiae medium. — *Improbatur.* Sed hoc est simpliciter tanquam erroneum respuendum, cum in multis locis beatus Augustinus ostendat contrarium, et etiam sacra Scriptura hoc dicat, sicut Ioannis primo[^12] dicitur: *Erat lux vera, quae illuminat* etc., quae quidem non est lux creaturae, sed lux divinae sapientiae et veritatis aeternae. In qua haec animadvertenda sunt, quod *est*, quod *intelligit* et quod *cetera intelligere facit*, sicut videmus in isto sole materiali respectu sensibilium[^13]. Et huius potissimum *Notandum.* signum fuit, quod intellectus noster in aspectu summi luminis natus est beatificari nec unquam aliquo potest esse contentus, quousque perducatur ad illius clarum aspectum.

Animam igitur quoad supremam partem Angelus non potest illuminare, sed quantum ad inferiorem *Opinio 2, tripliciter intellecta.* partem rationis posuerunt catholici tractatores, animas nostras a beatis Angelis per eorum revelationes illuminari. Hoc autem tripliciter potest intelligi: uno modo, ut intelligatur Angelus inferiorem portionem illuminare per modum *luminis irradiantis*; alio modo, ut intelligatur illuminare per modum *speculi offerentis*; tertio modo, ut intelligatur illuminare per modum *linguae vivaciter exprimentis*[^14]. Omnes hi modi, etsi aliquo modo sint intelligibiles, cum Angelus sit *lumen* et *speculum* et habeat etiam spiritualis interpretationis sive locutionis officium, sustineri possunt[^15]; *Praefertur tertius modus.* tertius tamen modus intelligibilior est. Non enim multum bene apparet, quomodo Angelus irradiet, nec quomodo se offerat aspectui animae; sed hoc satis intelligibile est, quomodo Angelus possit animae quod concepit suggerere. Et sicut doctor, dum exterius loquitur, excitat intellectum et viam parat ad intelligendum, et viva et efficax locutio quadam sua vivacitate ad intellectum nostrum habet ingressum, dum sonat in aure corporis exterius, ratione cuius etiam libentius audit homo bonum clericum, cuius sermo est efficax et vivus, « cum habeat aliquid latentis energiae vivae vocis actus », ut dicit Hieronymus[^16]; *Conclusio 2.* sic etiam suo modo intelligendum est, quod Angelus hoc possit facere in virtute interiori, quae elevatior est quam sensus exterior, quadam spirituali locutione et phantasmatum exaltatione interius; et sic illuminat, non lumen infundendo nec solum offerendo sicut obiectum vel speculum, sed etiam vivaciter excitando, sicut doctor exterior, et adhuc efficaciori modo.

*Ad fundamenta.* His visis, patet responsio pro magna parte ad obiecta ad utramque partem. Nam rationes ostendentes, quod Angelus non potest intellectum nostrum illuminare, loquuntur de intellectu quantum ad superiorem portionem, scilicet mentem, et de illuminatione, quae quidem est per luminis infusionem; et hoc solius Dei est proprium, sicut praedictum est; unde rationes illae concedendae sunt.

*Solutio oppositorum.* 1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur de Dionysio, iam patet responsio. Dico enim, quod loquitur de illuminatione secundo modo, non primo.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de illa definitione animae, dicendum, quod *ultima* vel *secunda* relatione dicitur anima illuminationes a Deo percipere, non quia Angelus cadat medium inter Deum et animam per modum influentis, sed quia perfectius et nobilius illuminatur a Deo Angelus quam anima per naturam; et ideo dicitur ista illuminatio secunda, non ordine causalitatis, sed dignitatis[^17].

3. *Quo sensu dicantur lumina.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Angeli sunt lumina; dicendum, quod verum est; sed non ideo dicuntur lumina, quia lumen suum diffundant exterius in alia[^18], sed quia intra se lucent. Non enim est simile de corporali lumine et spirituali. *Differt lumen spirituale et corporale.* Lumen enim spirituale propter sui dignitatem a fonte luminis immediate procedit, cum non possit habere medium deferens. Lumen autem corporale per medium recipitur et defertur, et sicut potest deferri et recipi, sic etiam potest reddi; et sic illuminatum potest illuminare, sicut patet in luna.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod multa nobis revelant, quae nobis per sensum non exprimunt; dicendum, quod illud non concludit, quod immediate influant in intellectum; hoc enim potest fieri, si immediate intellectui suggerant. Nec adhuc illud oportet, sed etiam potest fieri mediante virtute phantastica. Sicut enim videmus, quod ego non

<!-- page 267 -->

possum tibi aliquid ostendere, nisi mediantibus sensibus et viribus inferioribus, quia intellectus tuus non est natus a superiori aliquid suscipere nisi a Deo influente; tamen nihil est in me adeo spirituale, quin mediante verbo sensibili possim illud intelligentiae tuae depromere, et ita tecum loqui de spiritualibus, sicut de corporalibus: multo fortius potest hoc Angelus facere in virtute interiori, quae elevatior est quam sensus exterior, quadam spirituali locutione et phantasmatum exaltatione[^19].

5. 6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si solum posset per modum excitantis, tunc non posset amplius quam homo, vel etiam malus angelus; dicendum, quod etsi hoc[^20] possit homo vel angelus malus, tamen ex hoc non sequitur, quod adaequantur in potentia et virtute exprimendi, quia per eandem viam contingit bene et melius docere, sicut patet. Per aures enim exteriores addiscimus a sapiente doctore et fatuo, sed multo melius nos docet qui lumen sapientiae habet, quam qui illo caret; sic et in Angelo intelligendum est se habere. — Et per hoc patent illa duo ultima, quia non est simile nec de homine nec de daemone; neuter enim potest instruere[^21] ita efficaciter, cum non habeant tantum lumen sapientiae.

*Ad quaest. incidentem.* Ad illud quod ultimo quaerebatur, quomodo fiat distinctio istorum actuum; dicendum, quod unus modus dicendi est, quod illi tres actus respiciunt intellectum, ut *purgatio* sit in initio, *illuminatio* in progressu et *perfectio* in termino. — *Aliter.* Vel aliter, ut notentur ibi tria, ad quae ordinatur eruditio vel doctrina angelica: primum est ad remotionem impedimentorum; secundum est ad cognitionem verorum; tertium est ad dilectionem bonorum[^22]. Ad haec autem ordinatur per modum *excitantis*, sicut sermo bene praedicantis; et ideo non irrationabiliter bonus doctor et praedicator dicitur illuminare et purgare et perficere suos auditores, sicut expresse beatus Dionysius in libro de Angelica Hierarchia[^23] dat intelligere.

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether the Angels are sent to illuminate our intellect.*

Secondly it is asked whether an Angel is sent to illuminate our intellect. And that [he is], thus it seems.

*To the opposite.* 1. Thus Dionysius says in the book *On the Angelic Hierarchy*[^1]: «The arrangement of fitting elucidation manifests the brightness, first appearing as in copious effusions, to the most excellent essences, and through these, which are essences thereafter, [the lower ones] partake of the divine ray». From this text it is manifestly gathered that God illuminates us through the mediation of the Angels.

<!-- page 265 -->

2. Likewise, in the book *On the Motion of the Heart*[^2] the soul is defined thus: «The soul is an incorporeal, intellectual substance, perceptive — by a last relation — of those illuminations which are from the first [principle]». Therefore, between the relation of the soul to God, when it perceives illumination, there falls another, intermediate relation; but this is none other than the relation of the angelic substance: therefore it seems that the soul is illuminated by God, by the mediation of an Angel.

3. Likewise, the Angels are spiritual lights[^3]; but since our agent intellect is a light — when it turns itself upon the phantasms, it abstracts and refines and in this way illuminates: therefore, if the angelic intellect is much more in act than ours, then much more can it illuminate our possible intellect.

4. Likewise, it is plain that the Angels reveal to us many spiritual things which are not fitted by nature to fall under and be received either in sense or in imagination: therefore it seems that they can immediately impress likenesses upon our intellect; but such an impression cannot be without illumination: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, an Angel is said to purge, illuminate, and perfect[^4]: therefore, if this belonged to him only by way of one who stirs up, then — since in like manner one man stirs up another — it would seem that a man would be said to illuminate, purge, and perfect. But if a man is not said to be a purger or an illuminator, as an Angel is, it seems that an Angel can illuminate the soul from a higher [station].

6. Likewise, a blessed Angel can do much more than the devil; but a demon can stir up various thoughts in us and suggest [them] from below: therefore it seems that an Angel, illuminated through glory, since he is higher and more luminous than our soul, can illuminate it from a higher [station].

To the opposite: *The grounds.* 1. Augustine in the book *Of Eighty-Three Questions*[^5]: «We call mind that which is so made to the image of God that it is formed immediately by the first Truth»; and in many places he says that «between the mind and God nothing falls as a medium»: therefore, if our intelligence is regarded according to the highest [part] of the soul, it seems that it cannot be illuminated by an Angel.

2. Likewise, upon that [verse] of the Psalm[^6]: *Thy hands, O Lord, have made me and formed me* etc., the Gloss says: «God by his very self irradiates pious minds»: therefore it does not seem [to be] through angelic ministry.

3. Likewise, it is easier to produce corporeal forms than to give spiritual illuminations; but an Angel cannot produce a natural form as a principal agent, but only dispose [it] exteriorly[^7]: therefore much more strongly can he not give a spiritual illumination to the soul.

4. Likewise, if an Angel illuminates the soul, either he illuminates by sending into it a light *of his own*, or by creating a *new* one. If by sending in a light *of his own*, since his light is not outside himself: then the Angel glides into the soul; which is proper to God alone[^8]. If by giving a *new* one, [it is] either by producing [it] from *something*, or from *nothing*. If from *something*, I ask, from what? And since that cannot be assigned, it follows that the Angel produces [it] from *nothing*, and so that he is a creator.

5. Likewise, if an Angel illuminates the soul, [it is] either *through a medium*, or *without a medium*. If *through a medium*, I ask what that medium is that conveys the spiritual illumination; and since what conveys a spiritual illumination cannot be anything but a spirit, between the illuminated soul and the illuminating Angel a *medium* must be posited[^9]. And again inquiry is made concerning that one, as concerning the first: therefore either there will be a going-on to infinity, or no *medium* is to be posited. If he illuminates the soul itself *immediately*, then it seems that he is in the soul itself, and so that he glides into the soul.

6. Likewise, the intelligence is fitted by nature to be borne immediately into God just as the will is: therefore, if an Angel cannot rectify the will[^10], he will not be able to illuminate the intelligence.

*An incidental question.* Alongside this it is asked, with respect to what those three acts are taken — namely, to illuminate, to purge, and to perfect.

### Conclusion

> An Angel can illuminate the lower portion of the soul, not by infusing light nor only by presenting [it] as an object or a mirror does, but also by vividly stirring [it] up.

**I respond:** *Conclusion 1.* It must be said that to illuminate the soul as to the higher portion of reason is proper to God alone, as Augustine shows in many places; *Opinion 1.* although some[^11], not understanding the principle of the whole truth, posited otherwise — namely, that our intellect does not reach to the first light, but is perfected and illuminated by the first light through the intermediate light

<!-- page 266 -->

of the intelligence. — *It is disproved.* But this is to be rejected simply as erroneous, since in many places blessed Augustine shows the contrary, and sacred Scripture too says this, as it is said in John, chapter one[^12]: *It was the true light, which illuminates* etc. — which indeed is not the light of a creature, but the light of the divine wisdom and of the eternal truth. In which these things are to be noticed: that which *is*, that which *understands*, and that which *makes other things to be understood* — as we see in this material sun with respect to sensible things[^13]. And the chief *Note.* sign of this was that our intellect is fitted by nature to be beatified in the gazing upon the highest light, nor can it ever be content with anything until it be brought through to the clear gazing upon that [light].

Therefore, as to the highest part, an Angel cannot illuminate the soul; but as to the lower *Opinion 2, understood in three ways.* part of reason, the catholic commentators have held that our souls are illuminated by the blessed Angels through their revelations. And this can be understood in three ways: in one way, that the Angel be understood to illuminate the lower portion by way of *an irradiating light*; in another way, that he be understood to illuminate by way of *a mirror that presents*; in a third way, that he be understood to illuminate by way of *a tongue vividly expressing*[^14]. All these modes, even though they are in some way intelligible — since the Angel is a *light* and a *mirror* and has also the office of spiritual interpretation or speech — can be sustained[^15]; *The third mode is preferred.* the third mode, however, is more intelligible. For it does not appear very well how an Angel irradiates, nor how he presents himself to the gaze of the soul; but this is intelligible enough — how an Angel can suggest to the soul what he has conceived. And just as a teacher, while he speaks exteriorly, stirs up the intellect and prepares the way to understanding, and living and efficacious speech, by a certain liveliness of its own, gains entrance to our intellect while it sounds exteriorly in the ear of the body — by reason of which a man also more gladly hears a good cleric, whose discourse is efficacious and living, «since it has something of the hidden energy of the living voice's act», as Jerome says[^16]; *Conclusion 2.* so too, in its own way, it is to be understood that an Angel can do this in the interior power, which is more elevated than the exterior sense, by a certain spiritual speech and exaltation of the phantasms interiorly; and so he illuminates — not by infusing light, nor only by presenting [it] as an object or a mirror [does], but also by vividly stirring [it] up, like an exterior teacher, and in a still more efficacious manner.

*To the grounds.* These things being seen, the reply is for the most part plain to the objections on both sides. For the arguments showing that an Angel cannot illuminate our intellect speak of the intellect as to the higher portion, namely the mind, and of an illumination which indeed is by the infusion of light; and this is proper to God alone, as has been said before; whence those arguments are to be conceded.

*The solution of the opposing arguments.* 1. But to that which is objected from Dionysius, the reply is already plain. For I say that he speaks of illumination in the second way, not the first.

2. To that which is objected from that definition of the soul, it must be said that the soul is said to perceive illuminations from God by a *last* or *second* relation — not because an Angel falls as a medium between God and the soul by way of one that flows in, but because the Angel is illuminated by God more perfectly and more nobly than the soul [is] by nature; and therefore that illumination is called second, not in the order of causality, but of dignity[^17].

3. *In what sense [Angels] are called lights.* To that which is objected — that the Angels are lights — it must be said that this is true; but they are not called lights because they diffuse their light outwardly into other things[^18], but because they shine within themselves. For the case is not alike with corporeal and with spiritual light. *Spiritual light differs from corporeal.* For spiritual light, on account of its own dignity, proceeds immediately from the fount of light, since it cannot have a conveying medium. But corporeal light is received and conveyed through a medium, and just as it can be conveyed and received, so too it can be given back; and thus the illuminated can illuminate, as is plain in the moon.

4. To that which is objected — that they reveal to us many things which they do not express to us through sense — it must be said that this does not conclude that they flow immediately into the intellect; for this can come about if they suggest immediately to the intellect. Nor even is that necessary, but it can also come about by the mediation of the imaginative power. For just as we see that I

<!-- page 267 -->

cannot show you anything except by the mediation of the senses and the lower powers — because your intellect is not fitted by nature to receive anything from above except from God flowing in — nevertheless there is nothing in me so spiritual that I cannot, by the mediation of a sensible word, bring it forth to your intelligence, and so speak with you of spiritual things as of corporeal: much more strongly can an Angel do this in the interior power, which is more elevated than the exterior sense, by a certain spiritual speech and exaltation of the phantasms[^19].

5, 6. To that which is objected — that if [the Angel] could [act] only by way of one who stirs up, then he could [do] no more than a man, or even an evil angel — it must be said that, although a man or an evil angel can do this[^20], nevertheless from this it does not follow that they are made equal in the power and capacity of expressing, because by the same way it happens that [one] teaches well and [another] better, as is plain. For through the exterior ears we learn both from a wise teacher and from a foolish one, but he teaches us far better who has the light of wisdom than he who lacks it; and so it is to be understood that it stands in the Angel [also]. — And by this the last two [arguments] are clear, because the case is not alike either with a man or with a demon; for neither can instruct[^21] so efficaciously, since they do not have so great a light of wisdom.

*To the incidental question.* To that which was asked last — in what way the distinction of those acts comes about — it must be said that one manner of speaking is that those three acts regard the intellect, so that *purging* is at the beginning, *illumination* in the progress, and *perfection* at the term. — *Otherwise.* Or otherwise, so that there be noted in them three things to which angelic erudition or teaching is ordered: the first is the removal of impediments; the second is the knowledge of true things; the third is the love of good things[^22]. And to these [the Angel] is ordered by way of one who *stirs up*, like the discourse of one preaching well; and therefore not unreasonably is a good teacher and preacher said to illuminate and purge and perfect his hearers, as blessed Dionysius expressly gives to understand in the book *On the Angelic Hierarchy*[^23].

---

la: Cap. 13. § 3: Iuxta hanc igitur naturalis ordinationis rationem supernaturalis ipsa omnis boni ornatus visibilis et invisibilis taxiarchia (ταξιαρχία) congruae dilucidationis claritatem, primo apparentem ut in copiosissimis effusionibus excellentissimis manifestat essentiis, et per eas quae post sunt essentiae (οὐσίαι) divino participant radio. — In hoc textu codd. cum edd. perperam legunt *manifestat essentias, et per eas quae possunt* pro *manifestat essentiis, et per eas quae post sunt* (οὐσίαι ἀναφαίνει, καὶ διὰ τούτων, αἱ μετ' αὐτὰς etc.).

en: [*On the Celestial Hierarchy*] c. 13, § 3: *According, then, to this account of the natural ordering, the supernatural taxiarchy (ταξιαρχία) itself of all good adornment, visible and invisible, manifests the brightness of fitting elucidation — first appearing, as in most copious effusions — to the most excellent essences, and through these the essences (οὐσίαι) which are thereafter partake of the divine ray.* — In this text the codices with the editions wrongly read *manifestat essentias, et per eas quae possunt* for *manifestat essentiis, et per eas quae post sunt* (οὐσίαι ἀναφαίνει, καὶ διὰ τούτων, αἱ μετ' αὐτὰς etc.).

la: Quem scripsit Alfredus Anglicus et dedicavit magistro magno Alexandro Neckam (abbati Excestriensi sive Cirencestrensi † 1227; cfr. Fabricius, Bibl. lat. mediae et infimae aetatis). Haec animae definitio invenitur in Prologo dicti libri (ed. Sig. Barach, Innsbruck, 1878, pag. 83) et explicatur a Ioan. de Rupella, Sum. de Anima, p. I. c. 3. — Vat. in hoc arg. substituit nomen *revelatio* pro *relatio*.

en: [The book *On the Motion of the Heart*,] which Alfred the Englishman wrote and dedicated to the great master Alexander Neckam (abbot of Exeter or Cirencester, † 1227; cf. Fabricius, *Library of Medieval and Late Latin*). This definition of the soul is found in the Prologue of the said book (ed. Sig. Barach, Innsbruck, 1878, p. 83) and is expounded by John of La Rochelle, *Summa on the Soul*, part I, c. 3. — The Vatican edition in this argument substitutes the word *revelatio* for *relatio*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 83, nota 1. — De minori vide Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 18. et 39. (c. 5. et 8.).

en: Cf. above, p. 83, note 1. — On the minor [premise] see Aristotle, *On the Soul* III, text 18 and 39 (c. 5 and 8).

la: Secundum Dionys., de Caelest. Hierarch. c. 3. § 2.

en: According to Dionysius, *On the Celestial Hierarchy* c. 3, § 2.

la: Quaest. 51. n. 4. Cfr. ibid. n. 2. ac q. 53. n. 2. et supra pag. 43, nota 3, ubi etiam pro seq. textu diversi allegati sunt loci.

en: [*Of Eighty-Three Questions*,] question 51, n. 4. Cf. the same, n. 2, and q. 53, n. 2, and above, p. 43, note 3, where for the following text also various places are cited.

la: Psalm. 118, 73. — Glossa est ex Augustini Enarrat. in hunc locum.

en: Psalm 118, 73. — The Gloss is from Augustine's *Enarration* on this place.

la: Cfr. supra d. 7. p. II. a. 2. q. 2.

en: Cf. above, d. 7, part II, a. 2, q. 2.

la: Ut probatum est supra d. 8. p. II. q. 2.

en: As was proved above, d. 8, part II, q. 2.

la: Vat. supplet *spiritum*.

en: The Vatican edition supplies *spiritum*.

la: Sicut ostensum est quaest. praeced.

en: As was shown in the preceding question.

la: Vide supra pag. 29, nota 3.

en: See above, p. 29, note 3.

la: Vers. 9.

la: August., I. Soliloq. c. 8. n. 15: « Quomodo in hoc sole [materiali] tria quaedam licet animadvertere, quod est, quod fulget, quod illuminat; ita in illo secretissimo Deo, quem vis intelligere, tria quaedam sunt, quod est, quod intelligitur et quod cetera facit intelligi ». Observamus, quod communissima apud Scholasticos lectio in hoc textu pro verbis *quod intelligitur* substituit *quod intelligit*; de quo vide opusculum a nobis editum, cui titulus: De humanae cognitionis ratione, pag. 77, 100, 182. In hoc opusculo multa occurrunt, quae attingunt hanc quaestionem. — Inter opera Avicennae habetur liber de Intelligentiis, in quo (circa finem) legitur: Secundum Augustinum ergo, quoniam in hoc sole tria licet animadvertere, quod est, quod fulget, quod illuminat; ita in illo secretissimo Deo tria sunt, quod est, quod fulget, quod alia facit intelligere. — Mox aliqui codd. *signum est*, Vat. *signum est vel fuit* pro *signum fuit*. De hac ratione cfr. infra d. 16. a. 1. q. 1. et 19. a. 1. q. 1.

en: Augustine, *Soliloquies* I, c. 8, n. 15: «Just as in this [material] sun one may notice three things — that which is, that which shines, that which illuminates — so in that most hidden God, whom you wish to understand, there are three things: that which is, that which is understood, and that which makes other things to be understood». We observe that the most common reading among the Scholastics in this text substitutes, for the words *quod intelligitur*, *quod intelligit*; on which see the little work published by us, entitled *On the Manner of Human Knowledge*, pp. 77, 100, 182. In this little work many things occur which touch on this question. — Among the works of Avicenna there is a book *On the Intelligences*, in which (near the end) is read: *According to Augustine, then, since in this sun one may notice three things — that which is, that which shines, that which illuminates — so in that most hidden God there are three: that which is, that which shines, that which makes other things to be understood.* — Soon after, some codices [read] *signum est*, the Vatican edition *signum est vel fuit*, for *signum fuit*. On this account cf. below, d. 16, a. 1, q. 1, and [d.] 19, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Cfr. August., XII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 22. n. 48. et c. 30. n. 58. seq.; Enarrat. in Ps. 118. sermo 18. n. 4; S. Bonav., Hexaem. serm. 3.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On Genesis according to the Letter* XII, c. 22, n. 48, and c. 30, n. 58 ff.; *Enarration on Psalm 118*, sermon 18, n. 4; S. Bonaventure, *Hexaemeron*, sermon 3.

la: Ita codd. et edd. Sed lege: *et sustineri possint*.

en: So the codices and editions. But read: *et sustineri possint* [«and can be sustained»].

la: Epist. 33. ad Paulinam, n. 2: *Habet nescio quid latentis energiae viva vox.* Cfr. Epist. ad Gal. 4, 20. — Alluditur ad illud Hebr. 4, 12: *Vivus est enim sermo Dei et efficax* etc.

en: [Jerome,] Letter 33, to Paulina, n. 2: *The living voice has some hidden energy, I know not what.* Cf. [the commentary on the] Epistle to the Galatians 4, 20. — Allusion is made to that [verse], Hebrews 4, 12: *For the word of God is living and efficacious* etc.

la: Ioan. a Rupella, pag. 265, nota 1. cit., proponit duplicem huius definitionis explicationem, scil. quod Angeli in primo suo esse (in sua creatione) illuminati sunt et intellexerunt, anima autem non in primo suo esse, sed in secundo, quia ipsa non statim cum est, intelligit; dein quod Angeli recipiunt illuminationem a Deo ut a suo principio, in quantum nempe in instanti suae creationis illuminantur, anima vero recipit illuminationem a Deo ut a suo fine, in quantum ipsa ad Deum accedit decursu temporis. Hinc Angelus prima relatione, anima autem ultima vel secunda relatione recipit illuminationem a primo. — Ed. 1 *et ideo dicitur prima illuminatio* pro *et ideo dicitur ista illuminatio secunda*.

en: John of La Rochelle, cited [in] p. 265, note 1, proposes a twofold explanation of this definition: namely, that the Angels in their first being (in their creation) were illuminated and understood, but the soul not in its first being, but in its second, because it does not understand at once when it exists; then, that the Angels receive illumination from God as from their principle — inasmuch, that is, as they are illuminated in the instant of their creation — but the soul receives illumination from God as from its end, inasmuch as it itself approaches God in the course of time. Hence the Angel receives illumination from the first [principle] by a first relation, but the soul by a last or second relation. — Edition 1 [reads] *et ideo dicitur prima illuminatio* for *et ideo dicitur ista illuminatio secunda*.

la: Codd. A L V aa *animam*.

en: Codices A, L, V, aa [read] *animam* [for *alia*].

la: Vat. *excitatione*.

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *excitatione* [for *exaltatione*].

la: Nempe per modum excitantis illuminare et docere. — Cod. ee cum Vat. *quod etsi non posset alia via nos instruere et nobis loqui, quam possit homo* etc.

en: Namely, to illuminate and to teach by way of one who stirs up. — Codex ee, with the Vatican edition, [reads] *quod etsi non posset alia via nos instruere et nobis loqui, quam possit homo* etc.

la: Cod. cc et ed. 1 *neuter enim potest excitare nec instruere*.

en: Codex cc and edition 1 [read] *neuter enim potest excitare nec instruere*.

la: Duplex hic modus hos actus distinguendi insinuatur ab Hugone de S. Vict., IV. Expos. in Hierarch. caelest. S. Dionysii, c. 3: « Primum *purgantur*, postea *illuminantur*, deinde *perficiuntur*. Nisi enim praecederet *purgatio*, non sequeretur *illuminatio*; et nisi esset *illuminatio*, non veniret *consummatio*. Sicut enim *illuminari* non potest qui non est *purgatus*, sic *consummari* non potest qui non est *illuminatus*, quia *cognitio veritatis* non nisi mundos illuminat, et *perfectio virtutis* non nisi illuminatis veritate appropinquat ». Similem expositionem, teste Mara (hic q. 4.), dat Robertus episc. Lincolniensis (Grosseteste, † 1253) his verbis: Lumen divinum, quando recipitur in anima, tria facit: aufert nescientiam, et sic dicitur *purgatio*; manifestat veritatem, et sic dicitur *illuminatio*; tertio receptum reducit animam in Deum, et sic dicitur *perfectio*. — Subinde post *Ad haec autem* in cod. Q a secunda manu additur *eruditio angelica*.

en: A twofold manner of distinguishing these acts is intimated by Hugh of St. Victor, IV *Exposition on the Celestial Hierarchy of S. Dionysius*, c. 3: «First they are *purged*, afterwards *illuminated*, then *perfected*. For unless *purgation* preceded, *illumination* would not follow; and unless there were *illumination*, *consummation* would not come. For just as he cannot be *illuminated* who is not *purged*, so he cannot be *consummated* who is not *illuminated*, because the *knowledge of truth* illuminates none but the clean, and the *perfection of virtue* draws near to none but those illuminated by the truth». A similar exposition, on the testimony of Mara (here, q. 4), Robert bishop of Lincoln (Grosseteste, † 1253) gives in these words: When the divine light is received in the soul, it does three things: it takes away unknowing, and so is called *purgation*; it manifests the truth, and so is called *illumination*; thirdly, once received, it leads the soul back into God, and so is called *perfection*. — Soon after, following *Ad haec autem*, in codex Q by a second hand is added *eruditio angelica*.

la: Cfr. cap. 3. § 2. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Cf. [*On the Celestial Hierarchy*] c. 3, § 2. — See the scholion on the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
- Four printed pages (pp.264–267 = PDF 286–289). Two-column. Built from IA djvu OCR base over 450 dpi PDF column-band crops.
- Structure: 6 *Ad oppositum* arguments (Angels do illuminate the intellect) + 6 *Fundamenta* arguments (only God illuminates the mind) + an incidental question (the meaning of *illuminare / purgare / perficere*) + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (the higher portion of reason is illuminated by God alone — *opinio 1* of the intermediate light *improbatur*; the lower portion is illuminated by Angels, *tripliciter* understood, the third mode — vivid stirring-up like a teacher — preferred) + reply to the *fundamenta* + Solutio oppositorum 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5-6 + the reply to the incidental question.
- No own SCHOLION — its matter is treated within `d10-a2-q1`'s SCHOLION (`Eadem principia, quae in hac et seq. quaest. ...`; SCHOLION II there transcribes Peter of Tarentaise's treatment of "this second question"). `has_scholion: false`.
- **Apparatus crosswalk.** p.264 footer block runs ¹–³; notes ¹–² belong to `d10-a2-q1`, so this chunk's [^1] = p.264 footer ³. p.265 footer ¹–¹⁰ = [^2]–[^11]. p.266 footer ¹–⁷ = [^12]–[^18]. p.267 footer ¹–⁵ = [^19]–[^23]; p.267 footer ⁶–⁷ anchor the body of `d10-a3-q1` (which opens lower on p.267) and are reserved for that chunk.
- Boundary: incoming from `d10-a2-q1` CLEAN (QUAESTIO II opens at the foot of p.264). Outgoing CLEAN — the Solutio closes p.267 with `...dat intelligere`; `ARTICULUS III. — Qualiter Angeli officium suum exsequantur.` opens immediately below and belongs to `bon-sent-II-d10-a3-q1`.
- OCR garbles cleaned silently: `illiiminandum`→illuminandum, `dihicidationis`→dilucidationis, `defmitur`→definitur, `iitellectus`→intellectus, `niulta`→multa, `Aogelus`→Angelus, `iDferiori`→inferiori, `snprenmm`→supremum, `fecenmt`→fecerunt, `proprimii`→proprium, `nouum`→novum, `nihUo`→nihilo, `illurainatam`→illuminatam, `animaui`→animam, `respuendum` ok, `creaiurae`→creaturae, `traclatores`→tractatores, `intelligibihor`→intelligibilior, `phantasmalum`→phantasmatum, `adaequantur` ok, `irratiouabiliter`→irrationabiliter.
- No `[?]` flags.