title: Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 5

source_text:
<!-- page 250 -->

### Quaestio V. *Utrum ad singulos ordines Angelorum fiat assumtio salvandorum.*

Quinto quaeritur de ordinum reparatione; et quaeritur, utrum ad singulos ordines Angelorum fiat assumtio salvandorum. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. *Fundamenta.* Super illud Psalmi[^1]: *Constitues eos principes super omnem terram*, dicit Glossa: «Elegit pauperes, ut exaltaret ad ordines caeli, qui fiunt ex hominibus et Angelis».

2. Item, super illud Iosue primo[^2]: *Omnem locum, quem calcaverit pes vester* etc., dicit Glossa: «Si diabolum vincere potuero, si meruero, ut eum conterat Deus sub pedibus meis, consequenter locum eius in caelo habebo»: ergo si diabolus fuit de excellentissimo ordine, sicut supra monstratum fuit distinctione sexta[^3], videtur, quod homo possit ascendere ad supremum ordinem Angelorum.

3. Item, ruina Angelorum restauranda est, aut superna civitas remanebit imperfecta; sed non restauratur ex angelis, quia casus angelorum est irreparabilis: ergo restaurabitur ex hominibus bonis.

4. Item, distinctio ordinum principaliter venit ex donis gratiarum[^4]; sed in via videmus, quod aliqui assimilantur Seraphim in usu gratiae, aliqui Cherubim, et sic de aliis: ergo si Deus retribuit unicuique, secundum quod meruit, videtur, quod ad diversos ordines Angelorum homines debeant assumi, et ex eis Angelorum ordines restaurari.

**Contra:**
*Ad opposita.* 1. Maior est unitas in superna Ierusalem quam in Ecclesia militante; sed nunc in via ordo hominum non admittit intra sui unitatem diversum in natura: ergo videtur, cum homo differat specie ab Angelo, quod ex Angelis et hominibus non debeat fieri unus ordo.

2. Item, sicut *ordo* notat quandam differentiam inter eos qui sunt ordinum diversorum, sic ponit convenientiam inter eos qui sunt eiusdem ordinis, quod patet ex ipsa definitione *ordinis*[^5]; sed plus differt homo ab Angelo, quam differat ordo infimus a supremo: si ergo Angelus superioris ordinis et infimi non possunt in eodem ordine collocari, multo minus de hominibus et Angelis idem ordo integrari.

3. Item, corpus nunquam sublimatur ad dignitatem spiritus: ergo nunquam debet ibidem collocari corpus humanum, ubi collocatur spiritus angelicus, cum semper sit minus dignum, quantumcumque gloriosum: si ergo qui conveniunt in ordine conveniunt in sedium collocatione, videtur, ex hominibus et Angelis eundem ordinem constare non posse.

4. Item, Angelus in naturali capacitate excellit animam; sed gratia data est Angelis secundum suae naturae capacitatem, sicut supra[^6] dictum fuit, et Magister dicit in littera: ergo cum non possit dari gratia animabus supra suam capacitatem, nunquam possunt animae et Angeli in gratuitis adaequari: ergo nec ex eis idem ordo constitui.

### Conclusio

> Sicut de singulis ordinibus aliqui ceciderunt, sic etiam singuli ordines per homines restaurabuntur.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, *Duo praenotantur.* quod, sicut praedictum fuit[^7], ad perfectionem ordinis duo concurrunt, natura scilicet et gratia: natura tanquam *fundamentum* et dispositio, gratia vero ut *complementum* et consummatio. Et quia aliquid tunc dicitur esse *secundum quid*, quando est in sola dispositione, tunc esse *simpliciter*, quando est in sua perfectione; cum daemones et Angeli in naturalibus conveniant, dicuntur[^8] aliquando daemones fuisse de diversis ordinibus Angelorum, quamvis nunquam plene fuerint in aliquo ordine; unde hoc intelligitur *secundum quid*, non *simpliciter*. — *Ratio ex parte hominis.* Quia vero homines possunt ad eminentiam gratiae et gloriae, in qua sunt Angeli, elevari, potest ex hominibus et Angelis idem ordo constitui, quia, quamvis non conveniant in *natura*, assimilantur tamen et aequantur in *hac gratia*; et per hunc modum reparatur Angelorum ruina. — *Obiicitur.* Et si tu obiicias, quod non potest esse conformitas in perfectione, ubi non est convenientia in praeambula dispositione; dicendum, quod hoc non habet locum in proposito, quia illud verum est in dispositione necessitatis, non autem in dispositione solius congruitatis. — *Conclusio.* Concedendum est igitur, quod, sicut de singulis ordinibus aliqui ceciderunt, sic etiam singuli ordines per homines restaurabuntur, sicut primae rationes ostendunt.

<!-- page 251 -->

*Solutio oppositorum.* 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod ad unitatem ecclesiasticam non admittit homo rem alterius speciei; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia nullum animal invenire potest homo sibi simile in conformitate rationis; homo autem et Angelus in participatione rationis conveniunt, et quod plus est, in deiformitate gloriae. Et ideo possunt in eandem societatem et eiusdem societatis ordinem convenire, cum maior sit unitas voluntatum quam facierum et plus faciat ad unitatem pacis et societatis et ordinis conservandam.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod plus differt homo ab Angelo etc.; dicendum, quod verum est de difformitate, quae opponitur unitati naturae; sed non est verum de difformitate, quae opponitur unitati gratiae in statu et dignitate; unitas autem ordinis plus respicit hanc quam praecedentem. Et ideo illud non valet.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod corpus non sublimatur ad dignitatem spiritus; dicendum, quod verum est; sed tamen ex hoc non sequitur, quod non debeat locari cum Angelis. Sicut enim in statu viae et meriti anima sequitur locum corporis et in terra habitat, cum sit nata esse sursum; sic econtra in statu patriae et praemii corpus sequitur locum spiritus et ibidem erit, ubi natus est esse ipse spiritus, non propter se, sed propter eum cui coniungitur; et ideo in eisdem sedibus locatur cum angelicis spiritibus, ad quorum dignitatem per gratiam est humanus spiritus sublimatus.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Angelus habet capacitatem maiorem quam anima; dicendum, quod ratio illa calumniabilis est, et quantum ad *maiorem* et quantum ad *assumtionem*[^9]. *Notandum.* Quamvis enim Angelus excedat animam in naturalibus secundum comparationem creaturae ad creaturam; tamen secundum comparationem ad Trinitatem summam, cuius est imago Angelus et anima, non oportet esse praecellentiam, cum magis videamus humanam naturam exaltatam quam angelicam tum per gratiam unionis in Christo, tum etiam per gratiam comprehensionis in Virgine beata. — *Explicatio notabilis.* Sed esto, quod adhuc ista propositio haberet veritatem, adhuc remanet in assumtione dubietas. Cum enim dicitur, quod Angeli susceperunt gratiam secundum capacitatem naturalium, non est intelligendum praecise, ita quod tantam susceperint, quod plus non potuerint capere, quia hoc non de facili posset probari nec auctoritate nec ratione; sed ita intelligitur, quod meliora naturalia habentibus plus datum est de gratia quam habentibus minora, quamvis isti et illi plus possent suscipere[^10]. Et ex hoc non sequitur, quod anima humana non possit ad aequalitatem cum Angelis ascendere; immo absque dubio credendum est, posse, cum in Christo et beata Virgine videamus praecellere.

english:
<!-- page 250 -->

### Question V. *Whether the assumption of those to be saved is made into each of the orders of Angels.*

Fifthly it is asked concerning the restoration of the orders; and it is asked whether the assumption of those to be saved is made into each of the orders of Angels. And that it is so, [thus] it seems.

1. *The fundamenta.* On that [verse] of the Psalm[^1]: *You will appoint them princes over all the earth*, the Gloss says: «He chose the poor, so that he might exalt to the orders of heaven, which are made up of men and Angels».

2. Likewise, on that [verse] of Joshua, chapter one[^2]: *Every place which the sole of your foot shall have trodden* etc., the Gloss says: «If I shall have been able to conquer the devil, if I shall have merited that God crush him under my feet, I shall consequently have his place in heaven»: therefore, if the devil was of the most excellent order, as was shown above in distinction six[^3], it seems that man can ascend to the supreme order of Angels.

3. Likewise, the ruin of the Angels must be restored, or the heavenly city will remain incomplete; but it is not restored from angels, because the fall of the angels is irreparable: therefore it will be restored from good men.

4. Likewise, the distinction of the orders comes principally from the gifts of graces[^4]; but in this present life we see that some are assimilated to the Seraphim in the use of grace, some to the Cherubim, and so concerning the others: therefore, if God repays each one according to what he has merited, it seems that men ought to be assumed into the diverse orders of Angels, and the orders of the Angels restored from them.

**On the contrary:**
*To the opposing [arguments].* 1. The unity in the heavenly Jerusalem is greater than [the unity] in the Church militant; but now in this present life the order of men does not admit within its unity what is diverse in nature: therefore it seems, since man differs in species from an Angel, that one order ought not to be made up of Angels and men.

2. Likewise, just as *order* denotes a certain difference among those who are of diverse orders, so it posits an agreement among those who are of the same order, which is clear from the very definition of *order*[^5]; but man differs more from an Angel than the lowest order differs from the supreme: if therefore an Angel of a superior order and [an Angel] of the lowest cannot be placed in the same order, much less can the same order be made up of men and Angels.

3. Likewise, a body is never raised up to the dignity of a spirit: therefore a human body ought never to be placed where an angelic spirit is placed, since it is always less worthy, however glorious: if therefore those who agree in an order agree in the placement of seats, it seems that the same order cannot be made up of men and Angels.

4. Likewise, an Angel excels the soul in natural capacity; but grace is given to the Angels according to the capacity of their nature, as was said above[^6], and the Master says so in the text: therefore, since grace cannot be given to souls above their capacity, souls and Angels can never be made equal in gratuitous [gifts]: therefore neither can the same order be constituted from them.

### Conclusion

> Just as from each of the orders some have fallen, so also each of the orders will be restored through men.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted, *Two things are noted beforehand.* that, as was said before[^7], two things concur for the perfection of an order, namely nature and grace: nature as the *foundation* and disposition, but grace as the *completion* and consummation. And because a thing is then said to be *in a certain respect* when it is in the disposition alone, [and] then to be *absolutely* when it is in its perfection; since the demons and the Angels agree in their natural [endowments], the demons are sometimes said[^8] to have been of the diverse orders of Angels, although they were never fully in any order; hence this is understood *in a certain respect*, not *absolutely*. — *The ground on the part of man.* But because men can be elevated to the eminence of grace and glory in which the Angels are, the same order can be constituted from men and Angels, because, although they do not agree in *nature*, they are nevertheless assimilated and made equal in *this grace*; and in this manner the ruin of the Angels is repaired. — *An objection.* And if you object that there cannot be conformity in perfection where there is no agreement in the antecedent disposition; it must be said that this has no place in the matter at hand, because that is true of the disposition of necessity, but not of the disposition of mere congruity. — *Conclusion.* It must therefore be granted that, just as from each of the orders some have fallen, so also each of the orders will be restored through men, as the first arguments show.

<!-- page 251 -->

*Solution of the opposing [arguments].* 1. To that, then, which is objected to the contrary — that man does not admit a thing of another species into the ecclesiastical unity — it must be said that it is not alike, because man can find no animal like himself in a conformity of reason; but man and Angel agree in the participation of reason, and, what is more, in the deiformity of glory. And therefore they can come together into the same fellowship and into the order of the same fellowship, since the unity of wills is greater than [that] of faces and contributes more to the preserving of the unity of peace and of fellowship and of order.

2. To that which is objected — that man differs more from an Angel etc. — it must be said that this is true of the difformity which is opposed to the unity of nature; but it is not true of the difformity which is opposed to the unity of grace in state and dignity; and the unity of an order regards the latter more than the former. And therefore that [argument] is not valid.

3. To that which is objected — that a body is not raised up to the dignity of a spirit — it must be said that this is true; but nevertheless from this it does not follow that it ought not to be placed with the Angels. For just as in the state of the way and of merit the soul follows the place of the body and dwells on earth, although it is born to be on high; so, on the contrary, in the state of the fatherland and of reward the body follows the place of the spirit and will be there where the spirit itself is born to be — not for its own sake, but for the sake of that to which it is joined; and therefore it is placed in the same seats with the angelic spirits, to whose dignity the human spirit has been raised up through grace.

4. To that which is objected — that an Angel has a greater capacity than the soul — it must be said that that argument is calumnious, both as to the *greater* and as to the *assumption*[^9]. *Note.* For although an Angel exceeds the soul in its natural [endowments] according to the comparison of creature to creature; nevertheless, according to the comparison to the supreme Trinity, of which both Angel and soul are the image, there need be no precellence, since we see human nature exalted rather than angelic — both through the grace of union in Christ, and also through the grace of comprehension in the blessed Virgin. — *A noteworthy explanation.* But suppose that this proposition still held truth, there still remains a doubt regarding the assumption. For when it is said that the Angels received grace according to the capacity of their natural [endowments], it is not to be understood precisely, as though they received so much that they could not receive more, because this could not easily be proved either by authority or by reason; but it is understood thus, that to those having better natural [endowments] more was given of grace than to those having lesser ones, although both these and those could receive more[^10]. And from this it does not follow that the human soul cannot ascend to equality with the Angels; on the contrary, it must without doubt be believed that it can, since in Christ and the blessed Virgin we see it to precel.

la: Psalm. 44, 17. — De Glossa cfr. Gregor., XXXI. Moral. c. 40. n. 99, ubi ostendit, quod Christus omnia, non solum in terris, sed etiam in caelis restauravit, «dum illuc humiliati homines redeunt, unde apostatae angeli superbiendo ceciderunt».

en: Psalm 44:17 [Vulgate]. — Concerning the Gloss, cf. Gregory, *Morals* XXXI, c. 40, n. 99, where he shows that Christ restored all things, not only on earth but also in heaven, «when humbled men return thither, whence the apostate angels fell by being proud».

la: Vers. 3, ubi Vulgata *vestigium pedis vestri* pro *pes vester*. — Glossam, quae invenitur apud Lyranum in Prologo, vide apud Origenem, Hom. 25. in Num. n. 6.

en: [Joshua 1,] verse 3, where the Vulgate [reads] *vestigium pedis vestri* (*the print of your foot*) for *pes vester* (*your foot*). — For the Gloss, which is found in Lyra in the Prologue, see Origen, *Homilies on Numbers*, hom. 25, n. 6.

en: [Distinction six,] art. 1, q. 1.

la: Cfr. supra q. 2.

en: Cf. above, q. 2.

la: Quam vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2. — In fine arg. cod. Y supplet *peterit*.

en: Which [definition] see here in the text of the Master, c. 2. — At the end of the argument, codex Y supplies *peterit*.

la: Quaest. 3, ubi etiam in arg. 2. pro parte affirm. verba Magistri allegantur.

en: [Above,] question 3, where also in the 2nd argument for the affirmative part the words of the Master are alleged.

la: Quaest. 2. in expositione definitionis, quam S. Doctor de ordine dedit in principio huius dist.

en: [Above,] question 2, in the exposition of the definition which the holy Doctor gave concerning *order* at the beginning of this distinction.

la: Vat. cum pluribus codd. *dicitur*.

en: The Vatican edition, with several codices, [reads] *dicitur* (*it is said*) [for *dicuntur*].

la: Sive *minorem*.

en: Or [as to the] *lesser*.

la: Cfr. supra q. 3.

en: Cf. above, q. 3. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Antiqui doctores in hac 5. et seq. 6. quaestione solvenda satis conveniunt. Haec 5. quaest. magis determinatur infra q. 7; et de eadem agunt S. Thom., hic q. unica, a. 8; S. I. q. 108. a. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 8. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 5. — Aegid. R., hic q. 3. a. 1. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 6.

**II.** In corp. et fundam. 4. sequentis quaest. commemoratur doctrina Dionysii (de Hierarch. caelest. c. 7.), quod Angelis conveniant actus hierarchici, quibus superiores Angeli purgent, illuminent ac perficiant inferiores. Quae verba a S. Thoma (hic q. unica, a. 2.) sic explanantur: «Quantum ad remotionem privationis est purgatio, quantum ad influentiam luminis est illuminatio, sed quantum ad cognitionem consequentem, in quam dirigit lumen sicut in ultimum terminum, est perfectio». Supponitur autem, quod superiores Angeli, «quia Deum clarius vident quam inferiores, in ipso quasdam leges speciales inspiciunt et rationes, ad quarum conspectum inferiores per suum essentiale lumen gloriae non attingunt; (hinc) aliquas de illis revelant inferioribus, quando est placitum divinae voluntati, non efficiendo, ut inferiores illas leges in Deo conspiciant, sed tantummodo disponendo» (ita Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2.). De hac re disputant: Scot., hic q. 2. n. 25. seqq. — S. Thom., loc. cit. et S. I. q. 106. a. 3. — B. Albert., II. Sent. d. 10. a. 1; S. p. II. tr. 10. q. 40. n. 1. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 4. cum dubiis lat. — Durand., II. Sent. d. 11. q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 4. — Eadem autem principia S. Bonav. ponit supra d. 8. p. II. q. 4. et infra d. 10. a. 2. q. 1. 2, ubi loquitur de modo, quo et daemones et Angeli influunt in animas humanas, et ibi q. 2. ad 6. de distinctione inter dictos actus hierarchicos pauca dicit.

**III.** De tota 6. quaest. S. Thom., II. Sent. d. 11. q. 2. a. 6; S. I. q. 108. a. 7. — B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. p. II. tr. 10. q. 42. in fine. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 6. — Aegid. R., hic q. 3. a. 1. dub. lat. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 7.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The ancient doctors agree well enough in the solving of this 5th and the following 6th question. This 5th question is more fully determined below, in q. 7; and concerning it treat St. Thomas, here, the single question, a. 8; *Summa* I, q. 108, a. 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, the single question, a. 8. — Richard of Mediavilla, here, a. 2, q. 5. — Giles of Rome, here, q. 3, a. 1. — Durandus, here, q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. 6.

**II.** In the body and the 4th fundamentum of the following question is mentioned the teaching of Dionysius (*On the Celestial Hierarchy* c. 7), that there belong to the Angels hierarchical acts by which the superior Angels purge, illuminate, and perfect the inferior ones. These words are explained thus by St. Thomas (here, the single question, a. 2): «As to the removal of privation it is purgation; as to the influx of light it is illumination; but as to the consequent knowledge, into which the light directs as into the ultimate term, it is perfection». But it is presupposed that the superior Angels, «because they see God more clearly than the inferior ones, behold in him certain special laws and grounds, to the sight of which the inferior ones do not attain by their own essential light of glory; (hence) they reveal some of these to the inferior ones, when it is pleasing to the divine will — not by bringing it about that the inferior ones behold those laws in God, but only by disposing [them]» (so Richard of Mediavilla, here, a. 2, q. 2). On this matter dispute: Scotus, here, q. 2, n. 25 f. — St. Thomas, at the place cited, and *Summa* I, q. 106, a. 3. — Blessed Albert, II *Sentences* d. 10, a. 1; *Summa* p. II, tr. 10, q. 40, n. 1, 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, the single question, a. 2. — Giles of Rome, here, q. 1, a. 4, with the Latin dubia. — Durandus, II *Sentences* d. 11, q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. 4. — And St. Bonaventure sets down the same principles above, d. 8, p. II, q. 4, and below, d. 10, a. 2, q. 1, 2, where he speaks of the manner in which both demons and Angels exert influence on human souls, and there, q. 2, ad 6, says a little about the distinction between the said hierarchical acts.

**III.** On the whole 6th question, St. Thomas, II *Sentences* d. 11, q. 2, a. 6; *Summa* I, q. 108, a. 7. — Blessed Albert, here, a. 6; *Summa* p. II, tr. 10, q. 42, at the end. — Richard of Mediavilla, here, a. 2, q. 6. — Giles of Rome, here, q. 3, a. 1, dub. lat. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. 7.

---

translators_notes:
- s69 (2026-05-21): built from auto-chunked skeleton (raw 17875–17988) to Tier 2 — Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR base over 450 dpi PDF column-band crops of printed pp.250–251 (PDF 272–273), fresh literal English, 10-entry apparatus, 3-paragraph SCHOLION (I–III).
- **Page-span correction:** the task packet listed printed pp.250–252, but eyes-on PDF column bands show q5's body and its entire SCHOLION (I–III) close mid-p.251 left column (`Dionys. Carth., hic q. 7.`), and QUAESTIO VI (`Utrum praelatio Angelorum evacuetur post iudicium`) opens immediately below on the same p.251 left column. Frontmatter `printed_pages`/`pdf_pages` set to [250,251]/[272,273] — no q5 text or footnote lies on p.252; p.252 is entirely QUAESTIO VI.
- Structure: opening (Gregorian theme of *ordinum reparatio*) + 4 *videtur* objections (the *fundamenta*) + 4 *Contra* arguments + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (the *Duo praenotantur* — natura/gratia — then the *Ratio ex parte hominis*, an *Obiicitur*, and the *Conclusio*) + Solutio oppositorum 1, 2, 3, 4 + SCHOLION I–III.
- **Apparatus 10 entries ([^1]–[^10]), page-footer crosswalk:** Quaracchi restarts footer numbering on each printed page; the chunk's `[^N]` markers run continuously per corpus convention. **p.250 footer ¹–⁸ = [^1]–[^8]** (four *fundamenta* markers + four *Contra* markers + two Respondeo markers); **p.251 footer ¹–² = [^9]–[^10]** (the two Solutio-4 markers `assumtionem`/`suscipere`, whose notes `Sive minorem.` / `Cfr. supra q. 3.` are printed at the foot of p.251). p.251 footer ¹–² belong to q5 because q5's Solutio-4 body carries their anchors; QUAESTIO VI's own footers begin at p.251 footer ³. q4 took no p.250 footers (q4 closed on p.249); q5 takes the full p.250 footer block; **q6 takes p.251 footer ³+**.
- Incoming cross-chunk boundary from `d9-a1-q4` CLEAN: q4's SCHOLION II closed on p.249; QUAESTIO V opens at the very top of p.250 (page number `250` printed above the `QUAESTIO V` heading on the column-band crop). No q4 text leaked; q5 opens grammatically clean with `Quinto quaeritur de ordinum reparatione`.
- Outgoing cross-chunk boundary to `d9-a1-q6` CLEAN: q5's SCHOLION III closes mid-p.251 left column with `Dionys. Carth., hic q. 7.`; QUAESTIO VI (`Sexto quaeritur de ordinibus Angelorum quantum ad praelationis evacuationem…`) opens immediately below on p.251. No QUAESTIO VI text included. Raw line 17989 confirmed as the QUAESTIO VI heading.
- Marginal labels preserved inline per locked Vol II convention: *Fundamenta.* (obj. 1), *Ad opposita.* (Contra 1), *Duo praenotantur.* / *Ratio ex parte hominis.* / *Obiicitur.* / *Conclusio.* (in Respondeo), *Solutio oppositorum.* (Solutio 1), *Notandum.* / *Explicatio notabilis.* (Solutio 4).
- OCR garbles cleaned silently against the 450 dpi crops: the cascade-shattered Respondeo (raw `P&^-^^^^^f^"'^ feclionem`, marginal `Ratio ex parte homi-` spliced inline, `Et «^ owiciinr.`, `coMiosio.`) reflowed column-by-column from the PDF; *salvandorum* (OCR `saloandorum`), *Constitues* (`Consliiues`), *fiunt* (`flunt`), *calcaverit* (`calcauerit`), *irreparabilis* (`ir-reparabilis`), *fieri* (`fleri`), *integrari*, *adaequari* (`adaequari`), *praeambula* (`praearabula`), *congruitatis* (`con-gruitatis`), *calumniabilis*, *comprehensionis* (`convprehensionis`), *intelligendum* (`intelligcndum`), *susceperint*, *facierum*, the SCHOLION header (`SCHOLIOK`), and the diagonally fragmented p.250 footer block. The running head over p.251 is OCR-garbled `DIST. IX. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. VI.` and the page number `251` is OCR-mangled `2bl` — both ignored per the Vol II Override (trust the +22 offset and running-head text, never the OCR digits).
- **No [?] flags raised.**
- **DISTINCTION 9 NOW 7/11.** Next chunk: `d9-a1-q6` *Utrum praelatio Angelorum evacuetur post iudicium* (raw 17989+, opens p.251).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 6

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 251 -->

### Quaestio VI. *Utrum praelatio Angelorum evacuetur post iudicium.*

Sexto quaeritur de ordinibus Angelorum quantum ad praelationis evacuationem; et est quaestio, utrum praelatio, quae est in ordine respectu ordinis, evacuetur post iudicium. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. *Fundamenta.* Primae ad Corinthios decimo quinto: *Cum evacuaverit omnem Principatum et Potestatem et Virtutem*[^1]: ergo in die iudicii Principatus et Potestates et Virtutes evacuabuntur.

<!-- page 252 -->

2. Item, supra, distinctione sexta, capitulo[^2]: *Et sicut inter bonos:* «Quamdiu durat mundus, Angeli Angelis, daemones daemonibus, homines hominibus praesunt; sed in futuro evacuabitur omnis praelatio».

3. Item, nomina ordinum accipiuntur penes officia ministrandi, ut in pluribus, maxime in his qui subiiciuntur: ergo cum cessabit ministerium, cessabit subiectio, ergo et cessabit praelatio.

4. Item, praelatio ordinis ad ordinem est secundum actum illuminandi et purgandi et perficiendi; sed post iudicium erit status in completione scientiae et gratiae: ergo non erit ultra illuminatio, purgatio et perfectio: ergo nec aliqua in ordinibus praelatio.

**Ad oppositum:**
*Ad oppositum.* 1. Praecellentia ordinis ad ordinem est secundum maioritatem et minoritatem naturae et gratiae[^3]: ergo si quantitas gratiae in angelicis spiritibus non mutatur, praecellentia ordinis ad ordinem non tollitur nec evacuatur.

2. Item, Angeli statim ut confirmati sunt, beati effecti sunt beatitudine perfecta, ergo nihil remansit in eis quod esset *ex parte*; et praelatio ordinis ad ordinem fuit in eis: ergo non fuit *ex parte*. Sed nihil evacuatur, nisi *quod ex parte est*[^4]: ergo etc.

3. Item, *pulcritudo* consistit in ordine[^5], et ordo in praecellentia unius ad alterum, et praecellentia ponit praelationem ordinis ad ordinem: ergo si ab angelicis spiritibus tolletur praelatio, tolletur et pulcritudo.

4. Item, sicut summus ordo denominatur ab eo quod est sibi inseparabile, sic et medii et infimi; sed Seraphim nunquam desinit esse Seraphim: ergo nec Principatus desinit esse Principatus, ergo nunquam desinet principari: ergo non cessabit ibi praelationis ordo.

### Conclusio

> Angelorum praelatio post iudicium evacuabitur, non ratione excessus in donis, sed ratione praesidentiae in influendo et imperando.

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, *Aliquid praefertur tripliciter.* quod tripliciter dicitur aliquid praeferri alteri: aut per modum *excedentis* solum, sicut praefertur aurum argento; aut per modum *excedentis et influentis*, sicut praefertur caelestis natura elemento; aut per modum *imperantis*, sicut praefertur dominus ministro. — *Tria in praelatione.* Ad rationem autem perfectae praelationis ista tria concurrunt, ut qui praefertur natus sit eum cui praefertur excedere et in ipsum aliquo modo influere et eidem praesidere. — Hoc modo est nunc in praelatione, quae attenditur inter ordinem et ordinem in hierarchiis angelicis, et etiam in hierarchia ecclesiastica. In Angelis enim ordo, qui ordini praefertur, excedit in naturalibus et gratuitis, et quodam modo influit purgando, illuminando et perficiendo, et etiam ministeria complenda iniungit.

Cum ergo quaeritur, utrum cesset praelatio ordinis ad ordinem; dicendum, quod si intelligatur de praelatione quantum ad primam conditionem, *Conclusio 1.* scilicet ratione excessus, non evacuabitur, sed manebit, quia ordo excedet ordinem tam in gratuitis quam in naturalibus, ita post iudicium, sicut et nunc. Si autem intelligatur ratione duorum sequentium, scilicet ratione praesidentiae in influendo et *Conclusio 2.* imperando, sic cessabit et evacuabitur; quia illuminatio, quam dicitur recipere Angelus ab Angelo, et imperium, si quod est ibi, attenditur per comparationem ad nos, quibus ministrant, non per comparationem ad Deum, in quo quiescunt et beatitudinis completione perfecte illuminantur. — Et secundum hanc viam procedunt rationes et auctoritates ostendentes, quod post iudicium cessabit praelatio ordinis ad ordinem. *Ad fundamenta 1, 2.* Sic enim dicit Magister et Apostolus[^6], quod Deus evacuabit praelationem, evacuando Potestatem et Principatum. Dum enim tolletur ministerium, tolletur subiectio et imperium.

*Solutio oppositorum.* 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod praelatio ordinis ad ordinem attenditur in praecellentia naturalium et gratuitorum; dicendum, quod haec non est tota causa; ideo, si ex hoc arguat, ab insufficienti arguit.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Angeli beatificati sunt perfecte; dicendum, quod licet ex parte virtutis contemplativae perfectam sint beatitudinem assecuti, et ex illa parte nihil sit in eis *ex parte*, sunt tamen adhuc viatores ratione ministerii. Nam quantum ad illam vim, ut supra[^7] dictum fuit, sunt in statu merendi; et ideo adhuc aliquid habent, quod evacuabitur post diem iudicii.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod pulcritudo consistit in ordine; dicendum, quod verum est; nam sicut ab Angelis non tolletur pulcritudo, ita etiam nec tolletur ordo. Sed ex hoc non sequitur, quod non tollatur praelatio; quia praelatio non tantummodo includit in se *praecellentiam*, sed etiam *praesidentiam*, quae plus aspicit indigentiam viae quam pulcritudinem et perfectionem patriae; et ideo, cum tollitur, pulcritudo non minuitur.

<!-- page 253 -->

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ita est inseparabile ab ordine Angelorum, quod est esse Principatum, sicut esse Seraphim; dicendum, quod Principatus, secundum quod nominat ordinem, non dicit praesidentiam actualem, sed donum gratiae vel datum, secundum quod Angelus natus est aliis praesidere; et hoc manere potest, ablata actuali praelatione. Et ideo non sequitur: *desinit principari, ergo desinit esse Principatus*, quia *principatus* non dicit actum, sed habitum vel statum.

---

english:
<!-- page 251 -->

### Question VI. *Whether the prelacy of the Angels is done away with after the judgment.*

Sixthly it is asked concerning the orders of the Angels as to the doing-away of prelacy; and the question is whether the prelacy which is in one order with respect to another order is done away with after the judgment. And that it is so, [thus] it seems.

1. *The fundamenta.* In the First [Epistle] to the Corinthians, chapter fifteen: *When he shall have done away with all Principality and Power and Virtue*[^1]: therefore on the day of judgment the Principalities and the Powers and the Virtues will be done away with.

<!-- page 252 -->

2. Likewise, above, in distinction six, in the chapter[^2]: *And just as among the good:* «As long as the world lasts, Angels are set over Angels, demons over demons, men over men; but in the future all prelacy will be done away with».

3. Likewise, the names of the orders are taken from the offices of ministering, as for the most part, especially in those who are subjected: therefore when the ministry shall cease, subjection will cease, therefore prelacy too will cease.

4. Likewise, the prelacy of one order over another order is according to the act of illuminating and of purging and of perfecting; but after the judgment there will be a state in the completion of knowledge and of grace: therefore there will no longer be illumination, purgation, and perfection: therefore neither will there be any prelacy among the orders.

**To the opposite:**
*To the opposite.* 1. The precellence of one order over another order is according to the greaterness and the lesserness of nature and of grace[^3]: therefore if the quantity of grace in the angelic spirits is not changed, the precellence of one order over another order is not removed nor done away with.

2. Likewise, the Angels, as soon as they were confirmed, were made blessed with a perfect beatitude, therefore nothing remained in them which was *in part*; and the prelacy of one order over another order was in them: therefore it was not *in part*. But nothing is done away with except *what is in part*[^4]: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, *beauty* consists in order[^5], and order in the precellence of one over another, and precellence posits the prelacy of one order over another order: therefore if prelacy is taken away from the angelic spirits, beauty too is taken away.

4. Likewise, just as the highest order is named from that which is inseparable from it, so also the middle and the lowest [orders]; but a Seraph never ceases to be a Seraph: therefore neither does a Principality cease to be a Principality, therefore it will never cease to have principality: therefore the order of prelacy will not cease there.

### Conclusion

> The prelacy of the Angels will be done away with after the judgment, not by reason of the excess in gifts, but by reason of the presiding in influencing and commanding.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted, *A thing is preferred in three ways.* that a thing is said to be preferred to another in three ways: either by the manner of one *exceeding* alone, as gold is preferred to silver; or by the manner of one *exceeding and influencing*, as the heavenly nature is preferred to an element; or by the manner of one *commanding*, as a master is preferred to a servant. — *Three things in prelacy.* But for the formal account of a perfect prelacy these three things concur: that the one who is preferred should be born to exceed the one to whom he is preferred, and to influence him in some manner, and to preside over him. — In this manner there is now prelacy, which is regarded between one order and another order in the angelic hierarchies, and also in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. For among the Angels the order which is preferred to [another] order *exceeds* it in natural and in gratuitous [endowments], and in a certain manner *influences* it by purging, illuminating, and perfecting, and also enjoins the ministries that are to be completed.

When therefore it is asked whether the prelacy of one order over another order ceases; it must be said that, if it is understood of prelacy as to the first condition — *First conclusion.* namely by reason of *excess* — it will not be done away with, but will remain, because one order will exceed another order both in gratuitous and in natural [endowments], thus after the judgment, just as also now. But if it is understood by reason of the two following [conditions] — namely by reason of presiding in influencing and *Second conclusion.* commanding — then it will cease and be done away with; because the illumination which an Angel is said to receive from an Angel, and the command, if there is any there, is regarded by comparison to us, to whom they minister, not by comparison to God, in whom they rest and are perfectly illumined in the completion of beatitude. — And along this path proceed the arguments and the authorities which show that after the judgment the prelacy of one order over another order will cease. *To fundamenta 1 and 2.* For thus the Master and the Apostle say[^6] that God will do away with prelacy by doing away with Power and Principality. For when the ministry shall be removed, subjection and command will be removed.

*Solution of the opposing [arguments].* 1. To that, then, which is objected — that the prelacy of one order over another order is regarded in the precellence of natural and of gratuitous [endowments] — it must be said that this is not the whole cause; and so, if one argues from this, he argues from an insufficient [ground].

2. To that which is objected — that the Angels were perfectly beatified — it must be said that, although as to the part of the contemplative power they have attained a perfect beatitude, and from that part there is nothing in them which is *in part*, they are nevertheless still wayfarers by reason of ministry. For as to that power, as was said above[^7], they are in a state of meriting; and therefore they still have something which will be done away with after the day of judgment.

3. To that which is objected — that beauty consists in order — it must be said that this is true; for just as beauty will not be taken away from the Angels, so also order will not be taken away. But from this it does not follow that prelacy is not taken away; because prelacy not only includes in itself *precellence*, but also *presidence*, which regards more the indigence of the way than the beauty and perfection of the fatherland; and therefore, when it is taken away, beauty is not diminished.

<!-- page 253 -->

4. To that which is objected — that to be a Principality is just as inseparable from the order of Angels as to be a Seraph — it must be said that a Principality, insofar as it names an order, does not denote an actual presiding, but a gift of grace or [something] given, according to which an Angel is born to preside over others; and this can remain when the actual prelacy has been removed. And therefore it does not follow: *it ceases to have principality, therefore it ceases to be a Principality*, because *principality* does not denote an act, but a habit or a state.

---

la: Vers. 24.

la: Cap. 4. — In Vat. post *bonos* additur *dicit Magister*.

en: Chapter 4. — In the Vatican edition, after *bonos* (*the good*) is added *dicit Magister* (*the Master says*).

la: Ita cod. cc et ed. I, qui tamen post *minoritatem* etiam addunt *secundum excellentiam*; in Vat. aliisque edd. et codd. omittitur *naturae et*; minus bene, ut patet ex ipsa solutione obiect. et supra ex q. 2.

en: So codex cc and edition I, which however after *minoritatem* (*lesserness*) also add *secundum excellentiam* (*according to excellence*); in the Vatican edition and the other editions and codices *naturae et* (*of nature and*) is omitted; less well, as is clear from the very solution of the objection and above from q. 2.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 13, 10: *Cum autem venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est.*

en: First Epistle [to the] Cor[inthians] 13:10: *But when that which is perfect shall have come, that which is in part shall be done away with.*

la: August., *de Vera Relig.* c. 41. n. 77: *Nihil enim est ordinatum, quod non sit pulcrum.*

en: Augustine, *On True Religion* c. 41, n. 77: *For nothing is ordered which is not beautiful.*

la: Hic in fundam. 1. et 2. cit.

en: Cited here in fundamenta 1 and 2.

la: Codd. T bb *hoc*. — Cfr. hic ad 3.

en: Codices T [and] bb [read] *hoc* (*this*). — Cf. here [the reply] to [argument] 3. ---

translators_notes:
- s70 (2026-05-21): built from auto-chunked skeleton (raw 17989–18080) to Tier 2 — Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR base over 450 dpi PDF column-band crops of printed pp.251–253 (PDF 273–275), fresh literal English, 7-entry apparatus. NO scholion.
- **Page span:** q6 opens partway down p.251 left column (immediately below q5's SCHOLION III) and runs through p.252 in full; the Solutio-4 reply closes at the top of p.253 left column, where QUAESTIO VII (`Utrum ordines Angelorum sint tantum novem, an plures`) begins. `printed_pages`/`pdf_pages` set to [251,252,253]/[273,274,275]. The running head over p.252 OCR-mangles the page number as `2S2`; the running head over p.253 mangles it as `233` and the column running-head text as `DIST. IX. ALLT. UNICUS QUAEST. V».` — both ignored per the Vol II Override (trust the +22 offset and running-head sense, never the OCR digits).
- **No scholion.** p.253 footer ¹ reads `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.` — q6 has no scholion of its own; q5's SCHOLION III (`De tota 6. quaest. …`) is the scholion that covers this question. This is the normal Vol II pattern (Override §5: a missing scholion is expected when a sibling's scholion explicitly covers the question). `has_scholion: false` in frontmatter.
- Structure: opening (`Sexto quaeritur …`) + 4 *videtur* objections (the *fundamenta*) + 4 *Ad oppositum* arguments + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (the *Aliquid praefertur tripliciter* threefold distinction, then *Tria in praelatione*, then the two-part *Conclusio 1 / Conclusio 2*, then *Ad fundamenta 1, 2*) + Solutio oppositorum 1, 2, 3, 4. No scholion.
- **Apparatus 7 entries ([^1]–[^7]), page→footer crosswalk:** Quaracchi restarts footer numbering on each printed page; the chunk's `[^N]` markers run continuously from `[^1]` per corpus convention.
  - **p.251 footer ³ → [^1]** (`Vers. 24`) — anchored on fund. 1's *Cum evacuaverit omnem Principatum et Potestatem et Virtutem*. p.251 footer ⁴ → **[^2]** (`Cap. 4. — In Vat. post bonos additur dicit Magister`) — anchored on fund. 2's *distinctione sexta, capitulo*. p.251 footers ¹–² (`Sive minorem.` / `Cfr. supra q. 3.`) were already consumed by chunk q5 (its Solutio-4 anchors), so q6 begins at p.251 footer ³ as instructed.
  - **p.252 footers ³–⁷ → [^3]–[^7].** p.252 has 8 printed footers (¹ `Scil. ordinibus inferioribus…`, ² `Dionys., de Caelest. Hierarch., c. 3 § 2 seq.…`, ³ `Ita cod. cc et ed. I…`, ⁴ `Epist. I. Cor. 13,10…`, ⁵ `August., de Vera Relig. c. 41 n. 77…`, ⁶ `Hic in fundam. 1. et 2. cit.`, ⁷ `Codd. T bb hoc…`, ⁸ `Dist. 5. a. 3. q. 2…`). Footers ¹, ², ⁸ anchor on QUAESTIO VII body (whose marker columns fall on p.252's right column though q7's text begins on p.253) and are NOT q6's — they will be taken by chunk q7. q6 takes p.252 footers ³–⁷: footer ³ → [^3] (anchors *Ad oppositum* 1's `naturae et gratiae`); footer ⁴ → [^4] (anchors *Ad oppositum* 2's `quod ex parte est`); footer ⁵ → [^5] (anchors *Ad oppositum* 3's `pulcritudo consistit in ordine`); footer ⁶ → [^6] (anchors the Respondeo's *Ad fundamenta* `Magister et Apostolus`); footer ⁷ → [^7] (anchors Solutio-2's `ut supra dictum fuit`).
  - **p.253 carries no q6 apparatus entry.** p.253 footer ¹ (`Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`) is the editor's no-scholion cross-reference for q6 — documented in the "No scholion" note above, not rendered as a `[^N]`. p.253 footers ²+ belong to QUAESTIO VII.
  - **Net q6 apparatus: 7 entries — p.251 footer ³–⁴ + p.252 footer ³–⁷.**
- Incoming cross-chunk boundary from `d9-a1-q5` CLEAN: q5's SCHOLION III closes mid-p.251 left column with `Dionys. Carth., hic q. 7.`; QUAESTIO VI opens immediately below on the same p.251 left column with `Sexto quaeritur de ordinibus Angelorum quantum ad praelationis evacuationem`. No q5 text leaked.
- Outgoing cross-chunk boundary to `d9-a1-q7` CLEAN: q6's Solutio-4 closes at the top of p.253 left column with `…non dicit actum, sed habitum vel statum`; QUAESTIO VII (`Septimo quaeritur de illis ordinibus Angelorum quantum ad numerum…`) opens immediately below. Raw line 18081 confirmed as the QUAESTIO VII heading. No QUAESTIO VII text included.
- Marginal labels preserved inline per locked Vol II convention: *Fundamenta.* (obj. 1), *Ad oppositum.* (Ad opp. 1), *Aliquid praefertur tripliciter.* / *Tria in praelatione.* / *Conclusio 1.* / *Conclusio 2.* / *Ad fundamenta 1, 2.* (in Respondeo), *Solutio oppositorum.* (Solutio 1).
- OCR garbles cleaned silently against the 450 dpi crops: the cascade-shattered Respondeo (`Triainprae-perfectae nraelationis`, `Aiiquid … fhfhJieT.` marginal splice, `exeedentis`, `influeidis`, `coDcinsio`/`coociasio` for *Conclusio*, `Ad^fundam`, `s°'j"j'j^°|,^°_p`) reflowed column-by-column from the PDF; *Angelorum* (OCR `Angeloruiti`), *evacuaverit* (`evacuaveril`), *ordinem* (`ordinera`), *praelatione* (`praelatioue`), *officia* (`offlcia`), *perficiendo* (`perflciendo`), *iudicium* (`iudiciimi`/`iudiciuin`), *illuminatio* (`illurainatio`), *maioritatem*/*minoritatem* (`maioritatera`/`rainoritatem`), *mutatur* (`nuitalur`), *tollitur* (`toUitur`), *remansit* (`reraansit`), *parte* (`parle`), *summus* (`sunnnus`), *infimi* (`infirai`), *nunquam* (`nunquara`), *Apostolus* (`Apo-stolus`), *imperium* (`irapenuni`), *contemplativae* (`contemplative`/`virlutis`), *beatificati* (`beatiflcati`), *pulcritudo* (`pulcritudo`/`critudo`), *praesidentiam* (`.ndenliam`/`prae-.ndenliam`), *inseparabile* (`inse-parabile`), *Principatum* (`Princvpatus`), *principari* (`]}rincipari`), *habitum* (`habituui`), *statum* (`slatum`). The footer block diagonally fragmented across both columns was reflowed in printed order.
- **No [?] flags raised.**
- **DISTINCTION 9 NOW 8/11.**

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. 9, Art. 1, Q. 7

source_text:
<!-- page 253 -->

### Quaestio VII. *Utrum ordines Angelorum sint tantum novem, an plures.*

Septimo quaeritur de illis ordinibus Angelorum quantum ad numerum; et quaeritur, utrum sit status in novenario, an protendatur numerus usque ad denarium. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. *Fundamenta.* Sicut habetur in Lucae decimo quinto[^3], in parabola de drachma, homo intelligitur per drachmam decimam; sed non dicitur drachma decima nisi respectu novenarii, qui est in Angelis: ergo si decima drachma reinventa est, videtur, quod novem ordinibus decimus ordo adiunctus sit.

2. Item, si Angelus nunquam peccasset, homo factus esset et[^5] ad beatitudinem perveniret; sed non assumeretur ad restaurandos Angelorum ordines: ergo si non careret ordine, in aliquo ordine poneretur. Sed sive in uno, sive in pluribus, novem ordinibus adiiceretur ordo ulterius. Si ergo civitas Ierusalem per Christum perfecte restaurata est, videtur, quod non sit status ordinum in novenario, immo quod eis adiiciatur saltem decimus ordo.

3. Item, prima proportio reperitur in numeris; et quia omnia producta sunt secundum debitam proportionem, omnia dicuntur esse producta secundum rationes numerales, tam ab Augustino[^6] quam a Boethio. Si ergo civitas supernae Ierusalem est civitas perfectissima et optime proportionata, videtur, quod numerus ordinum et graduum eius non stabit citra eum numerum, in quo est perfectio et status; sed hic non est novenarius, sed denarius: ergo videtur, quod saltem usque ad denarium protendatur.

4. Item, beatissima Virgo Maria in patria non erit praeter ordinem: cum ergo sit supra omnes ordines, per se constituet ordinem: ergo videtur, quod sint ibi plures quam novem ordines.

**Ad oppositum:**
*Ad oppositum* arguitur sic: 1. Omnis ordo reducitur ad aliquam hierarchiam; sed non sunt nisi tres hierarchiae, sicut patet ex sufficientia prius assignata[^7]: suprema, media et infima, et quaelibet[^1] earum sufficienter completur triplici ordine[^2]: ergo non videtur, quod debeant esse plures.

2. Item, Trinitas manifestatur in omnibus creaturis secundum plus et minus, maxime autem manifestari debet in Beatis; sed numerus maxime expressivus Trinitatis est ille[^4] qui consistit in trinitate super se reflexa, sicut sunt tres terni[^8]: ergo videtur, quod in tali numero ordines Beatorum habeant a summa Trinitate institui.

3. Item, distinctio ordinum est secundum dona gratiarum; sed nullum donum gratiae est in hominibus, quod non sit in Angelis: ergo nullum ordinem constituent homines praeter ordines Angelorum. Sed illi non sunt nisi novem: ergo non videtur, quod sit ponere numerum maiorem.

4. Item, si ponitur ordo hominum per se praeter assignatos ordines Angelorum, cum in omni ordine Angelorum sint de hominibus, tunc homines distinguerentur secundum decem gradus: ergo videtur, quod perfectioris numeri sit ordo in hominibus quam in beatis spiritibus. Quod non videtur, cum ipsi per naturam sint Deo proximiores et similiores, ac per hoc constitui debeant in ordinis et numeri nobilissima perfectione.

### Conclusio

> Probabile esse videtur, quod novem Angelorum ordinibus additur ordo decimus hominum imperfectorum, sed meritis Christi salvatorum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum ad hoc, quod quia rationes praedictae solum *congruitatis* sunt, et auctoritates super hoc non inveniuntur expressae, *Notandum.* quod super hoc sunt opiniones variae.

*Opinio 1.* Quidam namque dicere voluerunt, quod omnes homines assumerentur ad Angelorum ordines, nec essent in illa superna Ierusalem nisi ordines novem: et sic competebat, ut esset expressa configuratio ad supermundanam hierarchiam, quae in Trinitate consistit; et si Angeli stetissent, ad ordines eorum assumti essent[^9], sicut nunc assumuntur. In hoc tamen differt, quod tunc illa assumtio esset hominum *beatificatio* solum, nunc autem est hominum *beatificatio* et ruinae Angelorum per quandam aequivalentiam *reparatio*. Nec obstant rationes ad hoc inductae, quia solum *congruitatis* sunt; nec illud quod obiicitur de beata Virgine, quia sicut privilegium speciale non est reducendum ad legem communem, sic singularis praerogativa, quae est in beata Virgine, non est numeranda cum ordinum distinctione, quae est secundum legem communem. — *Est probabilis.* Et ista opinio satis probabilis esse videtur.

<!-- page 254 -->

*Opinio 2.* Verumtamen, quia textus evangelicus hoc sonare videtur, dum hominem decimam drachmam vocat, et Anselmus hoc videtur innuere in libro *de Casu diaboli*[^10], videtur aliis magis esse probabile, quod homines per se constituant communiter unum ordinem, quem vocant decimum, respectu novem ordinum Angelorum. Non enim decet, ut dicunt, quod homines assumantur ad ordines Angelorum, nisi illi qui in hac vita eis similes exstiterunt. Illi autem sunt virgines, qui nec nubuntur nec nubunt[^11]; ideo solas virgines ad ordines Angelorum dicunt assumi, et ex eis solis ruinam angelicam restaurari, pro eo quod Angelis multum est cognata virginitas. — *Non probatur.* Sed haec positio non videtur esse conveniens, tum quia per decimam drachmam non solummodo corrupti, sed etiam virgines homines intelliguntur; tum etiam, quia multi carne corrupti multis virginibus praeferuntur, ut beata Maria Magdalena et Petrus apostolus multis aliis virginibus masculis et feminis absque dubio sunt superiores.

*Opinio 3. et conclusio.* Et ideo tertia positio est adhuc, quod supra novem ordines Angelorum addetur ordo decimus ex his, qui in vita ista non pervenerunt ad tantam meritorum excellentiam, ut exaltentur ad ordines Angelorum; sed meritis Christi salvati, decimum tenent gradum, sicut pro eorum salute sol iustitiae Christus per decem gradus descendit, quod signatum fuit in miraculo facto Ezechiae, quarti Regum vigesimo[^12]. — *Rationes.* Et ista positio videtur esse satis probabilis, tum propter imperfectionem meritorum, quam habent multi in via, tum etiam propter perfectionem electorum quantum ad numerum, quae erit in Ierusalem superna. Perfectio autem maxima in denario consistit, sicut infra[^13] dicetur, quando agetur de decalogo, vel de decimatione. Et ideo positionem istam possumus sustinere, quia eam probabilem reddit decimationis significatio et decimae drachmae inventio et solis per decem gradus descensio et ipsius denarii perfectio.

*Solutio oppositorum.* 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod quilibet ordo est in aliqua hierarchia; dicendum est, quod sicut praeter angelicam hierarchiam est nunc ponere hierarchiam ecclesiasticam, sic praeter illas angelicas hierarchias erit intelligere, in decimo gradu salvari simul rationem ordinis et hierarchiae: hierarchiae inquam, per comparationem ipsorum ad invicem, quia non habebunt omnimodam aequalitatem; sed ordinis per comparationem ad ordines superiores.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de expressa repraesentatione summae Trinitatis, dicendum, quod sicut unitas addita novenario novenarium non perimit, sed salvat et ad perfectiorem numerum deducit; sic decimus ordo, ex hominibus constitutus, repraesentationem summae Trinitatis ab angelicis spiritibus non tollit, sed salva illa expressa repraesentatione, facit ad supernae civitatis maiorem perfectionem.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est distinctio secundum dona gratiarum; dicendum, quod non est secundum dona tantum, sed secundum dona quantum ad *statum*. Infra autem omnes status ordinum Angelorum adhuc[^14] est intelligere statum magis infimum in hominibus, et ita ordinem decimum, quamvis ex divina benignitate et largitate contingat, in gratia homines aequiparari Angelis, quibus sunt inferiores per naturam.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tunc erit maior perfectio in hominibus; dicendum, quod falsum est, quia hoc non est propter maiorem *perfectionem*, sed propter maiorem a Deo *elongationem*. Infimus enim ordo inter omnes magis distat a Deo, sicut primus maxime appropinquat; et quia homo pluribus gradibus natus est distare a Deo quam Angelus, licet ex divina misericordia factus sit ei magis proximus: ideo tenet decimum locum, ut sic ostendatur, quod excellat Angelus hominem per naturam, ostendatur etiam nihilominus, quantum Deus sibi invisceraverit hominem per misericordiam[^15].

<!-- page 255 -->

english:
<!-- page 253 -->

### Question VII. *Whether the orders of Angels are only nine, or more.*

Seventhly it is asked concerning those orders of the Angels as to number; and it is asked whether there is a fixed condition in the nine-fold [number], or whether the number is extended as far as the ten-fold [number]. And that it is so, [thus] it seems.

1. *The fundamenta.* As is had in Luke, chapter fifteen[^3], in the parable of the drachma, man is understood by the tenth drachma; but it is not called the tenth drachma except in respect of the nine-fold [number], which is in the Angels: therefore if the tenth drachma has been found again, it seems that to the nine orders a tenth order has been added.

2. Likewise, if an Angel had never sinned, man would have been made and[^5] would have come to beatitude; but he would not have been taken up to restore the orders of the Angels: therefore if he were not to lack an order, he would be placed in some order. But whether in one or in several, a further order would be added to the nine orders. If therefore the city Jerusalem has been perfectly restored through Christ, it seems that there is no fixed condition of the orders in the nine-fold [number], but rather that at least a tenth order is added to them.

3. Likewise, the first proportion is found in numbers; and because all things produced are [produced] according to a due proportion, all things are said to be produced according to numerical accounts, both by Augustine[^6] and by Boethius. If therefore the city of the supernal Jerusalem is a most perfect city and best proportioned, it seems that the number of its orders and grades will not stop short of that number in which there is perfection and a fixed condition; but this is not the nine-fold [number], but the ten-fold: therefore it seems that it is extended at least as far as the ten-fold [number].

4. Likewise, the most blessed Virgin Mary in the fatherland will not be without an order: since therefore she is above all the orders, she will by herself constitute an order: therefore it seems that there are there more than nine orders.

**To the opposite:**
*To the opposite* it is argued thus: 1. Every order is reduced to some hierarchy; but there are only three hierarchies, as is clear from the sufficiency assigned earlier[^7]: the supreme, the middle, and the lowest, and each[^1] of them is sufficiently completed by a threefold order[^2]: therefore it does not seem that there ought to be more.

2. Likewise, the Trinity is manifested in all creatures according to more and less, but it ought most of all to be manifested in the Blessed; but the number most expressive of the Trinity is that[^4] which consists in a trinity reflected upon itself, as are three threes[^8]: therefore it seems that in such a number the orders of the Blessed have been instituted by the supreme Trinity.

3. Likewise, the distinction of the orders is according to the gifts of the graces; but there is no gift of grace in men which is not in the Angels: therefore men will constitute no order beyond the orders of the Angels. But those are only nine: therefore it does not seem that a greater number is to be posited.

4. Likewise, if an order of men is posited by itself beyond the orders of the Angels assigned, since in every order of Angels there are [some] of men, then men would be distinguished according to ten grades: therefore it seems that the order in men is of a more perfect number than in the blessed spirits. Which does not seem [right], since they by nature are nearer and more like to God, and on this account ought to be constituted in the most noble perfection of order and number.

### Conclusion

> It seems probable that to the nine orders of the Angels there is added a tenth order, of imperfect men, but [men] saved by the merits of Christ.

**I respond:** It must be said to this that, because the aforesaid arguments are only of *congruity*, and authorities upon this are not found expressed, *To be noted.* upon this matter there are various opinions.

*First opinion.* For some have wished to say that all men would be taken up into the orders of the Angels, and that there would be in that supernal Jerusalem only nine orders: and thus it was fitting that there should be an express configuration to the supramundane hierarchy, which consists in the Trinity; and if the Angels had stood [firm], [men] would have been taken up into their orders[^9], just as they now are taken up. In this, however, there is a difference, that then that taking-up would be only the *beatification* of men, but now it is the *beatification* of men and the *repair*, by a certain equivalence, of the fall of the Angels. Nor do the arguments adduced to this stand in the way, because they are only of *congruity*; nor [does] that which is objected concerning the blessed Virgin, because just as a special privilege is not to be reduced to the common law, so the singular prerogative which is in the blessed Virgin is not to be numbered with the distinction of the orders, which is according to the common law. — *It is probable.* And this opinion seems probable enough.

<!-- page 254 -->

*Second opinion.* Nevertheless, because the gospel text seems to sound thus, when it calls man the tenth drachma, and Anselm seems to hint at this in the book *On the Fall of the Devil*[^10], it seems to others more probable that men by themselves constitute in common one order, which they call the tenth, in respect of the nine orders of the Angels. For it is not fitting, as they say, that men be taken up into the orders of the Angels, except those who in this life have been like to them. But those are the virgins, who neither are given in marriage nor marry[^11]; therefore they say that virgins alone are taken up into the orders of the Angels, and that from these alone is the angelic fall repaired, on account of the fact that virginity is much akin to the Angels. — *It is not proven.* But this position does not seem to be fitting, both because by the tenth drachma not only the corrupt but also virgin men are understood; and also because many corrupt in flesh are preferred to many virgins, as the blessed Mary Magdalene and Peter the apostle are without doubt superior to many other virgins, both male and female.

*Third opinion and conclusion.* And so there is still a third position, that above the nine orders of the Angels a tenth order will be added, [composed] of those who in this life did not attain to so great an excellence of merits as to be exalted into the orders of the Angels; but, saved by the merits of Christ, they hold the tenth grade, just as for their salvation the sun of justice, Christ, descended through ten grades, which was signified in the miracle done for Hezekiah, in the fourth [book] of Kings, chapter twenty[^12]. — *The reasons.* And this position seems to be probable enough, both on account of the imperfection of the merits which many have on the way, and also on account of the perfection of the elect as to number, which will be in the supernal Jerusalem. But the greatest perfection consists in the ten-fold [number], as will be said below[^13], when there will be a treatment of the decalogue, or of tithing. And therefore we can sustain this position, because the signification of tithing and the finding of the tenth drachma and the descent of the sun through ten grades and the perfection of the ten-fold [number] itself render it probable.

*Solution of the opposing [arguments].* 1. To that, then, which is objected — that every order is in some hierarchy — it must be said that, just as beyond the angelic hierarchy there is now to be posited an ecclesiastical hierarchy, so beyond those angelic hierarchies it will be [right] to understand that in the tenth grade there is saved at once the account of an order and of a hierarchy: of a hierarchy, I say, by comparison of [its members] to one another, because they will not have an altogether equality; but of an order, by comparison to the superior orders.

2. To that which is objected concerning the express representation of the supreme Trinity, it must be said that, just as a unit added to the nine-fold [number] does not destroy the nine-fold [number], but preserves it and leads it to a more perfect number; so the tenth order, constituted of men, does not take away the representation of the supreme Trinity from the angelic spirits, but, that express representation being preserved, makes for the greater perfection of the supernal city.

3. To that which is objected — that the distinction is according to the gifts of the graces — it must be said that it is not according to the gifts alone, but according to the gifts as to *state*. But below all the states of the orders of the Angels it is still[^14] [right] to understand a more lowly state in men, and so a tenth order, although it may come about, from the divine kindness and bounty, that men be made equal in grace to the Angels, to whom they are inferior by nature.

4. To that which is objected — that then there will be a greater perfection in men — it must be said that it is false, because this is not on account of a greater *perfection*, but on account of a greater *removal* from God. For the lowest order of all is the most distant from God, just as the first most of all draws near; and because man is born to be distant from God by more grades than an Angel, although by the divine mercy he has been made more near to Him: therefore he holds the tenth place, so that thus it may be shown that an Angel excels man by nature, [and] it may also be shown none the less how much God has taken man into His inmost being through mercy[^15].

<!-- page 255 -->

la: Scil. ordinibus inferioribus. — Dein multi codd. cum prioribus edd. perperam *quae* pro *qui*.

en: Namely by the lower orders. — Then many codices, along with the earlier editions, wrongly [read] *quae* for *qui*.

la: Dionys., de Caelest. Hierarch., c. 3. § 2. seq. — Explicationem vide infra d. 10. a. 2. q. 2. in fine.

en: Dionysius, *On the Celestial Hierarchy*, c. 3, § 2 and following. — For the explanation see below, d. 10, a. 2, q. 2, at the end.

la: Vers. 8. — Paulo superius plures codd. vel *procedat* vel *procedatur* pro *protendatur*.

en: [Luke 15,] verse 8. — A little above, several codices [read] either *procedat* or *procedatur* for *protendatur*.

la: Dist. 5. a. 3. q. 2. praecipue ad 2. et d. 7. p. I. a. 1. q. 3.

en: Distinction 5, a. 3, q. 2, especially [the reply] to [argument] 2; and d. 7, p. I, a. 1, q. 3.

la: Cod. bb *ut*. — Hoc arg. insinuatur ab Anselmo, l. *Cur Deus homo*, c. 18.

en: Codex bb [reads] *ut*. — This argument is intimated by Anselm, [in the] book *Why God [became] Man*, c. 18.

la: Libr. IV. de Gen. ad lit. c. 3. n. 7; III. c. 16. n. 2-3; XI. de Trin. c. 11. n. 18. — Boeth., I. de Arithmetica, c. 1. ait: Haec [arithmetica] enim cunctis prior est, non modo, quod hanc ille huius mundanae molis conditor Deus primam suae habuit ratiocinationis exemplar et ad hanc cuncta constituit, quaecumque, fabricante ratione, per numeros assignati ordinis invenere concordiam, sed etc. Ibid. libr. II. c. 42. etiam docet, primam proportionem esse in arithmetica, quia «hanc nobis in principio ipsa numerorum natura et vis naturalis quantitatis opponit». Quod numerus denarius sit perfectus, asserit August., Epist. 55. ad inquis. Ianuarii, libr. II. c. 13. n. 28. dicens: Denarius, in quo est perfectio beatitudinis nostrae... quia redit ad primum. Cfr. I. Musicae, c. 11. n. 19. seq. Plura de numeris et de numero perfecto vide 1. Sent. d. 2. q. 4, scholion. — Vat. in principio arg. perperam omittit *prima*.

en: Book IV of *On Genesis to the Letter*, c. 3, n. 7; III, c. 16, n. 2-3; XI of *On the Trinity*, c. 11, n. 18. — Boethius, *On Arithmetic* book I, c. 1, says: «For this [arithmetic] is prior to all things, not only because God, the founder of this mundane mass, had it as the first exemplar of His reasoning, and constituted toward it all things which, with reason fashioning [them], found through numbers the concord of an assigned order, but etc.» In the same place, book II, c. 42, he also teaches that the first proportion is in arithmetic, because «this the very nature of numbers and the natural force of quantity sets before us at the beginning». That the ten-fold number is perfect, Augustine asserts, *Letter* 55, to the inquiry of Januarius, book II, c. 13, n. 28, saying: «The ten-fold [number], in which is the perfection of our beatitude... because it returns to the first». Cf. *On Music* I, c. 11, n. 19 and following. For more on numbers and on the perfect number see *1 Sent.* d. 2, q. 4, scholion. — The Vatican edition, at the beginning of the argument, wrongly omits *prima* (*first*).

la: In praenotatis huius dist.

en: In the prefatory matter of this distinction.

la: Ita codd. A Y, multorum codd. lectio est dubia; Vat. *trini*. — De termino *trinus* cfr. 1. Sent. d. 24. a. 3. q. 1. 2, ubi docetur, hunc terminum significare pluralitatem et unitatem.

en: So codices A [and] Y; the reading of many codices is doubtful; the Vatican edition [reads] *trini*. — On the term *trinus* (*threefold*) cf. *1 Sent.* d. 24, a. 3, q. 1 and 2, where it is taught that this term signifies plurality and unity.

la: Supple cum cod. A *homines*. Dein post *sicut* in cod. Y additur *et*.

en: Supply, with codex A, *homines* (*men*). Then after *sicut* in codex Y is added *et*.

la: Non in libro *de Casu diaboli*, qui a codd. et edd. allegatur, sed in libro I. *Cur Deus homo*, c. 18. Cfr. hic fundam. 2.

en: Not in the book *On the Fall of the Devil*, which is cited by the codices and editions, but in book I of *Why God [became] Man*, c. 18. Cf. here fundamentum 2.

la: Matth. 22, 30: *Neque nubent neque nubentur*, quod etiam cod. 1 ponit. Mox Vat. *ideo solae virgines... debent* [aliqui codd. *dicuntur*] *assumi... ruina angelica restaurari*.

en: Matthew 22:30: *Neither shall they marry nor be given in marriage*, which codex 1 also sets down. Presently the Vatican edition [reads] *ideo solae virgines... debent* (*therefore virgins alone... ought*) [some codices, *dicuntur* (*are said*)] *assumi... ruina angelica restaurari* (*to be taken up... the angelic fall to be repaired*).

la: Vers. 9. seqq.

en: [4 Kings 20,] verse 9 and following.

la: Libr. III. Sent. d. 37. a. 2. q. 1. Cfr. IV. Sent. d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. in corp. — In cod. A additur *libro tertio dist. 3*, ubi p. II. a. 1. q. 1. seq. agitur de decimatione.

en: Book III of the *Sentences*, d. 37, a. 2, q. 1. Cf. *IV Sent.* d. 1, p. II, a. 1, q. 3, in the body. — In codex A is added *libro tertio dist. 3* (*in the third book, distinction 3*), where, p. II, a. 1, q. 1 and following, there is a treatment of tithing.

la: Non pauci codd. cum edd. I, 2, transpositis verbis, legunt *status Angelorum adhuc ordinum est intelligere* etc.

en: Not a few codices, along with editions I and 2, with the words transposed, read *status Angelorum adhuc ordinum est intelligere* etc.

la: Alluditur ad Luc. 1, 78.

en: There is an allusion to Luke 1:78. ---

latin_scholion:
Haec quaestio est quasi complementum eius quod supra quaest. 5. dictum est, quo loco alii Lombardi Commentatores plerumque hanc rem tangunt. Ut notatur in responsione, nihil certi de hoc definitum est. S. Thom., aliter sentiens ac S. Bonav., dicit (hic q. unica, a. 8.): «Tertia positio plus mihi placet, quae etiam dictis Sanctorum magis consonat, scil. quod omnes electi assumantur ad ordines Angelorum, quidam ad superiores, quidam ad inferiores, quidam ad medios, pro diversitate suorum meritorum». Idem ab ipso docetur S. I. q. 108. a. 8, cui etiam assentiunt Petr. a Tar., hic a. 8; B. Albert., hic a. 8; S. p. II. tr. 10. q. 42. m. 3; Aegid. R., hic q. 3. a. 1. Sed Richard. a Med. (hic a. 2. q. 5.) magis favet opinioni S. Bonaventurae. Biel (hic q. 1. circa finem) utramque opinionem censet esse probabilem.

---

english_scholion:
This question is, as it were, the complement of that which was said above in question 5, in which place the other commentators on the Lombard for the most part touch this matter. As is noted in the response, nothing certain has been defined concerning this. St. Thomas, holding otherwise than St. Bonaventure, says (here, the single question, art. 8): «The third position pleases me more, which also accords more with the sayings of the Saints, namely that all the elect are taken up into the orders of the Angels, some into the higher, some into the lower, some into the middle, according to the diversity of their merits». The same is taught by him [in the] First [Part], q. 108, art. 8, with whom also agree Peter of Tarentaise, here art. 8; the Blessed Albert, here art. 8; [Alexander of Hales,] *Summa* p. II, tr. 10, q. 42, m. 3; Giles of Rome, here q. 3, art. 1. But Richard of Mediavilla (here art. 2, q. 5) favors more the opinion of St. Bonaventure. Biel (here q. 1, near the end) judges both opinions to be probable.

---

translators_notes:
- s71 (2026-05-21): built from auto-chunked skeleton (raw 18081–18208) to Tier 2 — Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR base over 450 dpi PDF column-band crops of printed pp.252–255 (PDF 274–277), fresh literal English, 15-entry apparatus, SCHOLION translated in full.
- **Page span.** q7's body opens at the head of p.253 left column (immediately below q6's Solutio-4, `…sed habitum vel statum`) and runs through p.253, p.254, ending on p.254 with `…invisceraverit hominem per misericordiam`. The SCHOLION sits on p.255, between the close of QUAESTIO VII and QUAESTIO VIII. `printed_pages`/`pdf_pages` set to [252,253,254,255]/[274,275,276,277] — p.252 is included because three of q7's apparatus footers physically sit in the p.252 footer block (see crosswalk). `source` line gives the *body* span pp.253–255. The running heads OCR-mangle the page numbers (`2b4`=254, `2o;`/`2.5.5`=255) and the column running heads (`DIST. l.\. .\HT. UNICUS QU.\EST. VIII.`); all ignored per the Vol II Override (trust the +22 offset, never the OCR digits).
- **SCHOLION present.** Unlike q6 (whose footer was `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`), q7 has its own SCHOLION on p.255 (`Haec quaestio est quasi complementum eius quod supra quaest. 5. dictum est…`), spanning both columns of p.255 above QUAESTIO VIII. Translated in full. It carries no footnote markers of its own — the p.255 footers (¹–⁹) all anchor on QUAESTIO VIII's body (the *Per Dionysium* / *Contra* arguments visible in p.255's columns), not on the scholion. `has_scholion: true`.
- **Structure:** opening (`Septimo quaeritur…`) + 4 *videtur* objections (the *fundamenta*) + 4 *Ad oppositum* arguments + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (`Notandum` — three opiniones: *Opinio 1* with `Est probabilis`, *Opinio 2* with `Non probatur`, *Opinio 3 et conclusio* with `Rationes`) + Solutio oppositorum 1, 2, 3, 4 + SCHOLION.
- **Apparatus 15 entries ([^1]–[^15]), page→footer crosswalk.** Quaracchi restarts footer numbering on each printed page; the chunk's `[^N]` markers run continuously from `[^1]` as plain integers per corpus convention. Footers split by *body anchor*, not by which printed page physically holds the footer block (Vol II Override §4):
  - **p.252 footer ¹ → [^1]** (`Scil. ordinibus inferioribus…`) — anchors *Ad oppositum* 1's `quaelibet` on p.253. p.252 footer ² → **[^2]** (`Dionys., de Caelest. Hierarch., c. 3 § 2 seq.…`) — anchors *Ad oppositum* 1's `triplici ordine` on p.253. p.252 footer ⁸ → **[^4]** (`Dist. 5. a. 3. q. 2…`) — anchors objection 2's `numerus maxime expressivus Trinitatis est ille` on p.253. The marker columns for these three footers bleed onto p.252's right column even though q7's body text begins on p.253; their body anchors all lie in q7, so the three notes are q7's. p.252 footers ³–⁷ were consumed by chunk q6 (its *Ad oppositum* / Respondeo / Solutio anchors), q6 footer ¹–² by chunk q5 — all already retired.
  - **p.253 footers ²–⁶ → [^3] and [^5]–[^8].** p.253 has 6 printed footers: ¹ `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`, ² `Vers. 8. — Paulo superius…`, ³ `Cod. bb ut — Hoc arg. insinuatur ab Anselmo…`, ⁴ `Libr. IV. de Gen. ad lit.…` (the long Boethius/Augustine number note), ⁵ `In praenotatis huius dist.`, ⁶ `Ita codd. A Y… Vat. trini…`. **Footer ¹ (`Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`) is NOT q7's** — its body anchor is q6's `…sed habitum vel statum¹` on the top four lines of p.253 left column (q6's Solutio-4 tail), and chunk q6 already retired it as its no-scholion cross-reference; q7's body begins on p.253 *after* that q6 tail, so q7's first p.253 footer is ². footer ² → [^3] (anchors fund. 1's `Lucae decimo quinto`); footer ³ → [^5] (anchors fund. 2's `homo factus esset et`); footer ⁴ → [^6] (anchors fund. 3's `Augustino`); footer ⁵ → [^7] (anchors *Ad oppositum* 1's `sufficientia prius assignata` — the `In praenotatis huius dist.` note); footer ⁶ → [^8] (anchors objection 2's `tres terni`, the `trini`/`terni` variant note).
  - **p.254 footers ¹–⁷ → [^9]–[^15].** p.254 has 7 printed footers: ¹ `Supple cum cod. A homines…` → [^9] (anchors *Opinio 1*'s `assumti essent`); ² `Non in libro de Casu diaboli…` → [^10] (anchors *Opinio 2*'s `de Casu diaboli`); ³ `Matth. 22, 30…` → [^11] (anchors *Opinio 2*'s `nec nubuntur nec nubunt`); ⁴ `Vers. 9. seqq.` → [^12] (anchors *Opinio 3*'s `quarti Regum vigesimo`); ⁵ `Libr. III. Sent. d. 37…` → [^13] (anchors *Rationes*' `infra dicetur`); ⁶ `Non pauci codd. cum edd. I, 2…` → [^14] (anchors Solutio-3's `adhuc`); ⁷ `Alluditur ad Luc. 1, 78.` → [^15] (anchors Solutio-4's `per misericordiam`).
  - **p.255 carries no q7 apparatus entry.** Its footers ¹–⁹ all belong to QUAESTIO VIII; the q7 SCHOLION on p.255 has no markers.
  - **Net q7 apparatus: 15 entries — p.252 footer ¹/²/⁸ + p.253 footer ²–⁶ + p.254 footer ¹–⁷.**
- Incoming cross-chunk boundary from `d9-a1-q6` CLEAN: q6's Solutio-4 closes at the head of p.253 left column with `…quia principatus non dicit actum, sed habitum vel statum`; QUAESTIO VII (`Utrum ordines Angelorum sint tantum novem, an plures` / `Septimo quaeritur de illis ordinibus Angelorum quantum ad numerum…`) opens immediately below on the same p.253 left column. No q6 text leaked; q7 opens grammatically clean with the heading.
- Outgoing cross-chunk boundary to `d9-a1-q8` CLEAN: q7's SCHOLION closes on p.255 with `…Biel (hic q. 1. circa finem) utramque opinionem censet esse probabilem`; QUAESTIO VIII (`Utrum in eodem ordine Angelorum sit perfecta aequalitas, an quaedam gradatio` / `Octavo quaeritur de ordinibus Angelorum in comparatione ad suum oppositum…`) opens immediately below at raw line 18209. No QUAESTIO VIII text included.
- Marginal labels preserved inline per locked Vol II convention: *Fundamenta.* (obj. 1), *Ad oppositum.* (Ad opp. 1), *Notandum.* (Respondeo opener), *Opinio 1.* / *Est probabilis.* / *Opinio 2.* / *Non probatur.* / *Opinio 3. et conclusio.* / *Rationes.* (the three opiniones), *Solutio oppositorum.* (Solutio 1).
- OCR garbles cleaned silently against the 450 dpi crops: the cascade-shattered Respondeo and three opiniones (`Angeloruni`, `mimerus`/`nuniero`, `manifeslari`, `nuiic`, `autera`, `bealificcUio`/`beiUificatio` for *beatificatio*, `reparcUio` for *reparatio*, `congruitalis`, `comaiunera` for *communem*, `opiuio`, `qiiia`, `innnere` for *innuere*, `riiinam` for *ruinam*, `mnltmn` for *multum*, `nnilti` for *multi*, `praeferimtur` for *praeferuntur*, `Magdalena` for *Magdalena*, `salule` for *salute*, `signaium`, `Regum`, `habenl` for *habent*, `raaiorem`/`maxiraa` for *maiorem*/*maxima*, `Inflmus`/`Infimus`, `dislare`, `homineni`/`hominern`/`homineni` for *hominem*, `naturara` for *naturam*, `invisceraverit`); the Solutio oppositorum (`qnod`/`obiicilur`, `dicendura`, `spirilibus`, `mm lollit` for *non tollit*, `stcUum`/`statura` for *statum*/*statum*, `inteUigere`, `aequiparari`); the SCHOLION (`complcmcntum`, `LomlMrdi` for *Lombardi*, `niliil`, `deflnilum`, `Tliom.`, `posilio`, `Kichard.`, `naveniurae` for *Bonaventurae*, `essc`). Footer block diagonally fragmented across both columns of p.252/p.253/p.254 reflowed in printed order; the long [^6] Boethius/Augustine number note was reassembled from the shattered p.253 footer ⁴.
- **No [?] flags raised.**
- **DISTINCTION 9 NOW 9/11.**