title: Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 8

source_text:
<!-- page 255 -->

### Quaestio VIII. *Utrum in eodem ordine Angelorum sit perfecta aequalitas, an quaedam gradatio.*

Octavo quaeritur de ordinibus Angelorum in comparatione ad suum oppositum; et est quaestio, utrum in Angelis ordo compatiatur secum aequalitatem. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. *Per Dionysium.* Dicit enim Dionysius[^1], quod illi qui sunt in una hierarchia, aequipotentes sunt; sed qui sunt aequipotentes sunt aequales: ergo in eadem hierarchia Angeli sunt aequales: ergo multo fortius in eodem ordine.

2. Item, per Augustinum *de Vera Religione*[^2]: «In omnibus actibus convenientia placet, qua una salva, et pulcra sunt omnia; ipsa vero convenientia unitatem aequalitatemque appetit»: ergo si in angelicis ordinibus est perfecta pulcritudo, ergo et convenientia et aequalitas; sed non est aequalitas inter Angelos diversorum ordinum: ergo inter Angelos eiusdem ordinis.

3. Item, quorum donum et praemium est unum, ipsa habent aequalitatem; sed donum et praemium Angelorum eiusdem ordinis est unum, et status unus[^3]: ergo videtur, quod habeant aequalitatem.

4. Item, hierarchia angelica maxime est repraesentativa supremae hierarchiae; sed in illa ordo non excludit aequalitatem[^4]: ergo videtur, quod in hierarchia angelica debeat esse ordo cum aequalitate. Sed non est aequalitas in Angelis diversorum ordinum: ergo in Angelis eiusdem ordinis.

**Contra:**
1. Magister dicit in littera[^5]: «Sicut in Apostolis alii aliis sunt digniores, ita in ordinibus Angelorum creditur recte esse».

2. Item, perfectiori modo participat rationem ordinis[^6], ubi est ordo in omnibus, quam ubi est ordo in aliquibus tantum; sed Angeli perfectissimo modo inter ceteras creaturas participant ordinem: ergo non solum inter Angelos diversorum ordinum, sed etiam inter Angelos eiusdem ordinis contingit ordinem assignare.

3. Item, «sapientis est ordinare[^7]», et magis sapientis magis ordinare, ergo et maxime sapientis in eius effectu nobilissimo est res maxime ordinatas producere: ergo videtur, quod non solum sit ibi ordo inter Angelos diversorum ordinum, sed etiam inter Angelos eiusdem ordinis.

4. Item, lucifer dicitur fuisse maximus inter omnes Angelos; et constat, quod de aliquo ordine fuit: ergo Angeli illius ordinis non erant sibi aequales; pari ratione videtur, quod in aliis ordinibus alii sint superiores, alii inferiores.

### Conclusio

> Probabile est, inter Angelos eiusdem ordinis quandam reperiri gradationem, licet inter eos non sit tantus excessus, quantus est inter Angelos diversorum ordinum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod sicut in *suprema*[^8] hierarchia propter summam perfectionem reperitur pulcritudo ex perfectissima *aequalitate et similitudine parium*, sic in angelica hierarchia reperitur pulcritudo perfecta in genere creaturae ex quadam *gradatione disparium*. In his enim duobus modis consistit pulcritudo et convenientia, sicut dicit Augustinus *de Vera Religione*[^9]. Sed in suprema hierarchia ex sola similitudine et aequalitate potest esse perfectissima pulcritudo, quia in qualibet personarum aequalium est omnimoda et summa perfectio. In angelica vero hierarchia, quia illi spiritus, qui coordinantur, non habent singillatim summam perfectionem, necesse est, quod ex quadam convenienti diversitate, in quadam proportionali gradatione consurgat quaedam convenientia ordinata et pulcritudo in genere creaturae perfecta.

<!-- page 256 -->

Et ideo sicut in Sanctis intelligimus, quod unus est ordo Apostolorum, alter Martyrum, alter Confessorum, et sic de aliis; et tamen in his ordinibus est gradatio quaedam, nec potest omnimoda reperiri aequalitas, cum de quolibet Sancto possit dici: *Non est inventus similis illi, qui conservaret legem Excelsi*[^10]; sic suo modo intelligendum est in spiritibus angelicis. Ideo et in eodem ordine ponenda est quaedam gradatio et quidam ordo, licet non sit tantus excessus, quantus reperitur in Angelis diversorum ordinum. — Unde rationes hoc probantes concedendae sunt, quamvis non sint multum cogentes. Hoc enim videtur sentire tam Magister in littera[^11], quam Dionysius in libro *de Angelica Hierarchia*.

*Solutio oppositorum.* 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod aequipotentes sunt; dicendum, quod aequalitas illius posse attenditur vel accipitur secundum conformitatem conversionis[^12], secundum quam attenditur distinctio unius hierarchiae ab aliis; sicut prima hierarchia et ordines, qui sunt in illa, accipiuntur penes actum conversionis in Deum, non quia omnino aequaliter convertantur, sed quia ad hoc indifferenter omnes ordinantur et principaliter ab isto actu omnes denominantur.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod convenientia facit pulcritudinem; dicendum, quod, sicut ibidem dicit Augustinus, convenientia non tantum surgit ex aequalitate, sed etiam ex disparium congruenti gradatione; et sic in Angelis intelligendum est esse.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod habent idem donum et praemium; dicendum est, quod si intelligatur de praemio communi et increato, quod Deus est, verum est. Si autem intelligatur de beatitudine creata, vel de donis gratuitis[^13] quantum ad statum et dignitatem et praerogativam aliquam; sic non habet veritatem. Sic enim quilibet respectu alterius aliquam habet praerogativam secundum plus et minus.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod haec hierarchia repraesentat summam; dicendum, quod repraesentat, in quantum potest; et cum in illa suprema hierarchia sit ordo et perfecta pulcritudo in summa unitate et aequalitate, et haec in hierarchia creata non possint simul coexistere propter limitationem creaturae: ideo est ibi ponere ordinem et pulcritudinem cum diversitate et quadam disparilitate, ut quod non poterat hic fieri ex unitate, saltem impleretur ex plurium diversitate. — Et haec est ratio, quare Deus, cum habeat unum Filium, non tamen produxit unum solum Angelum, sed multos, quia Filius perfecte implet Patrem et imitatur, ut dicit Augustinus[^14], sed Angelus perfecte non exprimit Creatorem; ideo decuit eos creare in magna multitudine vel in multiformi ordine.

english:
<!-- page 255 -->

### Question VIII. *Whether in the same order of Angels there is a perfect equality, or a certain gradation.*

Eighthly it is asked concerning the orders of the Angels in comparison to their opposite; and the question is whether in the Angels an order is compatible with equality. And that it is so, [thus] it seems:

1. *Through Dionysius.* For Dionysius says[^1] that those who are in one hierarchy are equal in power; but those who are equal in power are equal: therefore in the same hierarchy the Angels are equal: therefore much more strongly in the same order.

2. Likewise, through Augustine, *On True Religion*[^2]: «In all acts a fittingness pleases, by which, when it alone is preserved, all things also are beautiful; and this fittingness itself seeks unity and equality»: therefore if in the angelic orders there is a perfect beauty, then [there is] also fittingness and equality; but there is no equality among the Angels of diverse orders: therefore [there is equality] among the Angels of the same order.

3. Likewise, those whose gift and reward is one have equality; but the gift and reward of the Angels of the same order is one, and [their] state one[^3]: therefore it seems that they have equality.

4. Likewise, the angelic hierarchy is most of all representative of the supreme hierarchy; but in that [supreme hierarchy] order does not exclude equality[^4]: therefore it seems that in the angelic hierarchy there ought to be order with equality. But there is no equality among the Angels of diverse orders: therefore [there is] among the Angels of the same order.

**On the contrary:**
1. The Master says in the text[^5]: «Just as among the Apostles some are worthier than others, so among the orders of the Angels it is rightly believed to be».

2. Likewise, the account of order is participated in a more perfect manner[^6] where there is order in all things, than where there is order in some things only; but the Angels among the other creatures participate in order in the most perfect manner: therefore not only among the Angels of diverse orders, but also among the Angels of the same order it is possible to assign an order.

3. Likewise, «it belongs to the wise man to order[^7]», and to one more wise [it belongs] to order more, therefore also to the most wise [it belongs], in his noblest effect, to produce things most highly ordered: therefore it seems that there is order there not only among the Angels of diverse orders, but also among the Angels of the same order.

4. Likewise, Lucifer is said to have been the greatest among all the Angels; and it is established that he was of some order: therefore the Angels of that order were not equal to one another; by a like reasoning it seems that in the other orders some are superior, others inferior.

### Conclusion

> It is probable that among the Angels of the same order a certain gradation is found, although among them there is not so great an excess as there is among the Angels of diverse orders.

**I respond:** It must be said that, just as in the *supreme*[^8] hierarchy, on account of its highest perfection, beauty is found from the most perfect *equality and likeness of equals*, so in the angelic hierarchy beauty perfect in the genus of creature is found from a certain *gradation of unequals*. For in these two modes consist beauty and fittingness, as Augustine says in *On True Religion*[^9]. But in the supreme hierarchy, from likeness and equality alone there can be the most perfect beauty, because in any of equal persons there is total and supreme perfection. But in the angelic hierarchy, because those spirits which are co-ordered do not have, taken singly, the supreme perfection, it is necessary that from a certain fitting diversity, in a certain proportional gradation, there arise a certain ordered fittingness and a beauty perfect in the genus of creature.

<!-- page 256 -->

And therefore, just as among the Saints we understand that one is the order of the Apostles, another of the Martyrs, another of the Confessors, and so of the others; and yet in these orders there is a certain gradation, nor can a total equality be found, since of any Saint it can be said: *There was not found one like to him, who kept the law of the Most High*[^10]; so, in its own manner, it must be understood in the angelic spirits. Therefore in the same order too there must be posited a certain gradation and a certain order, although there is not so great an excess as is found among the Angels of diverse orders. — Hence the arguments proving this are to be conceded, although they are not very compelling. For this seems to be the view both of the Master in the text[^11] and of Dionysius in the book *On the Angelic Hierarchy*.

*Solution of the opposing [arguments].* 1. To that which is objected — that they are equal in power — it must be said that the equality of that power is regarded or taken according to the conformity of [their] conversion[^12], according to which is regarded the distinction of one hierarchy from the others; just as the first hierarchy and the orders which are in it are taken with respect to the act of conversion to God, not because they are converted altogether equally, but because to this all are ordered indifferently and from this act principally all are denominated.

2. To that which is objected — that fittingness makes beauty — it must be said that, as Augustine says in the same place, fittingness arises not only from equality, but also from a congruent gradation of unequals; and so it must be understood to be in the Angels.

3. To that which is objected — that they have the same gift and reward — it must be said that, if it is understood of the common and uncreated reward, which is God, it is true. But if it is understood of created beatitude, or of the gratuitous gifts[^13] as to state and dignity and some prerogative; thus it does not hold true. For thus each one, in respect of another, has some prerogative according to more and less.

4. To that which is objected — that this hierarchy represents the supreme one — it must be said that it does represent [it], in so far as it can; and since in that supreme hierarchy there is order and perfect beauty in the highest unity and equality, and these cannot coexist together in a created hierarchy on account of the limitation of the creature: therefore it is [right] there to posit order and beauty with diversity and a certain disparity, so that what could not here be brought about from unity might at least be fulfilled from the diversity of many. — And this is the reason why God, although He has one Son, did not nevertheless produce one Angel only, but many, because the Son perfectly fills and imitates the Father, as Augustine says[^14], but an Angel does not perfectly express the Creator; therefore it was fitting to create them in a great multitude or in a multiform order.

la: De Caelest. Hierarch. c. 8. § 1: *Ipsam autem sanctarum Potestatum aequipotentem divinarum Dominationum et Virtutum* etc.; c. 9. § 2: «Archangelorum ordo aequipotens quidem est caelestibus Principatibus» (qui sunt de eadem hierarchia).

en: [Dionysius,] *On the Celestial Hierarchy* c. 8, § 1: «And [the order] of the holy Powers, equal in power to the divine Dominations and Virtues» etc.; c. 9, § 2: «The order of the Archangels is indeed equal in power to the celestial Principalities» (who are of the same hierarchy).

la: Cap. 30. n. 53, ubi textus originalis *In omnibus artibus* pro *In omnibus actibus*, et in fine addit: *vel in similitudine parium partium, vel gradatione imparium*. — Vat. dein *in angelicis spiritibus* pro *in angelicis ordinibus*.

en: [*On True Religion*,] c. 30, n. 53, where the original text [reads] *In omnibus artibus* (*In all arts*) for *In omnibus actibus* (*In all acts*), and at the end adds: *vel in similitudine parium partium, vel gradatione imparium* (*or in the likeness of equal parts, or in the gradation of unequal ones*). — The Vatican edition then [reads] *in angelicis spiritibus* (*in the angelic spirits*) for *in angelicis ordinibus* (*in the angelic orders*).

la: Hoc constat ex definitione ordinis a Magistro, hic c. 2. tradita.

en: This is established from the definition of order handed down by the Master, here in chapter 2.

la: Hic c. 5.

en: Here, chapter 5.

la: Vat. *participatur ratio ordinis*. — Vide Dionys., de Caelest. Hierarch. c. 10, ubi docet, quod propter proportionalitatem etiam in quolibet ordine sint primi, medii et infimi.

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *participatur ratio ordinis* (*the account of order is participated*). — See Dionysius, *On the Celestial Hierarchy* c. 10, where he teaches that, on account of proportionality, even in any order there are first, middle, and lowest.

la: Aristot., I. Metaph. c. 2. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 685, nota 1.

en: Aristotle, *Metaphysics* book I, c. 2. Cf. tome I, page 685, note 1.

la: In cod. Q additur *scilicet divina*. Idem recurrit aliquanto inferius.

en: In codex Q is added *scilicet divina* (*namely the divine [hierarchy]*). The same recurs somewhat further below.

la: Cap. 30. n. 55. Cfr. hic nota 2.

en: [*On True Religion*,] c. 30, n. 55. Cf. here note 2.

la: Eccli. 44, 20: *Non est inventus similis illi in gloria, qui conservavit* etc. Cfr. Breviarium, offic. Conf. Pontif.

en: Ecclesiasticus 44:20: *There was not found one like to him in glory, who kept* etc. Cf. the Breviary, the office of a Confessor [who is a] Bishop.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri c. 2.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, chapter 2.

la: Cod. *aa* subiungit *in Deum*.

en: Codex *aa* subjoins *in Deum* (*to God*).

la: Nonnulli codd. *gratum facientibus*; Vat. *gratiarum*.

en: Several codices [read] *gratum facientibus* (*sanctifying [gifts]*); the Vatican edition [reads] *gratiarum* (*of graces*).

la: Libr. VI. de Trin. c. 10. n. 11.

en: [Augustine,] *On the Trinity* book VI, c. 10, n. 11. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Quod inter singulos unius ordinis Angelos sit differentia multiplex, et quidem non tantum in officiis, sed etiam in proprietatibus naturae et gratiae, communiter ab antiquis doctoribus docetur. S. Thom., hic q. unica, a. 3; S. I. q. 108. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. p. II. tr. 10. q. 42. m. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 4. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5. — Biel, hic q. 1. in fine.

**II.** Quaestio sequens (9.) ab aliis Scholasticis vel omnino omittitur, vel tantum paucis verbis tangitur, ut a S. Thoma, hic q. unica, a. 7. ad 3. et S. I. q. 108. a. 4; Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 3. 4; Biel, hic q. 1. in fine.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** That among the individual Angels of one order there is a manifold difference — and indeed not only in offices, but also in the properties of nature and of grace — is commonly taught by the ancient doctors. St. Thomas, here the single question, a. 3; *Summa* I, q. 108, a. 3. — The Blessed Albert, here a. 7; *Summa* p. II, tr. 10, q. 42, m. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here the single question, a. 4. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 4. — Denis the Carthusian, here q. 5. — Biel, here q. 1, at the end.

**II.** The following question (9) is by other Scholastics either omitted altogether, or touched only in a few words, as by St. Thomas, here the single question, a. 7, [reply] to [argument] 3, and *Summa* I, q. 108, a. 4; Peter of Tarentaise, here the single question, a. 3 [and] 4; Biel, here q. 1, at the end.

---

translators_notes:
- s72 (2026-05-21): built from auto-chunked skeleton (raw 18209–18311) to Tier 2 — Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR base over 450 dpi PDF column-band crops of printed pp.255–256 (PDF 277–278), fresh literal English, 14-entry apparatus, SCHOLION translated in full.
- **Page span.** q8's body opens on p.255 (right-of-centre, immediately below QUAESTIO VII's SCHOLION) with the `QUAESTIO VIII.` heading + title + `Octavo quaeritur de ordinibus Angelorum in comparatione ad suum oppositum…`. It runs through p.255 (objections, Contra, CONCLUSIO, the head of the Respondeo) and onto p.256 (the rest of the Respondeo + Solutio oppositorum 1–4 + SCHOLION). The SCHOLION sits at the foot of p.256, between the close of QUAESTIO VIII's Solutio-4 and QUAESTIO IX. `printed_pages`/`pdf_pages` set to [255,256]/[277,278]; `source` line gives pp.255–256. The running-head page numbers OCR-mangle (`2:5:5`/`255` for 255, `2o6`/`206` for 256) and the column running heads (`DIST. IX. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. VIII.`); all ignored per the Vol II Override (trust the +22 offset, never the OCR digits).
- **SCHOLION present.** q8 has its own SCHOLION at the foot of p.256, spanning both columns below QUAESTIO VIII's Solutio-4 and above QUAESTIO IX. Two numbered notes (**I**, **II**). Note II is itself a forward cross-reference observing that the *following* question (q9) is largely omitted by other Scholastics — it is q8's scholion, not q9's. Translated in full. The SCHOLION carries no footnote markers of its own. `has_scholion: true`.
- **Structure:** heading + opening (`Octavo quaeritur…`) + 4 *videtur* objections (obj. 1 marginally labelled *Per Dionysium*) + 4 *Contra* arguments + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (a single continuous body, no marginal *Opinio* labels — straight to the doctrine of *aequalitas parium* vs *gradatio disparium*) + *Solutio oppositorum* 1, 2, 3, 4 + SCHOLION (I–II).
- **Apparatus 14 entries ([^1]–[^14]), 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.255 footers ¹–⁹ → [^1]–[^9].** p.255 has 9 printed footers, and QUAESTIO VII's SCHOLION (which sits above q8 on p.255) carries NO footnote markers of its own — so all 9 of p.255's footers anchor on q8's body. ¹ `De Caelest. Hierarch. c. 8 § 1…` → [^1] (anchors obj. 1's `Dionysius`); ² `Cap. 30. n. 53…` → [^2] (anchors obj. 2's `de Vera Religione`); ³ `Hoc constat ex definitione ordinis a Magistro, hic c. 2…` → [^3] (anchors obj. 3's `status unus`); ⁴ `Cfr. 1. Sent. d. 20. a. 2. q. 1.` → [^4] (anchors obj. 4's `non excludit aequalitatem`); ⁵ `Hic c. 5.` → [^5] (anchors Contra 1's `dicit in littera`); ⁶ `Vat. participatur ratio ordinis…` → [^6] (anchors Contra 2's `rationem ordinis`); ⁷ `Aristot., I. Metaph. c. 2…` → [^7] (anchors Contra 3's `sapientis est ordinare`); ⁸ `In cod. Q additur scilicet divina…` → [^8] (anchors the Respondeo's first `in suprema`); ⁹ `Cap. 30. n. 55. Cfr. hic nota 2.` → [^9] (anchors the Respondeo's `de Vera Religione`).
  - **p.256 footers ¹/³/⁴/⁵/⁶ → [^10]–[^14].** p.256 has 7 printed footers; five anchor in q8's body and were verified one-by-one against the 450 dpi crops by reading the superscript marker on each q8 body lemma: footer ¹ `Eccli. 44, 20: Non est inventus similis illi…` → [^10] (anchors the Respondeo's scripture quotation `…qui conservaret legem Excelsi¹` — confirmed marker ¹ on the crop); footer ³ `Cod. aa subiungit in Deum.` → [^12] (anchors Solutio-1's `secundum conformitatem conversionis³` — confirmed marker ³); footer ⁴ `Nonnulli codd. gratum facientibus; Vat. gratiarum.` → [^13] (anchors Solutio-3's `de donis gratuitis⁴` — confirmed marker ⁴); footer ⁵ `Libr. VI. de Trin. c. 10. n. 11.` → [^14] (anchors Solutio-4's `ut dicit Augustinus⁵` — confirmed marker ⁵); footer ⁶ `Cfr. hic lit. Magistri c. 2.` → [^11] (anchors the Respondeo's `Magister in littera⁶`). p.256 footers ² (`Hic c. 5. — De Dionys. vide supra pag. 255, nota 6.`) and ⁷ (`Ita cod. cc et ed. 1; Vat. et alii codd. non bene ex.`) anchor on QUAESTIO IX's body (the *Argg. pro parte affirmativa* / *Ad oppositum* arguments printed in p.256's lower bands) — they are NOT q8's and are excluded.
  - **Net q8 apparatus: 14 entries — p.255 footer ¹–⁹ + p.256 footer ¹/³/⁴/⁵/⁶.** The `[^N]` numbering is sequential by body position, so [^10]=p.256-¹, [^11]=p.256-⁶, [^12]=p.256-³, [^13]=p.256-⁴, [^14]=p.256-⁵ — i.e. the chunk's continuous `[^N]` order tracks the order the markers appear in the body, not the printed footer order on p.256.
- Incoming cross-chunk boundary from `d9-a1-q7` CLEAN: q7's SCHOLION closes on p.255 with `…Biel (hic q. 1. circa finem) utramque opinionem censet esse probabilem`; QUAESTIO VIII opens immediately below on p.255 with the heading `QUAESTIO VIII.`, the title `Utrum in eodem ordine Angelorum sit perfecta aequalitas, an quaedam gradatio`, and `Octavo quaeritur de ordinibus Angelorum in comparatione ad suum oppositum…`. No q7 text leaked; q8 opens grammatically clean with the heading.
- Outgoing cross-chunk boundary to `d9-a1-q9` CLEAN: q8's SCHOLION closes at the foot of p.256 with `…Biel, hic q. 1. in fine`; QUAESTIO IX (`Utrum aliis substantiis quam Angelis competat per ordines distingui` / `Nono et ultimo quaeritur de ordinibus Angelorum in comparatione ad suum disparatum…`) opens immediately below at raw line 18312. No QUAESTIO IX text included; its two footers on p.256 (² and ⁷) likewise excluded.
- Marginal labels: the IA djvu OCR carries the editorial side-glosses *1 oppositum* (beside obj. 1), *Argumenta*/*fundamenta* (beside Contra 1, the second an OCR smudge `idameiji.n.`), *Conclusio* (beside the Respondeo's `Ideo et in eodem ordine…`), *Solutio oppositorum* (beside Solutio 1), *Corollarium* (beside the Respondeo's `Et haec est ratio…`), and the Respondeo gloss *Aliter est pulcritudo in Deo, aliter in Angelis* — these are Quaracchi running side-glosses, not Bonaventure's text, and are trimmed out per the Vol II convention (only the inline body label *Per Dionysium* on obj. 1 and *Solutio oppositorum* before Solutio 1 are retained, matching q7's treatment of marginal labels).
- OCR garbles cleaned silently against the 450 dpi crops: the cascade-shattered Respondeo (`qiiaeritnr`/`nrdiiiibus`/`.-\ngelonim` for *quaeritur de ordinibus Angelorum*, `compalialur` for *compatiatur*, `Dionysinm` for *Dionysium*, `nmnia` for *omnia*, `c.onvenientia` for *convenientia*, `geUcis` for *[an]gelicis*, `doiium`/`praeminm` for *donum*/*praemium*, `eiusdetn` for *eiusdem*, `esl` for *est*, `inaxiraus` for *maximus*, `ordinibns` for *ordinibus*, `aequalitale` for *aequalitate*, `re[ieritur` for *reperitur*, `consistil` for *consistit*, `siinilitudine`/`puicriludo`/`pulcriludo` for *similitudine*/*pulcritudo*, `qualihet` for *qualibet*, `suminam`/`perfeclioiiem` for *summam*/*perfectionem*); the Solutio oppositorum (`nienti`/`diversilate` for *convenienti*/*diversitate*, `consnrgat` for *consurgat*, `daUone`/`gradalione` for *gradatione*, `inteiligimus`/`intelligendum` for *intelligimus*, `liis` for *his*, `qid` for *qui*, `eodera` for *eodem*, `reperilur`/`Angeiis` for *reperitur*/*Angelis*, `oi'dinum` for *ordinum*, `tiir` for *[vide]tur*, `qaod`/`quod'`/`quod•`/`qnod` for *quod*, `msse` for *posse*, `siciit` for *sicut*, `aiiquara`/`aliquara` for *aliquam*, `babet`/`praerogalivam` for *habet*/*praerogativam*, `iUa.`/`iUa` for *illa*, `liierarchia`/`liniitationem` for *hierarchia*/*limitationem*, `unura`/`solura`/`Patrera`/`iraitatur`/`exprirait`/`Creatorera`/`nuilti-iudine` for *unum*/*solum*/*Patrem*/*imitatur*/*exprimit*/*Creatorem*/*multitudine*); the SCHOLION (`SCHOLIOK` for *SCHOLION*, `inlcr` for *inter*, `offlciis` for *officiis*, `naturac` for *naturae*, `anliquis` for *antiquis*, `S. Thoiu.` for *S. Thom.*, `Kichard.` for *Richard.*, `Pelr.` for *Petr.*, the digit-mangles `i2`/`o.!i`/`-5`/`a. :)` in citation tails restored from the crop). The footer block diagonally fragmented across both columns of p.255 reflowed in printed footer order ¹–⁹; the p.256 footers ¹/³/⁴/⁵/⁶ reassembled from the shattered lower-band footer block.
- **[?] flag — RESOLVED (d.1–d.10 polish-blocker, 2026-05-22):** `[^12]` — p.256 footer 3 reads `Cod. aa subiungit in Deum` at 600 dpi; the siglum is `aa`. `[?]` dropped.
- **DISTINCTION 9 NOW 10/11.**


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 256 -->

### Quaestio IX. *Utrum aliis substantiis quam Angelis competat per ordines distingui.*

Nono et ultimo quaeritur de ordinibus Angelorum in comparatione ad suum disparatum; et est quaestio, utrum aliis substantiis rationalibus quam Angelis competat per ordines distingui. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Sicut enim in Angelis est praecellentia naturalium et gratuitorum, ita etiam in animabus rationalibus: ergo si penes hoc attenditur ordo in Angelis[^1], pari ratione in animabus exutis.

2. Item, sicut divina bonitas et sapientia manifestatur in conditione Angelorum, ita etiam in conditione spirituum humanorum: ergo sicut facit Angelos in diversis ordinibus, ita videtur, quod faciat homines.

3. Item, ad reparationem ruinae angelicae in diversis ordinibus, homines assumuntur: ergo eisdem gradibus et eisdem ordinibus ordinabuntur in gloria, quibus ordinabuntur et Angeli: ergo videtur, quod non solum Angelis, sed etiam hominibus competat.

4. Item, ordo est nunc in ecclesiastica hierarchia, et ordines varii, cum tamen ipsa ecclesiastica hierarchia ex puris hominibus constet: ergo videtur, quod homines nati sint ordinari.

**Ad oppositum** arguitur sic. 1. Si ita competit ordo hominibus, sicut competit Angelis, ergo sicut Angelorum beatorum novem ordines assignantur, ita videtur, quod hominum: ergo saltem erunt decem et octo, quod tamen non ponitur[^2].

<!-- page 257 -->

2. Item, omnes homines ex uno homine processerunt: ergo videtur, quod quantum est de natura sua, sint pares: ergo non videtur, quod hominibus competat ordo per naturam. Quodsi tu dicas, quod competit eis per gratiam; — cum[^3] gratia praesupponat naturam, ergo et ordo gratiae ordinem naturae: ergo si non est ordo naturae, nec gratiae.

3. Item, ordines Angelorum distinguuntur penes vim *contemplativam* et vim *ministrativam*; sed in animabus exutis non est ponere vim *administrativam*: ergo nec ordinum distinctionem.

4. Item, si ponatur ordo in gloria, debet poni ordo correspondens ordinibus repertis in via: ergo cum in clero sint multi ordines, in religiosis etiam sint multae ordinum distinctiones, in Sanctis etiam multi ordines, ut ordo Patriarcharum, Prophetarum, Apostolorum etc., videtur, quod multo plures essent ordines hominum quam Angelorum.

### Conclusio

> Distinctio ordinum in solis Angelis est proprie et perfecte; in hominibus vero in praesenti est tantum imperfecte et incerte, in futuro est quidem stabiliter, sed non undique.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod cum ad perfectam rationem ordinis concurrant praecellentia naturalium et gratuitorum sibi correspondentium, in eis solum proprie et perfecte est ponere ordinum distinctionem, in quibus est haec duo simul concurrentia reperire. Quoniam ergo in Angelis gratia correspondet naturae, et creati sunt in naturalium praecellentia et beatificati in differenti donorum praerogativa; hinc est, quod proprie est in eis et ordo et hierarchia; maxime cum illa praerogativa ita habeat stabilem permanentiam et distinctionem, quod nullam admittat confusionem. — In hominibus vero, etsi sit reperire praecellentiam in naturalibus et etiam in gratuitis, tamen haec duo ut plurimum sibi non correspondent, quia ubi melior est natura frequenter minor est gratia, et qui hodie minor est in merito cras fortassis erit maior[^4]. Ideo in hominibus secundum statum praesentem non est proprie ordinum distinctio secundum gratuita, licet aliquo modo secundum *auctoritates* et *officia* et *status professionum* ordinetur Ecclesia. Dicendum est igitur, quod proprie et perfecte in solis Angelis ponenda est distinctio ordinum; in hominibus vero, etsi aliquo modo reperiatur, in praesenti reperitur imperfecte et incerte, in futuro vero, quamvis reperiatur stabiliter, non tamen reperitur undique, ut sic oporteat, eos qui praecellunt in gratia, praecellere in natura.

Ex his patet responsio ad rationes ad utramque partem. Rationes autem probantes, quod non competit ordo Angelis solum, loquuntur de ordine secundum qualemcumque completionem, sive perfectam, sive semiplenam. Rationes vero ad oppositum ostendentes, quod in hominibus non sit ordo, procedunt alia via. Non enim concludunt, quod nullus sit ibi ordo, sed quod ipsa humana natura non habeat tantam ordinum distinctionem, quantam habet angelica, quia hoc habet solummodo per quandam conformationem ad illam.

2. Illa tamen ratio non concludit: non est ibi ordo per naturam, ergo non per gratiam. Cum enim non oporteat, gratiam adaequari naturae, non oportet, ordinem gratiae praesupponere ordinem in natura, quamvis gratia praesupponat naturam, sicut[^5] accidens praesupponit subiectum. Et quia gratia nostra conformis est gratiae Angelorum, quamvis natura nostra non sit eiusdem speciei cum eorum natura; ideo, si qua in nobis erit ordinum distinctio, attendetur per conformitatem ad ordines angelicos. Ideo non oportebit, plures et novos ordines ex hominibus esse, nisi fortassis decimum, qui ad perfectionem Angelorum non poterit pervenire. — Hoc tamen quod nunc dictum est, dubium est, et Magister non videtur acceptare, quamvis, sicut supra[^6] dictum fuit, videatur satis probabile.

3. Nec illa ratio cogit de vi ministrativa, quia in distinctione ordinum magis consideratur status gratiae quam operatio alicuius potentiae.

Ex his manifesta sunt ea quae tanguntur in littera[^7].

Hoc solum sufficiat ad praesens exponere de nomine *Seraphim*. Aliquando enim in Scriptura legitur *Seraphin* per *n*, et tunc est pluralis numeri et neutri generis et significat coetum Angelorum illius ordinis. Aliquando vero scribitur per *m*; tunc est pluralis numeri et masculini generis et significat Angelos in illo ordine contentos. Aliquando legitur *Seraph*, et tunc est singularis numeri et masculini generis et significat Angelum illius ordinis. Unde versus:

Haec *Seraphin* dicas, hi *Seraphim*, *Seraph* dicas illum.

Vel aliter:

Dic *Cherubim* sanctos, *Cherubin* sacra, sit *Cherub* almus[^8].

---

english:
<!-- page 256 -->

### Question IX. *Whether it belongs to other substances than Angels to be distinguished by orders.*

Ninthly and lastly it is asked concerning the orders of the Angels in comparison to that which is disparate from them; and the question is whether it belongs to other rational substances than Angels to be distinguished by orders. And that it is so, [thus] it seems.

1. For just as in the Angels there is a pre-eminence of natural [endowments] and of gratuitous ones, so also in rational souls: therefore, if order is regarded with respect to this in the Angels[^1], by a like reasoning [it is so] in the souls that have put off [the body].

2. Likewise, just as the divine goodness and wisdom is manifested in the establishment of the Angels, so also in the establishment of human spirits: therefore, just as He makes the Angels in diverse orders, so it seems that He makes men [in diverse orders].

3. Likewise, for the repair of the angelic ruin men are taken up into the diverse orders: therefore they will be ordered in glory by the same grades and the same orders by which the Angels too will be ordered: therefore it seems that [order] belongs not only to the Angels, but also to men.

4. Likewise, there is now order in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and various orders, although the ecclesiastical hierarchy itself consists of mere men: therefore it seems that men are by nature [fit] to be ordered.

**To the opposite** it is argued thus. 1. If order belongs to men just as it belongs to the Angels, then, just as nine orders of the blessed Angels are assigned, so it seems [there would be nine] of men: therefore there will be at least eighteen, which nevertheless is not posited[^2].

<!-- page 257 -->

2. Likewise, all men proceeded from one man: therefore it seems that, as far as concerns their nature, they are equals: therefore it does not seem that order belongs to men through nature. But if you say that it belongs to them through grace; — since[^3] grace presupposes nature, then the order of grace [presupposes] the order of nature: therefore, if there is no order of nature, neither [is there an order] of grace.

3. Likewise, the orders of the Angels are distinguished with respect to the *contemplative* power and the *ministrative* power; but in the souls that have put off [the body] there is no *administrative* power to be posited: therefore neither [is there] a distinction of orders.

4. Likewise, if order be posited in glory, an order ought to be posited corresponding to the orders found in the way [of this life]: therefore, since in the clergy there are many orders, and in the religious also many distinctions of orders, and among the Saints also many orders — as the order of the Patriarchs, of the Prophets, of the Apostles, etc. — it seems that there would be far more orders of men than of Angels.

### Conclusion

> The distinction of orders is properly and perfectly in the Angels alone; but in men, in the present [life], it is only imperfectly and uncertainly, [whereas] in the future [life] it is indeed stably, but not on every side.

**I respond:** It must be said that, since to the perfect account of order there concur a pre-eminence of natural [endowments] and of gratuitous ones corresponding to one another, the distinction of orders is properly and perfectly to be posited in those alone in whom these two are found concurring together. Since therefore in the Angels grace corresponds to nature, and they were created in a pre-eminence of natural [endowments] and beatified in a differing prerogative of gifts; hence it is that there is properly in them both order and hierarchy; especially since that prerogative has so stable a permanence and distinction that it admits no confusion. — But in men, although a pre-eminence is to be found in natural [endowments] and also in gratuitous ones, nevertheless these two for the most part do not correspond to one another, because where the nature is better the grace is frequently less, and he who today is lesser in merit will perhaps tomorrow be greater[^4]. Therefore in men, according to the present state, there is not properly a distinction of orders according to the gratuitous [gifts], although the Church is in some manner ordered according to *authorities* and *offices* and *states of professions*. It must therefore be said that the distinction of orders is properly and perfectly to be posited in the Angels alone; but in men, although it is in some manner found, in the present [life] it is found imperfectly and uncertainly, [whereas] in the future [life], although it is found stably, it is nevertheless not found on every side, so as on that account it should be necessary that those who excel in grace should excel in nature.

From these things the response to the arguments on both sides is evident. Now the arguments proving that order does not belong to the Angels alone speak of order according to any completion whatever, whether perfect or half-full. But the arguments to the opposite, showing that there is no order in men, proceed by another way. For they do not conclude that there is no order at all there, but that human nature itself does not have so great a distinction of orders as the angelic [nature] has, because it has this only through a certain conformation to that [angelic order].

2. That argument, nevertheless, does not conclude: there is no order there through nature, therefore not through grace. For since it is not necessary that grace be made equal to nature, it is not necessary that the order of grace presuppose an order in nature, although grace presupposes nature, just as[^5] an accident presupposes a subject. And since our grace is conformable to the grace of the Angels, although our nature is not of the same species as their nature; therefore, if there will be any distinction of orders in us, it will be regarded through conformity to the angelic orders. Therefore it will not be necessary that there be more and new orders out of men, except perhaps a tenth, which will not be able to attain to the perfection of the Angels. — Yet this which has now been said is doubtful, and the Master does not seem to accept it, although, as was said above[^6], it seems probable enough.

3. Nor does that argument compel [anything] concerning the ministrative power, because in the distinction of orders the state of grace is considered more than the operation of any power.

From these things the things which are touched on in the text[^7] are made manifest.

Let this alone suffice for the present to set forth concerning the name *Seraphim*. For sometimes in Scripture *Seraphin* is read with an *n*, and then it is of plural number and of neuter gender and signifies the company of the Angels of that order. But sometimes it is written with an *m*; then it is of plural number and of masculine gender and signifies the Angels contained in that order. Sometimes *Seraph* is read, and then it is of singular number and of masculine gender and signifies an Angel of that order. Whence the verse:

You may say *Seraphin* of these things, *Seraphim* [of] these [men], you may say *Seraph* [of] that one.

Or otherwise:

Say *Cherubim* [of] holy [persons], *Cherubin* [of] sacred [things], let *Cherub* [the] kindly [one] be[^8].

---

en: Here, chapter 5. — Concerning Dionysius see above, page 255, note 6.

la: Ita cod. cc et ed. 1; Vat. et alii codd. non bene *ex*.

en: Thus codex cc and edition 1; the Vatican edition and the other codices [read] *ex*, not well.

la: Vat. *Contra*, et dein *praesupponit*, quod etiam plures codd. incongrue habent, licet habeant *cum*.

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *Contra* (*On the contrary*), and then *praesupponit* (*presupposes*), which several codices also incongruously have, although they have *cum* (*since*).

la: In Vat. additur *in praemio*.

en: In the Vatican edition is added *in praemio* (*in reward*).

la: Plurimi codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 *tanquam*, incongrue. Paulo inferius post *quamvis natura* in multis mss. et edd. 1, 2 desideratur *nostra*.

en: Very many codices, together with editions 1, 2, 3, [read] *tanquam* (*as though*), incongruously. A little further below, after *quamvis natura* (*although [our] nature*), in many manuscripts and in editions 1, 2 the word *nostra* (*our*) is wanting.

en: Here, question 7. — For the opinion of the Master, see here in the text, chapter 6.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

la: Ea quae sequuntur desunt in edd. 3, 4 et in Vat. In hac obsoleta nominum interpretatione convenit etiam B. Albert., hic a. 5. ad ult. Ipsa sumta est ex Glossa ordinaria, quam vide apud Walafridum Strabum et Lyranum super Isai. 6, 6, et tribuitur Hieronymo, qui tamen (loc. cit.) tantum dicit: «*Seraphim* autem plurali numero appellantur, et singulari *Seraph*, sicut *Cherubim* et *Cherub*». Beda autem 1. de Tabernac. c. 5. ait: *Et quidem numero singulari Cherub, plurali autem Cherubim dicitur, et est nomen generis masculini; sed graeca consuetudo neutro genere posuit Cherubim, m littera in n mutata.*

en: The things which follow are wanting in editions 3, 4 and in the Vatican edition. In this obsolete interpretation of the names the Blessed Albert also agrees, here a. 5, at the last [reply]. It is itself taken from the *Glossa ordinaria*, which see in Walafrid Strabo and in Lyra on Isaiah 6:6, and it is attributed to Jerome, who nevertheless (in the place cited) only says: «But *Seraphim* are called [so] in the plural number, and in the singular *Seraph*, just as *Cherubim* and *Cherub*». And Bede, in book 1 *On the Tabernacle*, c. 5, says: *And indeed in the singular number it is said* Cherub, *but in the plural* Cherubim, *and it is a name of masculine gender; but Greek usage put* Cherubim *in the neuter gender, the letter* m *being changed into* n. ---

translators_notes:
- s73 (2026-05-22): built from auto-chunked skeleton (raw 18312–18419) to Tier 2 — Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR base over 450 dpi PDF column-band crops of printed pp.256–257 (PDF 278–279), fresh literal English, 8-entry apparatus. This is the LAST quaestio of d.9.
- **Page span.** q9's body opens on p.256 (lower portion, immediately below QUAESTIO VIII's SCHOLION) with the `QUAESTIO IX.` heading + title + `Nono et ultimo quaeritur de ordinibus Angelorum in comparatione ad suum disparatum…`. It runs through p.256's lower bands (the opening, objections 1–4, and *Ad oppositum* argument 1) and onto p.257 (*Ad oppositum* arguments 2–4, CONCLUSIO, the entire Respondeo + Solutio rationum 2/3, the *Ex his manifesta…* link to the littera, and the closing grammatical excursus on *Seraphim*/*Cherubim*). q9 closes at the foot of p.257 with the *Vel aliter* Cherubim verse. `printed_pages`/`pdf_pages` set to [256,257]/[278,279]; `source` line gives pp.256–257. The running-head page numbers OCR-mangle (`2o7` for 257, `2:38`/`238` for 258) and the column running heads (`DIST. IX. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. IX.`); all ignored per the Vol II Override (trust the +22 offset, never the OCR digits).
- **No SCHOLION of its own.** q9 has no SCHOLION. There is no `SCHOLION.` header anywhere between q9's body close and DISTINCTIO X. Instead, q9's footer ⁵ (= [^7]) reads `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.` — a cross-reference to QUAESTIO VIII's SCHOLION, whose note II already observed that q9 «ab aliis Scholasticis vel omnino omittitur, vel tantum paucis verbis tangitur». This is the normal Vol II `Vide scholion ad…` pattern (Override §5). `has_scholion: false`.
- **Structure:** heading + opening (`Nono et ultimo quaeritur…`) + 4 *videtur* objections (with marginal label *Argg. pro parte affirmativa* beside obj. 1) + 4 *Ad oppositum* arguments (with marginal label *Pro parte negativa* beside arg. 1) + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (a single continuous body) + a solution section: the Respondeo's tail handles all four affirmative arguments together (`Ex his patet responsio ad rationes ad utramque partem…`) then replies individually to *Ad oppositum* args 2 and 3 (numbered `2.` and `3.`; arg. 1 is answered within the `…nisi fortassis decimum…` clause and arg. 4 within the *Ex his patet…* general response) + the closing grammatical excursus on the declension of *Seraphim*/*Cherubim* with two mnemonic verses. The marginal side-glosses (*Distinctio ordinum*, *Conclusio*, *Ad argg. pro utraque parte*, *Ad argg. pro parte negativa*, *Notandum.*, *Grammaticalia de nomine Seraphim*) are Quaracchi editorial marginalia, trimmed out per the Vol II convention; only the inline body labels *Ad oppositum* (before the negative arguments) are retained.
- **Apparatus 8 entries ([^1]–[^8]), 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.256 footers ² and ⁷ → [^1] and [^2].** p.256 has 7 printed footers; QUAESTIO VIII (whose body + SCHOLION sit above q9 on p.256) took footers ¹/³/⁴/⁵/⁶ (= q8's [^10]/[^12]/[^13]/[^14]/[^11]). The remaining two anchor on q9's body: footer ² `Hic c. 5. — De Dionys. vide supra pag. 255, nota 6.` → [^1] (anchors obj. 1's `ordo in Angelis°` — the IA OCR's `°`/degree-mark marker after `Angelis`, confirmed on the p.256-R crop); footer ⁷ `Ita cod. cc et ed. 1; Vat. et alii codd. non bene ex.` → [^2] (anchors the *Ad oppositum* arg. 1's closing `quod tamen non ponitur` — the variant note on the word `ex`/`et` at the foot of obj. 1; the superscript marker is faint on the crop, placement confirmed by q8's Notes which already parked p.256 footer ⁷ as anchoring q9's body).
  - **p.257 footers ¹–⁶ → [^3]–[^8].** p.257 has 6 printed footers, all anchored on q9's body: footer ¹ `Vat. Contra, et dein praesupponit…` → [^3] (anchors *Ad oppositum* arg. 2's `cum¹ gratia praesupponat naturam`); footer ² `In Vat. additur in praemio.` → [^4] (anchors the Respondeo's `cras fortassis erit maior²`); footer ³ `Plurimi codd. cum edd. 1,2,3 tanquam, incongrue. Paulo inferius post quamvis natura…` → [^5] (anchors Solutio-2's `sicut³ accidens praesupponit subiectum`); footer ⁴ `Hic q. 7. — Sententiam Magistri vide hic in lit. c. 6.` → [^6] (anchors Solutio-2's `sicut supra⁴ dictum fuit`); footer ⁵ `Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.` → [^7] (anchors the link `ea quae tanguntur in littera⁵`); footer ⁶ `Ea quae sequuntur desunt in edd. 3, 4 et in Vat. In hac obsoleta nominum interpretatione…` → [^8] (anchors the closing Cherubim verse — the long footer ⁶ spans both columns at the foot of p.257 and was reflowed L-then-R from the shattered footer band).
  - **Net q9 apparatus: 8 entries — p.256 footer ²/⁷ + p.257 footer ¹–⁶.** The `[^N]` numbering is sequential by body position.
- Incoming cross-chunk boundary from `d9-a1-q8` CLEAN: q8's SCHOLION closes at the foot of p.256 with `…Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 3. 4; Biel, hic q. 1. in fine`; QUAESTIO IX opens immediately below on p.256 with the heading `QUAESTIO IX.`, the title `Utrum aliis substantiis quam Angelis competat per ordines distingui`, and `Nono et ultimo quaeritur de ordinibus Angelorum in comparatione ad suum disparatum…`. No q8 SCHOLION text leaked; q9 opens grammatically clean with the heading.
- Outgoing boundary CLEAN: q9 closes at the foot of p.257 with the `Vel aliter` mnemonic verse `Dic Cherubim sanctos, Cherubin sacra, sit Cherub almus`. p.258 begins a fresh page with the running head, `DISTINCTIO X.`, the chapter heading `Cap. I.`, and the chapter title `An omnes caelestes spiritus mittantur`, followed by `Hoc etiam investigandum est, utrum omnes illi caelestes spiritus ad exteriora nuntianda mittantur…`. NO d.10 text is included in this chunk. d.9 ends here.
- OCR garbles cleaned silently against the 450 dpi crops: the opening (`Angelorura`/`coniparatione`/`disparatura` for *Angelorum*/*comparatione*/*disparatum*, `utruin` for *utrum*, `ordiiies` for *ordines*); the objections (`gratuitorura` for *gratuitorum*, `aniraabus` for *animabus*, `ratioiie` for *ratione*, `manifestatur` ok, `honiinibus`/`corapetat` for *hominibus*/*competat*, `hoinines assuinuntur` for *homines assumuntur*, `ordinabunlur` for *ordinabuntur*, `imnc` for *nunc*, `horainibus eonstet` for *hominibus constet*, `coinpetit`/`Angehs`/`novein` for *competit*/*Angelis*/*novem*, `ponitiu-` for *ponitur*); the Respondeo (cascade-shattered — `Dicendnm, qnod` for *Dicendum, quod*, `correspnndentium` for *correspondentium*, `naturalibns` for *naturalibus*, `nt plnrimum` for *ut plurimum*, `nielior` for *melior*, `freqnenter` for *frequenter*, `secundura statuni` for *secundum statum*, `igitiu-` for *igitur*, `incerle` for *incerte*, `opnrteat` for *oporteat*); the Solutio (`utramque partem` reflowed from the shattered band `ad utram-/que partem`, `corapletionem` for *completionem*, `IUa` for *Illa*, `conforraitatem`/`conformationem` for *conformitatem*/*conformationem*, `sufQciat` for *sufficiat*, `nomine`/`nuraeri`/`nmneri`/`raasculini` for *nomine*/*numeri*/*numeri*/*masculini*, `coetuni` for *coetum*, `ilhus` for *illius*, `Serapii` for *Seraph*, `Hnec` for *Haec*, `sil` for *sit*); footer ⁶ (`obsoletii`/`couvenit`/`.■Vlbcrl.`/`sumta`/`interpretalione` for *obsoleta*/*convenit*/*Albert.*/*sumta*/*interpretatione*, `Walafridum Strabum et Lyranum` ok, `numcro`/`Serapft`/`sueludo neulro` for *numero*/*Seraph*/*[con]suetudo neutro*, `litlcra` for *littera*). The footer block diagonally fragmented across both columns of pp.256–257 reflowed in printed footer order.
- **[?] flag — RESOLVED (d.1–d.10 polish-blocker, 2026-05-22):** `[^8]` — p.257 footer 6 reads `B. Albert., hic a. 5. ad ult.` at 600 dpi. The OCR `S.` was a digit-mangle of `5`, not `8`; the chunk's provisional `8` is **corrected to `5`** in both the Latin and English apparatus. `[?]` dropped.
- **DISTINCTION 9 NOW COMPLETE (11/11).**

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. 10

title_alt: Distinction 10. The text of the Master of the Sentences.

source_text:
<!-- page 258 -->

### Distinctio X.

### Cap. I.

#### *An omnes caelestes spiritus mittantur.*

Hoc etiam investigandum est, utrum omnes illi caelestes spiritus ad exteriora nuntianda mittantur. — *Opinio 1.* Quidam putant, aliquos in illa multitudine esse, qui foras pro officio exeunt; alios, qui semper intus assistunt, sicut scriptum est in Daniele[^1]: *Millia millium ministrabant ei, et decies centena millia assistebant ei.*

Item, Dionysius[^2] in Hierarchia, quae sacer principatus dicitur, de praelatione spirituum ait: « Superiora illa agmina ab intimis nunquam recedunt, quoniam ea quae praeeminent, usum exterioris officii nunquam habent ». His auctoritatibus innituntur qui Angelos mitti *Obiicitur.* nisi inferiores infitiantur. — Quibus obiicitur quod Isaias[^3] ait: *Volavit ad me unus de Seraphim,* qui ordo superior est et excellentior; ideoque, si de illo ordine mittuntur, non est ambigendum, quin etiam et de aliis mittantur. Apostolus quoque ait: *Omnes sunt administratorii spiritus, in ministerium missi.* His te*Opinio 2.* stimoniis asserunt quidam, omnes Angelos mitti. Nec debet indignum videri, si etiam superiores mittantur, cum et ille qui Creator est omnium, ad haec inferiora descenderit.

Hic oritur quaestio: si omnes mittuntur et nuntii *Quaestio incidens solvitur.* Dei existunt, quare unus tantum inter novem ordines *Angelorum* nomine censetur? — Ad quod quidam dicunt, omnes quidem mitti, sed alios saepius et quasi ex officio iniuncto, qui proprie *Angeli,* vel *Archangeli* nominantur; alios vero rarius mitti, scilicet maiores, causa extra communem dispensationem oborta, qui cum Angelorum ministerium suscipiunt, etiam nomen assumunt. Unde in Psalmo[^4]: *Qui facit Angelos suos* *Dubium 1.* *spiritus,* quia illi qui natura *spiritus* sunt, aliquando *angeli,* id est nuntii fiunt.

### Cap. II.

#### *An Michael, Gabriel, Raphael sint nomina ordinum, vel spirituum.*

Et putant quidam, Michael, Gabriel, Raphael de superiori ordine fuisse. « Michael interpretatur, quis ut Deus? Gabriel, fortitudo Dei; Raphael, medicina Dei[^5] », nec sunt ista nomina ordinum, sed spirituum. *Duplex opinio.* Et dicunt quidam[^6], singulum horum unius proprie ac singulariter spiritus esse nomen. Alii vero, non unius singulariter et determinate, sed nunc huius, nunc illius esse nomen, secundum qualitatem eorum, ad quae nuntianda vel gerenda mittuntur; sicut et daemonum quaedam nomina sunt, quae quidam putant esse unius propria, alii vero, pluribus communia. Diabolus quippe, qui Graece ita vocatur et *criminator*[^7] interpretatur, vel *deorsum fluens*, Hebraice dicitur *satan*, id est *adversarius*. Dicitur et *belial*, id est *apostata et absque iugo*. Dicitur etiam *leviathan*, id est *additamentum eorum*; et alia plura reperies nomina, quae vel unius spiritus sunt propria, vel pluribus communia.

*Reditur ad quaest. primam.* Qui autem omnes Angelos mitti asserunt, praedictas auctoritates, Danielis scilicet et Dionysii, ita determinant: dicuntur superiora agmina Deo assistere et ab intimis nunquam recedere, non quin aliquando mittantur, sed quia rarissime ad exteriora prodeunt; neque tunc ab intimis recedunt, sed Dei praesentiae et contemplationi semper assistunt; quod etiam faciunt qui frequenter mittuntur.

*Duae opiniones reducuntur in concordiam.* Alii vero dicunt, tres ordines supremos, scilicet Seraphim, Cherubim et Thronos, ita Creatori assistere, quod ad exteriora non exeunt; inferiores autem tres ad exteriora mitti; tres vero medios inter utrosque consistere, non modo dignitate vel loco, sed etiam *Dubium 2.* officio, quia praeceptum divinum a superioribus accipiunt et deferunt ad inferiores. Ideoque cum supremi mediis, et medii imis, atque hi hominibus praeceptum Dei nuntient, merito omnes *Angelos* nominari dicunt[^8]. Et ob id forte Apostolus dicit: *Omnes spiritus administratores esse Filii et mitti in ministerium,* vel per *omnes* non singulos ordines, sed de inferioribus ordinibus singulos Angelos complexus est[^9]. Illud vero quod Isaias dicit, per verba Dionysii[^10] determinant dicentes: *Dubium 3.* Hi spiritus, qui mittuntur, percipiunt horum vocabulum, quorum gerunt officium. Unde dicunt, illum Angelum, qui missus est ad Isaiam, ut mundaret et incenderet labia Prophetae, fuisse de ordine inferiorum. Sed ideo dictus est forte de Seraphim, quia veniebat incendere et consumere delicta Isaiae.

---

english:
### Distinction X.

### Chapter I.

#### *Whether all the heavenly spirits are sent.*

This too must be investigated: whether all those heavenly spirits are sent forth to announce outward things. — *A first opinion.* Some think that, in that multitude, there are certain ones who go forth abroad for office, and others who always stand within in attendance, as it is written in Daniel[^1]: *Thousands of thousands ministered to him, and ten times a hundred thousand stood by him.*

Likewise, Dionysius[^2], in the Hierarchy which is called the sacred principate, says concerning the preeminence of the spirits: «Those higher hosts never withdraw from the innermost things, since those which are preeminent never have the use of an outward office». Upon these authorities rely those who *It is objected.* deny that Angels are sent except the lower ones. — Against these it is objected that Isaiah[^3] says: *There flew to me one of the Seraphim,* which order is higher and more excellent; and therefore, if [Angels] are sent from that order, there is no doubt that they are sent from the others also. The Apostle too says: *They are all ministering spirits, sent forth into ministry.* By these te*A second opinion.* stimonies certain ones assert that all the Angels are sent. Nor ought it to seem unworthy if even the higher ones are sent, since even He who is the Creator of all things has descended to these lower things.

Here a question arises: if all are sent and exist as messengers *The incidental question is resolved.* of God, why is one only among the nine orders reckoned by the name of *Angels*? — To which some say that all indeed are sent, but some more often and as it were by an enjoined office — those who are properly named *Angels* or *Archangels*; but others more rarely, namely the greater ones, when a cause has arisen beyond the common dispensation, who, when they undertake the ministry of the Angels, also take on the name. Hence in the Psalm[^4]: *Who makes his Angels* *First doubt.* *spirits,* because those who by nature are *spirits* become at times *angels,* that is, messengers.

### Chapter II.

#### *Whether Michael, Gabriel, Raphael are names of orders or of spirits.*

And some think that Michael, Gabriel, Raphael were of a higher order. «Michael is interpreted, "Who [is] as God?"; Gabriel, the strength of God; Raphael, the medicine of God[^5]», and these are not names of orders, but of spirits. *A twofold opinion.* And some say[^6] that each one of these is the name of one spirit, properly and singularly. But others [say] that it is the name not of one [spirit] singularly and determinately, but now of this one, now of that, according to the quality of those things which they are sent to announce or to carry out; just as also there are certain names of demons which some think to be proper to one, but others [think] common to several. For the devil — who is so called in Greek and is interpreted *the accuser*[^7], or *flowing downward* — is in Hebrew called *satan*, that is, *the adversary*. He is also called *belial*, that is, *apostate and without yoke*. He is also called *leviathan*, that is, *their addition*; and you will find many other names which are either proper to one spirit or common to several.

*Return to the first question.* But those who assert that all the Angels are sent determine the aforesaid authorities — namely those of Daniel and of Dionysius — thus: the higher hosts are said to attend upon God and never to withdraw from the innermost things, not but that they are sometimes sent, but because very rarely do they go forth to outward things; nor do they then withdraw from the innermost things, but always attend upon the presence and contemplation of God; which those also do who are frequently sent.

*The two opinions are brought into concord.* But others say that the three highest orders, namely Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones, so attend upon the Creator that they do not go forth to outward things; but the three lower ones are sent to outward things; and the three middle ones stand between both — not only in dignity or place, but also in *Second doubt.* office, because they receive the divine command from the higher ones and convey it to the lower ones. And therefore, since the highest announce God's command to the middle ones, and the middle to the lowest, and these to men, they say that all are deservedly named *Angels*[^8]. And for this reason perhaps the Apostle says that *all spirits are ministers of the Son and are sent into ministry,* or by *all* he comprehended not the individual orders, but, of the lower orders, the individual Angels[^9]. But that which Isaiah says they determine through the words of Dionysius[^10], saying: *Third doubt.* These spirits who are sent receive the appellation of those whose office they perform. Hence they say that that Angel who was sent to Isaiah, to cleanse and to kindle the lips of the Prophet, was of the order of the lower ones. But he was perhaps called [one] of the Seraphim because he came to kindle and consume the sins of Isaiah.

---

la: Cap. 7, 10. Vulgata: *decies millies centena millia.* Cfr. de hoc cap. Hugo, I. *de Sacram.* p. V. c. 32. et *Sum. Sent.* tr. 3. 2. 5.

en: [Daniel] ch. 7, [v.] 10. The Vulgate: *ten thousand times a hundred thousand.* Cf. on this chapter Hugh [of St. Victor], *On the Sacraments* book I, part V, c. 32, and the *Summa Sententiarum* tr. 3, 2, 5.

la: *De Caelest. Hierarch.* c. 7. 9. 13, quoad sensum; illa verba leguntur apud Gregorium, Hom. 34. in Evang. n. 12, ubi tantum verba *officii nunquam* commutata sunt in *ministerii nequaquam.*

en: [Dionysius,] *On the Celestial Hierarchy* c. 7, 9, 13, as to the sense; those words are read in Gregory, *Homily* 34 *on the Gospels* n. 12, where only the words *officii nunquam* ["the use of office never"] are changed into *ministerii nequaquam* ["of ministry by no means"].

la: Cap. 6, 6. Deinde Hebr. 1, 14.

en: [Isaiah] ch. 6, [v.] 6. Then Hebrews 1, 14.

la: Psalm. 103, 4. Vulgata: *Qui facis* etc.

en: Psalm 103, 4. The Vulgate: *Qui facis* ["Who makest"] etc.

la: Gregor., loc. cit. n. 9.

en: Gregory, in the place cited [Homily 34 on the Gospels], n. 9.

la: Cod. Erf. hic annotat: *Illud sumitur a Gandolpho, II. c. 4, et sententia eius est.* — Paulo inferius citatur eiusdem lib. II. c. 37.

en: The Erfurt codex here notes: *This is taken from Gandulph, [book] II, c. 4, and is his opinion.* — A little further below the same [author's] book II, c. 37 is cited.

en: On these names cf. Isaiah 14, 12; Luke 10, 17, 18; Apocalypse 12, 4, 7, 13, 16; Ecclesiasticus 21, 30; II Corinthians 11, 14 and 6, 15; Job 40, 10, 20.

la: Vat. cum nonnullis aliis edd. *Angeli nominari debent.*

en: The Vatican edition, with some other editions, [reads] *Angeli nominari debent* ["they ought to be named Angels"].

la: Cod. Erf. hic annotat: *Haec responsio non videtur stare cum intentione Apostoli, quia intendit ibi probare, quod Christus est superior omnibus spiritibus universaliter.* Cfr. infra a. 1. q. 2.

en: The Erfurt codex here notes: *This response does not seem to stand with the intention of the Apostle, because there he intends to prove that Christ is superior to all spirits universally.* Cf. below, article 1, question 2.

la: Apud Gregor., Hom. 34. in Evang. n. 12. in fine: ubi Gregor. addit: *Qui enim, ut peccata locutionis incendat, de altari Angelus carbonem portat, Seraphim vocatur, quod incendium dicitur.*

en: In Gregory, *Homily* 34 *on the Gospels* n. 12, at the end: where Gregory adds: *For the Angel who, in order to burn away the sins of speech, carries a coal from the altar, is called Seraphim, which means "a burning."* ---

translators_notes:
- Single printed page (p.258 = PDF 280). Two-column Lombard littera; the running-head page number is OCR-mangled as `238` (5→3 digit-mangle) — confirmed 258 by the `pdf = printed + 22` offset and by continuity with d.9 (which closed on p.257).
- **Apparatus crosswalk.** Footnotes are numbered page-wide ¹–¹⁰. The footer text is set as two blocks beneath the two columns: the left footer block holds notes ¹–⁶, the right footer block holds notes ⁷–¹⁰. Body anchors: [^1]–[^4] fall in the left column; [^5]–[^10] fall in the right column — so notes ⁵ and ⁶ sit in the left footer block although their anchors are in the right column (page-wide numbering, not per-column).
- [^1] citation `Sum. Sent. tr. 3. 2. 5.` is reproduced verbatim — the printed apparatus gives three bare numerals after `tr. 3` (verified on a 9× crop of the p.258 left footer); rendered literally as `tr. 3, 2, 5` rather than interpolating an editorial `c.`/`§`.
- Boundary: Cap. II closes p.258 with `…incendere et consumere delicta Isaiae.`; `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM X. — De ministerio Angelorum. … DIVISIO TEXTUS` opens on p.259 and belongs to `bon-sent-II-d10-divisio`. Clean outgoing seam; no backfill (d10-divisio still skeleton).
- OCR garbles cleaned silently: `investigaiidum`→investigandum, `nuiiliaiula`→nuntianda, `assistebaut`→assistebant, `principa-tus`→principatus, `inlitiantur`/`inhtiantur`→infitiantur, `Yolavit`→Volavit, `administratbrii`→administratorii, `dlcunt`→dicunt, `vocalur`→vocatur, `fhiens`→fluens, `Dicltur`→Dicitur, `nomiiia`→nomina, `agraina`→agmina, `prodeuut`→prodeunt, `conlcmplalioni`→contemplationi, `noininari`→nominari, `porcipiunt`→percipiunt, `officluin`→officium, `consuraere`→consumere.
- No `[?]` flags.


title: Dist. 10, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem X — Divisio textus.

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction 10 — Division of the text and treatment of the questions.

source_text:
<!-- page 259 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM X.

#### *De ministerio Angelorum.*

*Hoc etiam investigandum est* etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de consequentibus confirmationem Angelorum quantum ad distinctionem ordinum, in hac vero parte agit quantum ad ministerium. Et quoniam ministerium respectum habet et ad eum qui ministrat, et ad eum cui ministratur; ideo pars ista duas habet. In prima determinat de ministerio Angelorum quantum ad ipsos Angelos ministrantes. In secunda vero determinat per comparationem ad homines, quibus ministrant, infra distinctione undecima: *Illud quoque sciendum est* etc.

Prima pars, in qua quaerit, quibus Angelis competit ministrare sive mitti, habet tres partes. In prima ponit diversas[^1] opiniones cum suis confirmationibus. In secunda vero parte movet dubitationes et determinat, ibi: *Hic oritur quaestio, si omnes mittuntur et nuntii Dei existunt.* In tertia vero parte illas duas opiniones reducit ad quandam concordantiam, formans quasi ex illis duabus opinionem unam, inter utramque mediam, ibi: *Alii vero dicunt, tres ordines supremos* etc. Harum partium subdivisiones manifestae sunt in littera.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis incidit hic quaestio circa tria.

Prima quaestio est, utrum boni Angeli mittantur. Secundo quaeritur, ad quid mittantur. Tertio quaeritur, qualiter illud officium exsequantur.

Circa primum quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur, utrum aliqui Angeli mittantur. Secundo quaeritur, utrum omnes mittantur.

---

english:
### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION X.

#### *On the ministry of the Angels.*

*This too must be investigated* etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the Master treated of the things that follow upon the confirmation of the Angels as regards the distinction of the orders; but in this part he treats [of them] as regards [their] ministry. And since ministry has a relation both to the one who ministers and to the one to whom ministry is rendered, this part therefore has two [sections]. In the first he determines concerning the ministry of the Angels as regards the ministering Angels themselves. In the second he determines by comparison to men, to whom they minister, below in the eleventh distinction: *This too must be known* etc.

The first part, in which he asks to which Angels it belongs to minister or to be sent, has three parts. In the first he sets down differing[^1] opinions together with their confirmations. In the second part he raises doubts and determines [them], there: *Here a question arises, if all are sent and exist as messengers of God.* In the third part he brings those two opinions back to a certain concord, forming as it were out of the two one opinion, midway between both, there: *But others say that the three highest orders* etc. The subdivisions of these parts are manifest in the text.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part a question arises here, concerning three matters.

The first question is whether the good Angels are sent. Secondly it is asked, to what they are sent. Thirdly it is asked, in what manner they carry out that office.

Concerning the first, two [questions] are asked. First it is asked whether any Angels are sent. Secondly it is asked whether all are sent.

---

la: Cod. cc et ed. 1 *duas.*

en: Codex cc and edition 1 read *duas* (*two*) [for *diversas*]. ---

translators_notes:
- Single printed page (p.259 = PDF 281). Two-column COMMENTARIUS + DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.
- Apparatus: p.259 left footer block holds notes ¹–³, right footer block holds notes ⁴–⁶. This divisio chunk carries only note ¹ (anchored at *diversas* in the DIVISIO TEXTUS); footer notes ²–⁶ anchor the body of `d10-a1-q1`, which opens lower on the same page, and are reserved for that chunk.
- Boundary: the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM closes p.259 mid-column; `ARTICULUS I. — Utrum boni Angeli mittantur. — QUAESTIO I. — Utrum aliqui Angeli mittantur.` and `Circa primum sic proceditur` open immediately below and belong to `bon-sent-II-d10-a1-q1` (the short article opener folds into q1 per locked Vol II convention).
- OCR garbles cleaned silently: `corapetit`→competit, `raitti`→mitti, `confirma-tionibus`→confirmationibus, `deterrainat`→determinat, `concordantiara`→concordantiam, `opinionera`→opinionem, `liltera`→littera, `exse-quantur`→exsequantur.
- No `[?]` flags.


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

title_alt:
Utrum aliqui Angeli mittantur.
Whether any Angels are sent.

source_text:
<!-- page 259 -->

### Articulus I. *Utrum boni Angeli mittantur.*

### Quaestio I. *Utrum aliqui Angeli mittantur.*

Circa primum sic proceditur, et ostenditur, quod Angeli mittantur.

*Fundamenta.* 1. Lucae primo[^1]: *Missus est Gabriel Angelus a Deo in civitatem* etc., et in pluribus aliis Scripturae locis.

2. Item, Angelus nomen est *nuntii et officii*, sicut dicit Glossa super illud Psalmi[^2]: *Qui facit Angelos suos spiritus*: ergo si vere et proprie dicuntur Angeli, vere et proprie sunt nuntii: ergo si nuntiorum est mitti, patet etc.

3. Item, quanto aliquis habet maiorem caritatem, tanto sollicitior est circa eum quem potest iuvare; sed Angeli habent perfectam caritatem et possunt nostram indigentiam sublevare: ergo videtur, quod sint solliciti nos adiuvare. Sed hoc non faciunt propria auctoritate, sed Domini: ergo videtur, quod mittantur a Domino.

4. Item, Angeli quantum ad statum et dignitatem sunt medii inter nos et Deum: ergo videtur, quod ad Deum ferant petitiones nostras et a Deo nobis revelationes referant divinas[^3]; sed hoc est proprium nuntiorum: ergo etc.

**Contra:** *Ad oppositum.* 1. Frustra mittit quis nuntium, ubi ipse praesens est et melius potest facere per se ipsum: ergo si Deus nobis praesentissimus est et omnia potest facere per se ipsum, ergo frustra mittit ad nos Angelum. Sed ipse nihil frustra facit[^4]: ergo etc.

2. Item, Deus Pater misit Filium et Spiritum sanctum ad procurandum nostram salutem[^5]; aut ergo

<!-- page 260 -->

sufficienter procuratur salus nostra per Filium et Spiritum sanctum, aut non. Si non, ergo imperfectus mediator est Filius et etiam Spiritus sanctus, quod dicere est profanum; si sic, ergo frustra mittitur Angelus.

3. Item, cum Angelus mittitur ad nos, aut ad nos *convertitur*, aut non. Si non, ergo frustra mittitur: si sic, cum non possit simul et semel moveri diversis motibus, ergo desinit esse beatus.

4. Item, videtur ex hoc generari Angelo praeiudicium, quia quantumcumque aliquis sit ferventis caritatis, ferventius movetur, quando movetur in Deum, quam quando movetur in proximum: ergo ferventius movetur Angelus, cum Deo assistit, quam cum nobis ministrat. Sed cum minuitur fervor dilectionis, minuitur dilectio devotionis: ergo missio Angelorum ad nos et minuit in eis fervorem caritatis et delicias iucunditatis: ergo est in praeiudicium eorum.

5. Item, hoc ipsum videtur: anima quamvis habeat plures potentias, tamen, quia illae potentiae in una substantia simplici radicantur, cum intenditur una, remittitur altera[^6]: ergo pari ratione in Angelis, cum Angelus sollicitatur circa ea quae sunt virtutis ministrativae, minuitur eius contemplatio, ergo et dilectio.

6. Item, Angelus beatus locatur in caelo empyreo tanquam in loco sibi congruo et deputato[^7]: ergo appetit ibi esse. Si ergo egreditur extra empyreum, aliquis appetitus erit in eo incompletus: ergo videtur, quod missio in Angelis ponat incompletionem. Si ergo Angeli beati sunt in statu omnimodae perfectionis, videtur, quod nullo modo competat eis mitti.

### Conclusio

> Beatos Angelos a Deo ad nos mitti, convenit caritati divinae, angelicae et humanae.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod absque dubio beati *Conclusio.* Angeli ad nos mittuntur a Deo.

Etsi de hoc possint assignari plurimae rationes, *Ratio principalis.* una tamen potissima sumitur ex lege caritatis. Haec enim missio concordat caritati divinae et caritati angelicae et humanae. Caritati divinae, quia in hoc manifestatur divina bonitas, quantum nostram salutem diligat, dum nobilissimos spiritus, qui ei intima caritate iunguntur, dirigit et transmittit ad procurandam salutem nostram. — Et competit etiam caritati angelicae. Cum enim caritatis ardentis sit maxime desiderare aliorum salutem, ob quam etiam dicit Domino, sicut dixit Isaias[^8]: *Ecce ego, Domine, mitte me*; et Angeli possint nos iuvare, pro eo quod vident, nos suo auxilio indigere, et malos angelos indesinenter nos impugnare: ideo quod ad nos mittantur, lex exigit caritatis angelicae. — Competit etiam hoc caritati humanae, quae, quoniam parvula est, quamdiu sumus in via, indiget foveri et nutriri et excitari. Et quoniam Angeli sunt concives hominibus, cum non sint eis iuncti per similitudinem naturae, quae excitat ad amorem, oportuit iungi per obsequium beneficentiae. — Unde rationes ad hoc inductae sunt concedendae.

*Solutio oppositorum.* 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod Deus nobis praesens est; dicendum est, quod quamvis Deus sit praesens, tamen propter caecitatem *Notandum.* et caliginem intellectus nostri, in qua sumus, ipsum cognoscimus ut absentem. Et quia illi spiritus propter claritatem luminis et beatitudinis perfectionem semper vident Deum *facie ad faciem*[^9], et sunt ei praesentes; quemadmodum illi qui sunt in camera regis, indicant his qui sunt exterius, regis voluntatem, et ad hoc mittuntur a suo domino; sic intelligendum est in proposito. Nec valet: Dominus potest per se facere, ergo non debet ad hoc nuntium mittere. Multa enim potest ille qui praeest, per se facere, quae tamen iniungit servo vel nuntio, ut salvetur[^10] in ministerio et actionibus decens et congruus ordo.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Filius et Spiritus sanctus sufficienter procurant salutem nostram; dicendum, quod etsi sufficienter procurent, quantum est *ex se*, non tamen excludunt nostri arbitrii libertatem; *adiutores enim Dei sumus*, sicut dicit Apostolus[^11]. Et quia nostrum arbitrium pigrum est et non bene gratiae cooperatur; ideo indiget excitatore. Ad hoc autem nullus est magis idoneus, quam sit Angelus; et ideo conveniens est, ut ad nos mittatur, non propter indigentiam procurationis salutis nostrae ex parte Filii vel Spiritus sancti, sed propter negligentiam cooperationis ex parte nostri.

3. 4. 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si movetur erga nos, non ergo erga Deum; dicendum, quod illud argumentum dupliciter peccat. Primum quidem, quia non movetur erga nos nisi propter Deum; unde motus eius non quiescit in nobis, sed nos semper refert ad Deum; et ideo motus iste non aufert motum in Deum, sed potius disponit ad illum. — *Alia ratio.* Alia etiam ratio est, quia, quamvis una substantia unica potentia simul et semel non possit se convertere ad diversa *per naturam*; potest tamen *per dispensationem divinam*, sive per gratiam perfectam, cuiusmodi est gloria. Unde Angelus simul et semel et de nobis cogitat et de Deo; sic etiam erit in Beatis. — Et per hoc patent duo sequentia, scilicet de amissione fer-

<!-- page 261 -->

voris caritatis et remissione actionis virtutis agentis; hoc enim verum est, ubi una conversio impedit alteram, quod quidem non est in proposito. Et istud satis clarum est intelligere ei qui potest hoc capere, *Notandum.* quomodo anima beatificata simul et semel intelligit multa.

6. Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur de loco, dicendum, quod sicut in praecedentibus habitum est[^12], locus non debetur Angelo propter eius necessitatem vel indigentiam, sed solum propter quandam *congruentiam*. Haec autem congruentia recompensari potest per maiorem; et tunc nullam ponit imperfectionem vel indecentiam per sui ipsius absentiam. Et sic est in proposito. Plus enim delectatur Angelus implere voluntatem Domini sui et in adiuvando hominem placere Deo, quam delectetur esse in empyreo.

english:
### Article I. *Whether the good Angels are sent.*

### Question I. *Whether any Angels are sent.*

Concerning the first, one proceeds thus, and it is shown that the Angels are sent.

*The grounds.* 1. Luke, chapter one[^1]: *Gabriel the Angel was sent from God into a city* etc., and in many other places of Scripture.

2. Likewise, "Angel" is a name *of a messenger and of an office*, as the Gloss says upon that [verse] of the Psalm[^2]: *Who makes his Angels spirits*: therefore, if they are truly and properly called Angels, they are truly and properly messengers: therefore, if it belongs to messengers to be sent, the point is clear, etc.

3. Likewise, the greater the charity one has, the more solicitous he is concerning the one whom he can help; but the Angels have perfect charity and can relieve our need: therefore it seems that they are solicitous to help us. But this they do not do by their own authority, but by the Lord's: therefore it seems that they are sent by the Lord.

4. Likewise, the Angels, as to status and dignity, are midway between us and God: therefore it seems that they carry our petitions to God and bring back to us divine revelations from God[^3]; but this is proper to messengers: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** *To the opposite.* 1. In vain does one send a messenger where he himself is present and can do [the thing] better by himself: therefore, if God is most present to us and can do all things by himself, then in vain does he send an Angel to us. But he does nothing in vain[^4]: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, God the Father sent the Son and the Holy Spirit to procure our salvation[^5]; therefore either

<!-- page 260 -->

our salvation is sufficiently procured through the Son and the Holy Spirit, or not. If not, then the Son, and the Holy Spirit also, is an imperfect mediator — which to say is profane; if so, then in vain is an Angel sent.

3. Likewise, when an Angel is sent to us, either he *turns* toward us, or not. If not, then he is sent in vain; if so, then — since he cannot be moved by diverse motions at one and the same time — he ceases to be blessed.

4. Likewise, it seems that from this a prejudice is generated for the Angel, because, however fervent in charity anyone may be, he is moved more fervently when he is moved toward God than when he is moved toward [his] neighbor: therefore an Angel is moved more fervently when he attends upon God than when he ministers to us. But when the fervor of love is diminished, the love of devotion is diminished: therefore the mission of the Angels to us both diminishes in them the fervor of charity and the delights of joyfulness: therefore it is to their prejudice.

5. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow]: although the soul has several powers, nevertheless, because those powers are rooted in one simple substance, when one is intensified, another is slackened[^6]: therefore, by parity of reasoning, in the Angels, when an Angel is engaged about the things which belong to the ministering power, his contemplation is diminished, and therefore his love also.

6. Likewise, a blessed Angel is located in the empyrean heaven as in a place fitting and assigned to him[^7]: therefore he desires to be there. If, then, he goes out beyond the empyrean, some desire will be incomplete in him: therefore it seems that mission places an incompleteness in the Angels. If, then, the blessed Angels are in a state of all-round perfection, it seems that to be sent in no way befits them.

### Conclusion

> That the blessed Angels are sent to us by God befits the charity of God, of the Angels, and of men.

**I respond:** It must be said that without doubt the blessed *Conclusion.* Angels are sent to us by God.

Although many reasons can be assigned for this, *The principal reason.* one nonetheless, the most powerful, is taken from the law of charity. For this mission accords with the charity of God, with the charity of the Angels, and [with the charity] of men. With the charity of God, because in this is manifested the divine goodness — how greatly it loves our salvation — when it directs and sends the most noble spirits, who are joined to it by intimate charity, to procure our salvation. — And it befits also the charity of the Angels. For since it belongs to ardent charity most of all to desire the salvation of others — on account of which [an Angel] also says to the Lord, as Isaiah said[^8]: *Behold, I [am here], Lord, send me* — and since the Angels can help us, inasmuch as they see that we need their aid and that the evil angels assail us without ceasing: therefore the law of angelic charity requires that they be sent to us. — This befits also human charity, which, since it is little, so long as we are on the way, needs to be cherished and nourished and stirred up. And since the Angels are fellow citizens with men — [yet] since they are not joined to them by the likeness of nature, which stirs up to love — it was necessary that they be joined by the service of beneficence. — Hence the arguments adduced for this [position] are to be conceded.

*The solution of the opposing arguments.* 1. To that, then, which is objected on the contrary — that God is present to us — it must be said that, although God is present, nevertheless, on account of the blindness *Note.* and darkness of our intellect, in which we are, we know him as absent. And since those spirits, on account of the brightness of light and the perfection of beatitude, always see God *face to face*[^9], and are present to him — just as those who are in the king's chamber make known the king's will to those who are outside, and are sent for this by their lord — so it is to be understood in the matter at hand. Nor does it avail [to say]: the Lord can do [it] by himself, therefore he ought not to send a messenger for this. For one who is in authority can do many things by himself which he nonetheless enjoins upon a servant or a messenger, so that in ministry and in actions a becoming and fitting order may be preserved[^10].

2. To that which is objected — that the Son and the Holy Spirit sufficiently procure our salvation — it must be said that, although they procure [it] sufficiently as far as is *of themselves*, they do not, however, exclude the freedom of our choice; *for we are God's helpers*, as the Apostle says[^11]. And since our choice is sluggish and does not cooperate well with grace, it therefore needs one to stir [it]. And for this no one is more suitable than an Angel is; and therefore it is fitting that he be sent to us — not on account of any need of procuring our salvation on the part of the Son or of the Holy Spirit, but on account of the negligence of cooperation on our part.

3, 4, 5. To that which is objected — that if [the Angel] is moved toward us, then [he is] not [moved] toward God — it must be said that that argument errs in two ways. First, indeed, because [the Angel] is not moved toward us except for God's sake; hence his motion does not rest in us, but always refers us back to God; and therefore that motion does not take away the motion toward God, but rather disposes [him] toward it. — *Another reason.* There is also another reason: because, although one substance by a single power cannot at one and the same time turn itself to diverse things *by nature*, it can nonetheless [do so] *by divine dispensation*, or by perfect grace, of which kind is glory. Hence an Angel at one and the same time thinks both of us and of God; so too will it be in the Blessed. — And by this the two following [points] are clear, namely concerning the loss of the fer-

<!-- page 261 -->

vor of charity and the slackening of the action of the acting power; for this is true where one conversion impedes another — which indeed is not the case in the matter at hand. And this [a man] who can grasp it has clear enough understanding [to see], *Note.* how a beatified soul understands many things at one and the same time.

6. To that which is objected lastly concerning place, it must be said that, as has been held in what precedes[^12], place is not owed to an Angel on account of his necessity or need, but only on account of a certain *fittingness*. And this fittingness can be compensated for by a greater [fittingness]; and then it places no imperfection or unbecomingness through his own absence. And so it is in the matter at hand. For an Angel delights more to fulfill the will of his Lord and, in helping man, to please God, than he would delight to be in the empyrean.

la: Vers. 26.

la: Psalm. 103, 4. — Glossam interlinearem, quae sumta est ex August., Enarrat. in hunc Ps., serm. 1. n. 15, vide apud Lyranum, ibid.

en: Psalm 103, 4. — The interlinear Gloss, which is taken from Augustine, *Enarration* on this Psalm, sermon 1, n. 15, see in Lyra, at the same place.

en: Cf. Tobit 12, 12.

la: Aristot., 1. de Caelo et mundo, text. 32. (c. 4.).

en: Aristotle, *On the Heaven and the World*, book I, text 32 (c. 4).

en: Cf. [book] I of the Sentences, d. 15, 16.

la: Averroes, in Comment. super librum de Somniis, ait: *Anima est una in subiecto et multa secundum virtutes, ideo quando utetur aliquo modo virtutum, debilitabitur in usu alterius modi virtutum.*

en: Averroes, in his Commentary on the book *On Dreams*, says: *The soul is one in subject and many according to its powers; therefore, when it uses some mode of its powers, it will be weakened in the use of another mode of [its] powers.*

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

en: Cf. above, d. 2, part II, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Cap. 6, 8, ubi Vulgata omittit *Domine*. — Paulo ante in cod. bb (a manu suppari) post *dicit* bene adiungitur *Angelus*; Vat. substituit *Dominus* pro *Domino*.

en: [Isaiah] ch. 6, 8, where the Vulgate omits *Domine* ["Lord"]. — A little before, in codex bb (by a near-contemporary hand) after *dicit* the word *Angelus* is well added; the Vatican edition substitutes *Dominus* for *Domino*.

en: First Epistle to the Corinthians 13, 12.

la: Cod. cc et ed. 1 *servetur.*

en: Codex cc and edition 1 read *servetur* (*be kept*) [for *salvetur*].

la: Epist. 1. Cor. 3, 9.

en: First Epistle to the Corinthians 3, 9.

en: Distinction 2, part II, a. 2, q. 1. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Hanc et seq. quaestionem multi Commentatores Lombardi una quaestione absolvunt. — Quid sit proprie missio in genere, explanatum est I. Sent. d. 15. p. I. q. 1; et quid missio visibilis, ibid. d. 16. q. 1. — Quod boni Angeli a Deo proprie mittantur, ex s. Scriptura evidenter constat; quod hic confirmatur a S. Doctore per legem caritatis, quam consequitur sublimis quaedam Sanctorum communio, quae Angelos et sanctos homines consociat in unam civitatem Dei. — Malis autem angelis non competere proprie mitti, docetur hic dub. I, de quo diffusius tractat Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 36. m. 2.

**II.** Circa sequentem quaestionem iam a Lombardo (hic c. I.) duae opiniones sibi oppositae recensentur, quas iam idem in quandam concordiam reducit, distinguendo inter missionem exteriorem ad homines et interiorem ad inferiores Angelos. Consentiunt ipsi S. Bonav., Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 3. ad 1; S. Thom., B. Albert., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med. aliique. Scotus autem, quem multi posteriores sequuntur, probabilius esse censet, interdum et extraordinarie aliquos etiam ex supremis ordinibus ad homines mitti, ut maiora Dei mysteria manifestent.

**III.** De utraque quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 1. 3. — Scot., hic q. unica; Report. hic q. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. unica, a. 2. 3; S. I. q. 112. a. 1. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. 3; S. p. II. tr. 9. q. 34. m. 1. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 2. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. — Biel, hic q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Many Commentators of Lombard dispatch this question and the following one in a single question. — What mission properly is in general has been explained in [book] I of the Sentences, d. 15, part I, q. 1; and what visible mission is, in the same [book], d. 16, q. 1. — That the good Angels are properly sent by God is evidently established from sacred Scripture; which is here confirmed by the holy Doctor through the law of charity, upon which there follows a certain sublime communion of the Saints, which associates the Angels and holy men into one city of God. — That it does not, however, belong to the evil angels to be properly sent is taught here in doubt I, concerning which Alexander of Hales treats more at length, *Summa* part II, q. 36, m. 2.

**II.** Concerning the following question, two mutually opposed opinions are already recounted by Lombard (here, c. I), which the same [author] then brings back into a certain concord, distinguishing between exterior mission to men and interior [mission] to the lower Angels. With him agree S. Bonaventure [himself], Alexander of Hales (in the place cited, m. 3, ad 1), S. Thomas, B. Albert, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Middleton, and others. But Scotus, whom many later [writers] follow, judges it more probable that sometimes and extraordinarily some [Angels], even from the highest orders, are sent to men, in order to manifest the greater mysteries of God.

**III.** On both questions: Alexander of Hales, in the place cited, m. 1, 3. — Scotus, here, the sole question; the Reportatio, here, q. 2. — S. Thomas, here, the sole question, a. 2, 3; *Summa* I, q. 112, a. 1, 2. — B. Albert, here, a. 1, 3; *Summa* part II, tr. 9, q. 34, m. 1, 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, the sole question, a. 2, 3. — Richard of Middleton, here, a. 1, q. 1, 2. — Giles of Rome, here, q. 2, a. 1. — Durandus, here, q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. 1. — Biel, here, q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
- Three printed pages (pp.259–261 = PDF 281–283). Two-column. Built from IA djvu OCR base over 450 dpi PDF column-band crops.
- ARTICULUS I (`Utrum boni Angeli mittantur`) + QUAESTIO I (`Utrum aliqui Angeli mittantur`) headers and `Circa primum sic proceditur` open on p.259 below the d10-divisio TRACTATIO and are folded into this chunk per locked Vol II convention.
- Structure: 4 *Fundamenta* arguments (Angels are sent — Luke 1, name *nuntii*, charity, mediating status) + 6 *Ad oppositum* arguments (against — God present in vain, Son/Spirit sufficient, conversion/beatitude, fervor-prejudice, soul-power analogy, empyrean locus) + CONCLUSIO + Respondeo (the *lex caritatis* — mission accords with divine, angelic, and human charity) + Solutio oppositorum 1 / 2 / 3-4-5 (combined) / 6 + 3-paragraph SCHOLION (I–III).
- **Apparatus crosswalk.** p.259 footer block runs ¹–⁶; note ¹ (`Cod. cc et ed. 1 duas`) belongs to `d10-divisio`, so this chunk's [^1]–[^5] = p.259 footer ²–⁶. p.260 footer ¹–⁶ = [^6]–[^11]. p.261 footer ¹ = [^12]; p.261 footer ²–⁴ anchor the body of `d10-a1-q2` (which opens lower on p.261) and are reserved for that chunk. The SCHOLION is set full-width across both columns and carries no footnote markers (its citations are inline).
- Boundary: incoming from `d10-divisio` CLEAN. Outgoing CLEAN — SCHOLION III closes p.261 with `Biel, hic q. 1.`; `QUAESTIO II. — Utrum omnium Angelorum sit mitti.` opens immediately below and belongs to `bon-sent-II-d10-a1-q2`.
- OCR garbles cleaned silently: `priraum`→primum, `ostendilur`→ostenditur, `cjuod`→quod, `feciunt`→faciunt, `Itera`→Item, `Deura`→Deum, `frnstra`→frustra, `incorapletus`→incompletus, `ima tamen potissima`→una tamen potissima, `Domiiio`→Domino, `praesentissiraus`→praesentissimus, `orania`→omnia, `miiniitur`→minuitur, `Sijiritus`→Spiritus, `oliiicitur`→obiicitur, `necegsitatem`→necessitatem, `imperfectionera`→imperfectionem, `indecentiara`→indecentiam.
- No `[?]` flags.