title: Dist. 9, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem IX — Divisio textus, Praenotata de nominibus et divisionibus Angelorum, Tractatio quaestionum.

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction 9 — Division of the text, prefatory notes on the names and divisions of the Angels, treatment of the questions.

source_text:
<!-- page 237 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM IX.

#### *De angelicorum ordinum distinctione.*

*Post praedicta superest cognoscere* etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de consequentibus ad malorum obstinationem; in hac parte agit de his quae consequuntur bonorum[^1] confirmationem. Haec autem sunt duo, scilicet distinctio ordinum et consequens ministerium: ideo haec pars duas habet. In prima agit de angelicorum ordinum distinctione. In secunda de Angelorum ministerio et missione, infra distinctione decima: *Hoc etiam investigandum est* etc.

Prima pars habet duas partes. In prima agit de distinctione ordinum quantum ad primam[^2] conditionem; in secunda vero quantum ad reparationem, ibi: *Notandum etiam, quod decimus ordo* etc.

Prima pars habet quatuor partes. In prima determinat, qualiter Angelorum ordines distinguuntur. In secunda, qualiter nominantur, ibi: *Haec nomina illis non propter se*[^3] etc. In tertia determinat, quod sit huius ordinationis principium, ibi: *Iam nunc inquirere restat* etc. In quarta vero et ultima determinat modum, ibi: *Praeterea considerari oportet* etc.

Secunda vero pars principalis, quae ibi incipit: *Notandum* etc., duas habet. In prima determinat de reparatione ordinum angelicorum fienda quantum ad gradum; in secunda vero quantum ad numerum, ibi: *Non enim iuxta numerum eorum* etc.

### PRAENOTATA DE NOMINIBUS ET DIVISIONIBUS ANGELORUM.

Ad intelligentiam autem eorum quae in hac parte dicuntur, primo procedendum est via narrationis; secundo vero via inquisitionis. Via autem narrationis est *definitiva* et *divisiva*; ideo oportet hic praenotare quarundam rerum *definitiones* et *divisiones*.

Oportet igitur primo videre, quid sit *hierarchia*; secundo vero, quid *Angelus*; tertio, quid sit *ordo angelicus*. Quibus praeintellectis, maxima via praestabitur nobis ad sequentia terminanda.

*Definitiones. I. Quid sit hierarchia.* Sciendum est igitur, quod ipsius hierarchiae beatus Dionysius tres ponit *definitiones* in libro *de Angelica Hierarchia*[^4], quarum prima haec est: «Hierarchia est divina pulcritudo ut simpla, ut optima, ut consummata vel consummativa». Secunda est haec: «Hierarchia est ordo divinus, scientia et actio, deiforme quantum possibile similans, et ad inditas divinitus illuminationes proportionaliter in Dei similitudinem ascendens». Tertia est haec: «Hierarchia est ad Deum, quantum possibile est, simi-

<!-- page 238 -->

litudo et unitas, ipsum habens scientiae sanctae actionis ducem, et ad suum divinissimum decorem immutabiliter definiens; quantum vero possibile est reformat suos laudatores».

*Distinctio et explicatio 3 definitionum.* Istarum definitionum distinctio et explicatio potest haberi sic: quia prima definitio est hierarchiae *increatae*, duae vero sequentes *creatae*. Differunt autem, quia prima illarum principaliter attenditur penes *egressum* a Deo, sed ultima penes *regressum*; licet utrobique tangatur *utrumque*. — *Definitio I.* Prima autem definitio, quae est hierarchiae *increatae*, exprimit ipsam quantum ad trinitatem et unitatem, ita quod nec trinitas praeiudicat unitati, nec unitas trinitati; sed unitas spectat ad perfectionem trinitatis, et trinitas unitatis. Ut igitur ostendatur ibi esse unitas in trinitate, dicit: *Hierarchia est divina pulcritudo*. Pulcritudo enim consistit in pluralitate et aequalitate, sicut dicit Augustinus in libro *de Vera Religione*[^5]. Ut autem ostendat, quod pluralitas non praeiudicat unitati, dicit *ut simpla*, quia sic est ibi pluralitas, ut tamen non tollatur unitatis simplicitas. Ut etiam ostendat, quod unitas non praeiudicat pluralitati, subiungit *ut optima*, quia sic est in Deo unitas, ut tamen sit summa bonitas, per quam est perfectio communicatio, et sic personarum pluralitas. Postremo, ut ostendat, quod unitas spectat ad perfectionem pluralitatis, et e converso, subdit *ut consummata*, in quo significatur, quod in trinitate unitate consistit omnimoda et summa perfectio.

*Definitio 2.* Secundae vero definitionis intellectus sic potest haberi. Definitur enim ibi *angelica hierarchia* secundum *egressum* a Deo. Egreditur autem a Deo secundum rationem *imaginis* et *similitudinis*, sicut et homo; et ideo in illa notificatione primo describit ipsam hierarchiam egredientem[^6] a Deo per modum *imaginis*, cum dicit: *Hierarchia est ordo divinus, scientia et actio*: ut *ordo*, id est ordinata potestas, respondeat Patri, et *scientia* Filio, et *actio* Spiritui sancto, secundum memoriam, intelligentiam et voluntatem. Secundo vero describit quantum ad rationem *similitudinis*, cum subiungit: *Deiforme in quantum possibile est, similans* etc.; et tangitur ipsa assimilatio quantum ad *habitum*, cum dicitur: *Deiforme, in quantum possibile* etc., et quantum ad *actum*, cum subinfertur: *Et ad inditas illuminationes* etc. Similitudinis enim sive gratiae assimilantis *actus* est sursum ducere, sicut eius *origo* est desursum descendere[^7].

Tertiam autem definitionem sic possumus intelligere; *Definitio 3.* describitur enim ibi, ut praedictum est, angelica hierarchia per *regressum* ad Deum principaliter. — Notatur igitur in praedicta definitione hierarchia *rediens* sive regressus eius, primo quantum ad *habilitatem*, cum dicit: *Hierarchia est ad Deum, quantum possibile est, similitudo et unitas*. Secundo quantum ad *actualitatem*, cum dicit: *Ipsum habens scientiae sanctae et actionis ducem*. Tertio quantum ad *immutabilitatem*, cum subiungit: *Et ad suum divinissimum decorem immutabiliter definiens*. Quarto quantum ad *plenitudinis ubertatem*, cum subinfertur: *Quantum vero possibile est, reformans suos laudatores*, in hoc scilicet, quod non solum sibi sufficit, sed etiam propter plenitudinem caritatis et gratiae potens est alios adiuvare.

*Definitio magistralis.* Et sic patet ex praedictis definitionibus, quid sit *hierarchia* tam divina quam angelica; per quarum intellectum elicitur quaedam definitio magistralis, quae competit omni hierarchiae, licet non univoce, quae talis est: hierarchia est rerum sacrarum et rationabilium ordinata potestas, in subditis debitum retinens principatum[^8]. Haec autem non solum competit hierarchiae angelicae, sed etiam ecclesiasticae vel humanae, de qua nihil ad praesens, sed solum de hierarchia angelica. Et quoniam haec non potest cognosci, nisi cognoscatur, quid sit Angelus; ideo praenotandae sunt et Angeli definitiones.

*II. Quid sit Angelus, 2 definitiones.* Angelus autem sic notificatur a Damasceno[^9]: «Angelus est substantia incorporea, intellectualis, semper mobilis, arbitrio libera, Deo ministrans, gratia, non natura immortalitatem suscipiens». Dionysius[^10] autem aliter definit Angelum sic: «Angelus est imago Dei, manifestatio occulti luminis, speculum clarum, splendidissimum, immaculatum, incontaminatum, incoinquinatum, suscipiens, sicut conveniens est, totam speciositatem boniformis deiformitatis, et in se resplendere faciens bonitatem silentii, quod est in abditis». — Differunt autem hae duae notificationes, quia prima describit Angelum quantum ad *esse*, secunda vero non solum quantum ad *esse*, sed etiam quantum ad *bene esse*.

*Defin. Damasceni explicatur.* Primae definitionis intellectus haberi potest sic: describitur enim ibi Angelus quantum ad *substantiam*, quantum ad *virtutem*, quantum ad *operationem* et quantum ad *durationem*. — *Substantia* tangitur in hoc quod dicit: *Angelus est substantia incorporea*. — *Virtus*, in hoc quod subiungit: *Intellectualis, semper mobilis, arbitrio libera*, ubi notatur triplex virtus angelica, scilicet *cognitiva*,

<!-- page 239 -->

*operativa* et *imperativa*. *Cognitiva* in hoc quod dicitur *intellectualis*; *operativa* in hoc quod dicitur *semper mobilis*, quia sine fatigatione potest operari; sed *imperativa* in hoc quod dicitur *arbitrio libera*, quam non oportet distingui ab aliis praedictis in re, sed sufficit, quod distinguatur ratione. — *Operatio* vero tangitur, cum dicitur *Deo ministrans*. — *Duratio*, cum subiungitur: *Gratia, non natura immortalitatem suscipiens*. Vocatur autem hic gratia non aliquis habitus gratis datus, sed gratia dicitur gratuita Dei influentia.

*Defin. Dionysii explicatur.* Intellectus autem secundae definitionis sic potest haberi. Definitur namque ibi Angelus non solum quantum ad *esse naturae*, sed etiam quantum ad *bene esse*; et ideo notificatur hic Angelus, in quantum habet Dei *imaginem* per naturam, in quantum habet *similitudinem* per gratiam, in quantum habet *deiformitatem* per gloriam. — *Ratio imaginis.* Ratio autem *imaginis* exprimitur quantum ad duo, scilicet quantum ad id quod *sursum* est, et quantum ad id quod *deorsum*. Primum tangitur, cum dicit: *Angelus est imago Dei*; secundum, cum subiungit: *Manifestatio occulti luminis*. «*Imago* enim est, in quantum est capax Dei et est particeps eius[^11]; sed *manifestatio luminis* est, in quantum illuminationes, quas suscipit, inferioribus ostendit».

*Ratio similitudinis.* Similiter quantum ad *similitudinem* gratiae describitur quantum ad duplicem respectum: ad *sursum* per positionem, ad *deorsum* per privationem. Comparatio ad *sursum* tangitur, cum dicitur: *Speculum clarum, splendidissimum*, ubi notatur, quod gratia desursum veniens naturam *conservat*, naturam *decorat*, naturam *consummat*[^12]; et quantum ad haec tria dicit: *Speculum clarum, splendidissimum*. — Comparatio vero ad id quod *deorsum* est, per modum privationis notatur, cum dicitur: *Immaculatum, incontaminatum, incoinquinatum*; per quae tria removet triplicem foeditatem ab Angelo, quae repugnat gratiae. Primo foeditatem *actam*[^13]; et haec est foeditas actualis, et removetur per hoc quod dicitur *immaculatum*. Secundo foeditatem *adhaerentem* sive *advenientem*; et haec est foeditas venialis[^14], et removetur per hoc quod dicitur *incontaminatum*. Tertio removet foeditatem *contractam*; et haec est foeditas originalis, et removetur per hoc quod dicitur *incoinquinatum*.

*Ratio deiformitatis.* Similiter *deiformitas* gloriae tangitur secundum duplicem comparationem, scilicet ad id quod *sursum est*, et ad id quod *deorsum est*. Ad id quod *sursum est*, per hoc quod dicit: *Suscipiens, sicut conveniens est, totam speciositatem boniformis deiformitatis*. Comparatione enim ad Deum deiformis efficitur, cum speciositatem a Deo suscipit. Comparatio vero ad id quod *inferius* est, notatur, cum dicitur: *Et in se resplendere faciens bonitatem silentii, quod est in abditis*; hoc autem est, dum refulgentiam divinae bonitatis, quam ipse habet, ostendit aliis. Hanc autem vocat *silentium*, quia nemo potest intime Deo coniungi, quin in illo quietetur, et quin omnis strepitus exterior quiescat, et ideo vocat *silentium in abditis*. — Et sic patet, quid sit hierarchia, et etiam quid sit Angelus.

*III. Quid sit ordo angelicus.* Tertio restat videre, quid sit *ordo angelicus*. Definitur autem sic a Gregorio, et in littera[^15] adducitur haec definitio a Magistro: «Ordo est multitudo caelestium spirituum, qui inter se in aliquo munere gratiae similantur, sicut in naturalium donorum participatione conveniunt». — Huius notificationis explanatio in promptu est. Notificatur enim hic ordo quantum ad suum *fundamentum*, quantum ad suum *complementum*, quantum ad *dispositionem*, quae inter haec medium tenet locum. — *Fundamentum* tangitur, cum dicit: *Ordo est multitudo caelestium spirituum*; ordo enim fundatur in natura. *Complementum* vero tangitur in hoc quod dicit: *Qui inter se aliquo munere gratiae similantur*; ordo enim complementum habet a gratia. *Dispositio* media inter utrumque notatur, cum dicitur: *Sicut in naturalium donorum participatione conveniunt*; quia meliora naturalia disponunt ad maiora gratuita.

*Epilogus.* — Ex praedictis notificaturae nobis illa tria, quae prius proposita sunt secundum descriptiones convenientes, quas facile esset secundum topicum[^16] calumniari et destruere; sed omittendum est, quia valde parum est utile.

*Divisiones.* Post hoc procedendum est ad *divisiones*. Sunt autem divisiones tres praenotandae ad faciliorem explicationem distinctionis angelicorum ordinum. *Divisio 1.* Prima

<!-- page 240 -->

est haec: hierarchiarum alia *supercaelestis*, alia *caelestis*, alia *subcaelestis*. *Divisio 2.* Secunda est haec: hierarchiarum caelestium alia *superior*, alia *media*, alia *inferior*; sive quod idem est, alia *epiphania*, alia *hyperphania*, alia *hypophania*[^17]. *Divisio 3 cum 3 subdivisionibus.* Tertia est haec, quod ordines primae hierarchiae triplex est, scilicet Seraphim, Cherubim et Throni. Secundae hierarchiae similiter triplex est ordo secundum beatum Dionysium[^18]: Dominationes, Potestates et Virtutes. Secundum Gregorium et Bernardum: Dominationes, Principatus et Potestates. Similiter tertiae hierarchiae triplex est ordo secundum Dionysium[^19]: Principatus, Archangeli et Angeli. Secundum Gregorium et Bernardum: Virtutes, Archangeli et Angeli.

*Ratio 1. divisionis.* Primae divisionis manifesta est ratio et intelligentia. Quoniam enim hierarchia non est nisi in substantia intellectuali, haec autem triplex est, scilicet *divina, angelica* et *humana*; ideo triplex distinguitur hierarchia; et *divina* dicitur supercaelestis, *angelica* caelestis, *humana* autem subcaelestis.

*Ratio 2. divisionis duplex.* Secundae autem divisionis ratio et manifestatio est duplex: vel secundum ea quae *essentialiter* respiciunt hierarchiam, vel secundum ea quae secundum *status* et *officia* respiciunt hierarchiam[^20]. Si vero secundum ea quae *essentialiter* respiciunt hierarchiam, quae sunt *ordo, scientia et actio*, sic triplicem oportet esse hierarchiam: unam penes *scientiam*, et haec est suprema; alteram penes *ordinem*, et haec est media; tertiam vero penes *actionem*, et haec est infima. Prima enim hierarchia principaliter attenditur penes *scientiam divinam*, media vero penes *potentiam ordinatam*, tertia vero penes *actionem administrativam*. — Si vero secundum *status* et *officia*, sic similiter oportet esse tres. Nam quidam est status *contemplativorum*, quidam *activorum*, quidam *praelatorum*. *Penes statum.* Penes statum *contemplativorum* est hierarchia suprema, penes statum *activorum* est hierarchia infima, penes statum *medium*, scilicet *praelatorum*, assignatur hierarchia media.

*Ratio 3. divisionis.* Tertiae autem divisionis ratio et explicatio ex ratione secundae divisionis habet ortum. — *Quoad supremam hierarch.* Quia enim *suprema* hierarchia secundum utrumque modum accipiendi attenditur in *scientia* et statu *contemplationis*, quae consistit in conversione ad Deum; ideo cum ad conversionem necessario requiratur triplex actus et triplex donum, scilicet *tentionis*, *cognitionis* et *dilectionis*, ideo triplex ordo ibi ponitur. Quantum ad perfectam *tentionem* est ordo Thronorum; quantum ad perfectam *cognitionem*, ordo Cherubim; quantum ad perfectam *dilectionem*, ordo Seraphim. Et hoc patet ex suis interpretationibus[^21]. Quia igitur tam prima ratio quam secunda[^22] comprehendit haec tria, ideo omnes tractatores in hac distinctione concordant, scilicet Dionysius, qui distinguit hierarchias penes *essentialia*, et Gregorius, qui distinguit penes *officia*.

*Quoad mediam hierarch. dupliciter.* Similiter subdivisio *secundae* hierarchiae pendet ex duplici ratione praeassignata. Dictum est enim, quod secunda hierarchia uno modo accipitur penes *ordinem* sive *ordinatam potestatem*; habet enim *Penes ordinatam potestatem.* substantia ordinari mediante potentia. Perfectio autem virtutis sive potentiae consistit in tribus, scilicet in *praesidendo*, et penes hoc attenditur ordo Dominationum; in *resistendo*, et penes hoc attenditur ordo Potestatum; et in *operando*, et penes hoc est ordo Virtutum. Et ordinantur hi ordines secundum maiorem dignitatem et minorem, quia plus est *praesidere* quam *repugnare*, et *repugnare* quam per se[^23] *operari posse*. Ideo recte sic ordinantur ordines mediae hierarchiae a Dionysio, ut primo ponantur Dominationes, secundo Potestates et tertio Virtutes. — *Penes statum.* Si autem secunda hierarchia sumatur penes *statum medium*, scilicet *praelatorum*, sic similiter tres habet ordines secundum triplicem praelationem Angelorum. Praesunt enim Angeli *angelicis spiritibus*, et hi dicuntur Dominationes; praesunt etiam *bonis hominibus*, et hi dicuntur Principatus; praesunt etiam *daemonibus*, et hi dicuntur Potestates. Et sic patet ordo secundum dignitatem praelationum. Quia enim plus est praesidere

<!-- page 241 -->

Angelis quam hominibus, et bonis hominibus quam daemonibus; ideo primo Dominationes, secundo Principatus et tertio Potestates enumerantur a Gregorio et a Bernardo. *Quoad tertiam hierarch. dupliciter.* Divisio etiam *tertiae* hierarchiae ex duplici ratione praeassignata dependet[^24]. Si enim tertia hierarchia sumatur penes actionem *ministerialem*, sic triplex est ordo angelicus, secundum quod tripliciter contingit deputari ad regimen alterius vel ministerium. *Penes actionem ministerialem.* Quidam enim sunt Angeli ordinati ad regimen *principum*, et hi Principatus sunt; quidam vero ad regimen *multitudinis*, et hi dicuntur Archangeli; quidam ad custodiam *personae singularis*, et hi dicuntur Angeli. Et sic patet etiam ordo et sufficientia illorum ordinum, quia plus est praesidere *principi* quam *uni genti*[^25], princeps enim praeest toti genti; et plus est deputari ad custodiam *multitudinis* quam ad custodiam *personae singularis*. Et per istum modum distinguit et ordinat Dionysius. — *Penes vitam activam.* Si vero accipiatur penes operationem vitae activae, sic etiam triplex est ordo, secundum quod triplex est ministerium: aut enim ministerium consistit in operando, aut in docendo, et[^26] in docendo aut maiora, aut minora. Primum est Virtutum, secundum Archangelorum et tertium Angelorum. Et patet ordo, quia plus est facere quam docere sive dicere, et revelare maiora maius est quam revelare minora. Et penes hunc modum sumsit distinctionem tertiae hierarchiae Gregorius et Bernardus. *Dissentiunt Gregor. et Dionys.* Ex his apparet ratio harum *divisionum*, apparet etiam diversificatio inter Gregorium et Dionysium. Quia enim diversimode distinctionem hierarchiarum consideraverunt, ideo et divisiones *ordinum* in ipsis diversimode assignaverunt. *Praefertur positio Dionysii.* Sed cum utrumque horum simul non possit esse verum, scilicet quod Principatus sit de media hierarchia et infima, et similiter Virtutes, quin confundantur hierarchiae et ordines, quaeritur, quid istorum sit verius, et cui magis innitendum sit. Et dicendum ad hoc, quod magis innitendum est dicto Dionysii, tum quia ipse didicit, sicut dicitur, a Paulo, et ita tradidit, sicut audivit; tum quia Gregorius[^27] in confirmationem eorum quae de hac materia dicit, ipsius auctoritatem inducit; tum etiam quia, sicut ex praedictis patet, Dionysius distinctionem hierarchiarum sumsit penes ea quae sunt ipsis angelicis spiritibus intrinseca et essentialia; et ideo sic ordines distinxit, sicut habent collocari in caelis. Gregorius vero plus pensavit opera et officia; et ideo sic distinxit, secundum quod plus potest valere ad eruditionem nostram. Nec unus contradicit alteri nec verbum alterius retractat; sed alium modum distinguendi assignat, tum propter diversitatem considerationis in principio, tum propter diversitatem considerationis in fine.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam praedictorum et eorum quae Magister dicit in littera, ut via inquisitiva procedamus, circa ordines Angelorum quaeruntur novem.

Primo quaeritur de ordinibus in comparatione ad naturam substratam.

Secundo in comparatione ad causam completivam.

Tertio in comparatione ad dispositionem praeambulam.

Quarto quaeritur quantum ad nominationem.

Quinto quantum ad reparationem.

Sexto quantum ad praelationis evacuationem.

Septimo quantum ad numerum.

Octavo quaeritur in comparatione ad suum oppositum.

Nono et ultimo in comparatione ad disparatum.

---

english:
<!-- page 237 -->

### Commentary on Distinction IX.

#### *On the distinction of the angelic orders.*

*After the things already said, it remains to know* etc.

### Division of the text.

Above the Master treated of the consequences attendant upon the obstinacy of the evil; in this part he treats of those things which follow upon the confirmation of the good[^1]. These however are two, namely the distinction of the orders and the consequent ministry: therefore this part has two [subparts]. In the first he treats of the distinction of the angelic orders. In the second, of the ministry and mission of the Angels, below in distinction ten: *This too is to be investigated* etc.

The first part has two subparts. In the first he treats of the distinction of the orders as to their first[^2] condition; in the second, as to their restoration, there: *It is also to be noted that the tenth order* etc.

The first part has four subparts. In the first he determines in what way the orders of the Angels are distinguished. In the second, in what way they are named, there: *These names have been given to them not on their own account*[^3] etc. In the third he determines what is the principle of this ordering, there: *Now it remains to inquire* etc. In the fourth and last he determines the mode, there: *Furthermore it must be considered* etc.

The second principal part, which begins there: *Notandum* etc., has two [subparts]. In the first he determines concerning the restoration of the angelic orders to be made as to grade; in the second, as to number, there: *For not according to the number of those* etc.

### Prefatory notes on the names and divisions of the Angels.

For the understanding of what is said in this part, we must proceed first by the way of narration; secondly, by the way of inquiry. The way of narration is *definitive* and *divisive*; therefore here we must set down beforehand the *definitions* and *divisions* of certain things.

First, then, it is necessary to see what *hierarchy* is; secondly, what *Angel* is; thirdly, what *angelic order* is. Once these have been understood, the chief way will be prepared for us to bring to a conclusion what follows.

*Definitions. I. What hierarchy is.* It must be known therefore that of hierarchy itself blessed Dionysius sets down three *definitions* in the book *On the Angelic Hierarchy*[^4], of which the first is this: «Hierarchy is a divine beauty, as simple, as best, as consummated or consummative». The second is this: «Hierarchy is a divine order, knowledge and action, assimilating to the deiform so far as is possible, and ascending proportionally according to the illuminations given by God into a likeness of God». The third is this: «Hierarchy is, so far as is possible, likeness and unity to God, having Him as the leader of holy knowledge and action, and defining it unchangeably toward His most divine

<!-- page 238 -->

beauty; and as far as is possible reforms its praisers».

*Distinction and explication of the 3 definitions.* The distinction and explication of these definitions can be had thus: that the first definition is of *uncreated* hierarchy, while the two following are of *created* hierarchy. They differ moreover, because the first of those is attended to chiefly with respect to the *egress* from God, the last with respect to the *regress*; although in both *each* is touched on. — *Definition I.* But the first definition, which is of the *uncreated* hierarchy, expresses it as to trinity and unity, so that neither does the trinity prejudice the unity, nor the unity the trinity; but unity looks to the perfection of the trinity, and trinity to that of unity. To show, then, that there is unity in trinity, he says: *Hierarchy is divine beauty*. For beauty consists in plurality and equality, as Augustine says in the book *On True Religion*[^5]. To show that plurality does not prejudice unity, he says *as simple*, because so is plurality there that the simplicity of unity is not destroyed. To show also that unity does not prejudice plurality, he subjoins *as best*, because so is unity in God that there is also supreme goodness through which there is perfect communication and so plurality of persons. Lastly, to show that unity looks to the perfection of plurality, and vice versa, he adds *as consummated*, in which it is signified that in the trinity-unity consists every mode and supreme perfection.

*Definition 2.* The understanding of the second definition can be had thus. For there is defined the *angelic* hierarchy according to its *egress* from God. It goes forth from God according to the ratio of *image* and *likeness*, just as does man; and therefore in that notification he first describes the hierarchy itself going forth[^6] from God by the mode of *image*, when he says: *Hierarchy is a divine order, knowledge and action*: that *order*, that is ordered power, corresponds to the Father, *knowledge* to the Son, and *action* to the Holy Spirit, according to memory, intelligence, and will. Secondly, he describes [it] as to the ratio of *likeness*, when he subjoins: *Deiform, so far as is possible, assimilating* etc.; and the assimilation itself is touched as to *habit*, when it is said: *Deiform, so far as is possible* etc., and as to *act*, when there is inserted: *And to the illuminations given* etc. For the *act* of likeness, or of assimilating grace, is to lead upwards, just as its *origin* is to descend from above[^7].

*Definition 3.* The third definition we can understand thus: for there is described, as has been said, the angelic hierarchy chiefly by the *regress* to God. — In the foregoing definition, then, hierarchy *returning*, that is its regress, is noted: first as to *aptitude*, when it says: *Hierarchy is, so far as is possible, likeness and unity to God*. Secondly, as to *actuality*, when it says: *Having Him as the leader of holy knowledge and action*. Thirdly, as to *immutability*, when it subjoins: *And defining it unchangeably toward His most divine beauty*. Fourthly, as to *fullness of abundance*, when it inserts: *And as far as is possible reforms its praisers*, namely in this, that it not only suffices for itself, but is also able through the fullness of charity and grace to help others.

*Magistral definition.* And thus there is clear from the aforesaid definitions what hierarchy is, both divine and angelic; and from the understanding of these is drawn a certain magistral definition, which fits every hierarchy, though not univocally: hierarchy is an ordered power over things sacred and rational, retaining over its subjects a due principate[^8]. This, however, fits not only the angelic hierarchy, but also the ecclesiastical or human; on which nothing for the present — only of the angelic hierarchy. And since this cannot be known unless it be known what an Angel is, therefore the definitions of an Angel are also to be set down beforehand.

*II. What an Angel is — 2 definitions.* An Angel, then, is thus notified by Damascene[^9]: «An Angel is an incorporeal substance, intellectual, ever in motion, free in choice, ministering to God, receiving immortality by grace, not by nature». Dionysius[^10] otherwise defines an Angel thus: «An Angel is the image of God, a manifestation of hidden light, a clear mirror, most resplendent, immaculate, uncontaminated, unpolluted, receiving — as is fitting — the whole beauty of bonny-formed deiformity, and making to shine in itself the goodness of the silence which is in the hidden parts». — These two notifications, however, differ in that the first describes an Angel as to *being*, the second not only as to *being*, but also as to *well-being*.

*Damascene's def. explicated.* The understanding of the first definition can be had thus: there is described an Angel as to *substance*, as to *virtue* (or power), as to *operation* and as to *duration*. — *Substance* is touched in what he says: *An Angel is an incorporeal substance*. — *Virtue*, in what he subjoins: *Intellectual, ever in motion, free in choice*, where there is noted a threefold angelic virtue, namely *cognitive*,

<!-- page 239 -->

*operative*, and *imperative*. *Cognitive* in this — that it is said *intellectual*; *operative* in this — that it is said *ever in motion*, because it can operate without weariness; but *imperative* in this — that it is said *free in choice*, which does not need to be distinguished from the others in reality, but it suffices that it be distinguished in concept. — *Operation* is touched, when it is said *ministering to God*. — *Duration*, when there is subjoined: *Receiving immortality by grace, not by nature*. *Grace* here is not called any habit gratuitously given, but is said to be the gratuitous influence of God.

*Dionysius's def. explicated.* The understanding of the second definition can be had thus. For there is defined an Angel not only as to *being of nature*, but also as to *well-being*; and therefore Angel is here notified, as having the *image* of God by nature, the *likeness* by grace, *deiformity* by glory. — *Ratio of image.* But the ratio of *image* is expressed as to two things, namely as to what is *above* and as to what is *below*. The first is touched, when he says: *An Angel is the image of God*; the second, when he subjoins: *A manifestation of hidden light*. «For he is *image*, in that he is capable of God and is participant of Him[^11]; he is *manifestation of light*, in that he shows to inferiors the illuminations which he receives».

*Ratio of likeness.* Likewise as to the *likeness* of grace [an Angel] is described with regard to a twofold respect: *upward* by positing, *downward* by privation. Comparison to what is *above* is touched, when it is said: *A clear mirror, most resplendent*, where it is noted that grace coming from above *preserves* nature, *adorns* nature, *consummates* nature[^12]; and as to these three he says: *A clear mirror, most resplendent*. — But comparison to that which is *below* is noted by way of privation, when it is said: *Immaculate, uncontaminated, unpolluted*; by which three he removes from the Angel a threefold foulness which is repugnant to grace. First, foulness *acted*[^13]; and this is actual foulness, and is removed by saying *immaculate*. Second, foulness *adhering* or *advening*; and this is venial foulness[^14], and is removed by saying *uncontaminated*. Third, he removes foulness *contracted*; and this is original foulness, and is removed by saying *unpolluted*.

*Ratio of deiformity.* Likewise the *deiformity* of glory is touched in a twofold comparison, namely to what is *above*, and to what is *below*. To what is *above*, by his saying: *Receiving, as is fitting, the whole beauty of bonny-formed deiformity*. For by comparison to God [the Angel] is made deiform, when he receives beauty from God. Comparison to what is *below* is noted, when it is said: *And making to shine in itself the goodness of the silence which is in the hidden parts*; and this is — while he shows to others the refulgence of the divine goodness which he himself has. This however he calls *silence*, because no one can intimately be joined to God without being made to rest in Him, and without all exterior tumult ceasing, and therefore he calls it *silence in the hidden parts*. — And thus there is clear what hierarchy is, and also what an Angel is.

*III. What angelic order is.* Thirdly it remains to see what *angelic order* is. It is defined thus by Gregory, and in the [Master's] text[^15] this definition is adduced by the Master: «An order is a multitude of celestial spirits, who are made alike to one another in some endowment of grace, just as in the participation of natural gifts they agree». — The explanation of this notification is at hand. For an order is here notified as to its *foundation*, as to its *complement*, and as to the *disposition* which holds the middle place between these. — *Foundation* is touched, when he says: *An order is a multitude of celestial spirits*; for an order is founded in nature. *Complement* is touched in this — that he says: *Who are made alike to one another in some endowment of grace*; for an order has its complement from grace. The middle *disposition* between the two is noted, when it is said: *Just as they agree in the participation of natural gifts*; because better natural [gifts] dispose to greater gratuitous ones.

*Epilogue.* — From the aforesaid those three things which were first proposed are notified to us by suitable descriptions — which it would be easy according to a topical[^16] [argument] to cavil at and destroy; but that is to be omitted, because it is very little useful.

*Divisions.* After this we must proceed to the *divisions*. There are however three divisions to be set down beforehand, for the easier explication of the distinction of the angelic orders. *Division 1.* The first

<!-- page 240 -->

is this: of hierarchies, one is *supercelestial*, another *celestial*, another *subcelestial*. *Division 2.* The second is this: of celestial hierarchies, one is *superior*, another *intermediate*, another *inferior*; or what is the same, one is *epiphany*, another *hyperphany*, another *hypophany*[^17]. *Division 3 with 3 sub-divisions.* The third is this: that the orders of the first hierarchy are threefold, namely the Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones. Of the second hierarchy the order is likewise threefold according to blessed Dionysius[^18]: Dominions, Powers, and Virtues. According to Gregory and Bernard: Dominions, Principalities, and Powers. Likewise of the third hierarchy the order is threefold according to Dionysius[^19]: Principalities, Archangels, and Angels. According to Gregory and Bernard: Virtues, Archangels, and Angels.

*Reason of the 1st division.* The reason and intelligence of the first division is manifest. For since hierarchy is only in intellectual substance, and this is threefold, namely *divine, angelic*, and *human*, therefore hierarchy is distinguished threefold; and the *divine* is called supercelestial, the *angelic* celestial, the *human* subcelestial.

*Reason of the 2nd division — twofold.* The reason and manifestation of the second division is twofold: either according to those things which *essentially* regard hierarchy, or according to those things which by way of *status* and *office* regard hierarchy[^20]. If according to those things which *essentially* regard hierarchy, which are *order, knowledge, and action*, then there must be three hierarchies: one as to *knowledge*, and this is the supreme; another as to *order*, and this is the intermediate; the third as to *action*, and this is the lowest. For the first hierarchy is attended to chiefly as to *divine knowledge*, the second as to *ordered power*, the third as to *administrative action*. — If, on the other hand, according to *status* and *office*, there must likewise be three. For there is the status of *contemplatives*, of *actives*, of *prelates*. *Penes statum.* According to the status of *contemplatives* is the supreme hierarchy; according to the status of *actives*, the lowest hierarchy; according to the *intermediate* status — namely of *prelates* — is assigned the intermediate hierarchy.

*Reason of the 3rd division.* The reason and explication of the third division arises from the reason of the second division. — *Concerning the supreme hierarchy.* For because the *supreme* hierarchy according to either mode of acceptation is attended to in *knowledge* and in the status of *contemplation* — which consists in conversion to God — therefore, since for conversion is necessarily required a threefold act and threefold gift, namely of *holding*, of *cognition*, and of *love*, therefore a threefold order is there set down. As to perfect *holding* is the order of the Thrones; as to perfect *cognition*, the order of the Cherubim; as to perfect *love*, the order of the Seraphim. And this is clear from their interpretations[^21]. Since, therefore, both the first reason and the second[^22] comprehends these three, therefore all the doctors agree in this distinction, namely Dionysius, who distinguishes the hierarchies as to *essentials*, and Gregory, who distinguishes them as to *offices*.

*Concerning the intermediate hierarchy — twofold.* Likewise the subdivision of the *second* hierarchy depends on the twofold reason already assigned. For it was said that the second hierarchy in one way is taken as to *order* or *ordered power*; for *Concerning ordered power.* substance has to be ordered by means of potency. But the perfection of virtue or potency consists in three things, namely in *presiding*, and as to this is the order of Dominions; in *resisting*, and as to this is the order of Powers; in *operating*, and as to this is the order of Virtues. And these orders are ordered according to greater and lesser dignity, since it is more to *preside* than to *fight against*, and to *fight against* than per se[^23] to be able to *operate*. Therefore the orders of the middle hierarchy are rightly so ordered by Dionysius, that first the Dominions are placed, second the Powers, and third the Virtues. — *Concerning status.* If, however, the second hierarchy is taken as to the *intermediate status*, namely of *prelates*, then likewise it has three orders according to the threefold prelacy of the Angels. For Angels preside over *angelic spirits*, and these are called Dominions; they preside also over *good men*, and these are called Principalities; they preside also over *demons*, and these are called Powers. And thus is clear the order according to the dignity of prelacies. For since it is more to preside

<!-- page 241 -->

over Angels than over men, and over good men than over demons; therefore the Dominions are enumerated first, the Principalities second, and the Powers third, by Gregory and by Bernard. *Concerning the third hierarchy — twofold.* The division of the *third* hierarchy likewise depends on the twofold reason already assigned[^24]. For if the third hierarchy is taken as to *ministerial* action, then the angelic order is threefold, according as in three ways one happens to be deputed to the rule of another or to ministry. *Concerning ministerial action.* For some Angels are ordained to the rule of *princes*, and these are the Principalities; some to the rule of a *multitude*, and these are called Archangels; some to the keeping of a *single person*, and these are called Angels. And thus is clear also the order and sufficiency of those orders, since it is more to preside over a *prince* than over *one nation*[^25] — for a prince presides over a whole nation — and it is more to be deputed to the keeping of a *multitude* than to the keeping of a *single person*. And in this manner Dionysius distinguishes and orders [them]. — *Concerning the active life.* If, on the other hand, it is taken as to the operation of the active life, then likewise the order is threefold, according as the ministry is threefold: for either ministry consists in operating, or in teaching, and[^26] in teaching either greater things, or lesser. The first is of the Virtues, the second of the Archangels, the third of the Angels. And the order is clear, because to do is more than to teach or speak, and to reveal greater things is more than to reveal lesser. And according to this mode Gregory and Bernard took the distinction of the third hierarchy. *Gregory and Dionysius differ.* From these things appears the reason of these *divisions*, and there appears also the diversification between Gregory and Dionysius. For because they considered the distinction of the hierarchies in diverse ways, therefore they also assigned the divisions of the *orders* among them in diverse ways. *Dionysius's position is preferred.* But since both of these cannot be true at once — namely that the Principalities belong to the middle hierarchy and to the lowest, and likewise the Virtues — without the hierarchies and orders being confounded, it is asked which of these is the truer, and on which one ought rather to rely. And it must be said to this that one ought rather to rely on the saying of Dionysius: both because he himself learned, as is said, from Paul, and so handed it down as he heard it; and because Gregory[^27], in confirmation of the things he says on this matter, adduces his authority; and also because, as is clear from the foregoing, Dionysius took the distinction of the hierarchies as to those things which are intrinsic and essential to the angelic spirits themselves; and therefore he distinguished the orders as they are to be placed in the heavens. Gregory however weighed more the works and offices; and therefore he distinguished thus, according as it can more avail to our instruction. Neither does the one contradict the other, nor retract the other's word; but he assigns another mode of distinguishing, both on account of the diversity of consideration at the beginning, and on account of the diversity of consideration at the end.

### Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of the foregoing and of those things which the Master says in the text, that we may proceed by the way of inquiry, around the orders of the Angels nine [questions] are asked.

First, it is asked of the orders in comparison to the underlying nature.

Second, in comparison to the completive cause.

Third, in comparison to the preambular disposition.

Fourth, it is asked as to nomination.

Fifth, as to restoration.

Sixth, as to the evacuation of prelacy.

Seventh, as to number.

Eighth, it is asked in comparison to its opposite.

Ninth and last, in comparison to the disparate.

---

la: Plures codd. cum edd. 1, 2 *beatorum*.

en: Several codices with editions 1 and 2 read *beatorum* (*of the blessed*) [for *bonorum*].

la: Vat. *propriam*.

en: The Vatican edition reads *propriam* (*proper*) [for *primam*].

la: In Vat. allegatur hic c. 2, quod incipit *Hic considerandum est* etc.

en: In the Vatican edition there is alleged here c. 2, which begins *Hic considerandum est* etc.

la: Cap. 3. § 1. seq. (iuxta versionem Scoti Erigenae). In prima definitione fere omnes codd. addunt *consummata vel*, quae verba desunt in textu originali et in Vat.; in secunda textus originalis substituit *deiformi* pro *deiforme*; in tertia *omnis sanctae et scientiae* pro *scientiae sanctae*.

en: Dionysius, *On the Celestial Hierarchy* c. 3, § 1ff. (according to the version of Scotus Eriugena). In the first definition almost all codices add *consummata vel*, which words are absent in the original text and in the Vatican edition; in the second, the original text substitutes *deiformi* for *deiforme*; in the third, *omnis sanctae et scientiae* for *scientiae sanctae*.

en: Chapter 30, n. 56.

la: Cod. Y *ut egredientem*.

en: Codex Y reads *ut egredientem* (*as going forth*).

la: Iac. 1, 17: *Omne datum optimum... desursum est, descendens a Patre luminum*.

en: James 1:17: *Every good gift… is from above, coming down from the Father of lights*.

la: Haec definitio invenitur apud Praepositivum, *Sum.* p. I, ubi etiam sic explicatur: *Ordinata potestas* ponitur pro genere; *rerum sacrarum* ad differentiam profanarum, ut ligni et lapidis et aliarum; *rationabilium* ponitur ad differentiam irrationabilium; *in subditis debitum retinens dominatum* ponitur ad differentiam illorum subditorum, qui non sunt praelati aliis.

en: This definition is found in Praepositivus, *Summa* part I, where it is also so explained: *Ordered power* is set down for the genus; *of sacred things* — to differentiate from profane things, such as wood and stone and others; *of rational things* — to differentiate from irrational; *retaining the due dominion over subjects* — to differentiate from those subjects who are not prelates over others.

la: Libr. II. *de Fide orth.* c. 3, ubi textus originalis ultimam partem definitionis sic exhibet κατὰ χάριν ἐν τῇ φύσει τὸ ἀθάνατον εἰληφυῖα i. e. ex gratia in natura immortalitatem suscipiens.

en: Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith* book II, c. 3, where the original text presents the last part of the definition thus: κατὰ χάριν ἐν τῇ φύσει τὸ ἀθάνατον εἰληφυῖα, that is, *receiving immortality by grace in nature*.

la: *De Div. Nom.* c. 4. § 22. Versio Scoti Erigenae convenit, excepta ultima parte definitionis: *incoinquinatum, recipiens totam, si iustum decore, speciositatem bene formatae deiformitatis, et pure declarans in se ipso, sicut possibile est, bonitatem, quae est in adytis* (τὸ ἀγαθὸν τῆς κρυφίας σιγῆς).

en: Dionysius, *On the Divine Names* c. 4, § 22. The version of Scotus Eriugena agrees, except for the last part of the definition: *unpolluted, receiving whole — if just by adornment — the beauty of the well-formed deiformity, and purely declaring in itself, so far as is possible, the goodness which is in the hidden parts* (τὸ ἀγαθὸν τῆς κρυφίας σιγῆς).

la: August., XIV. *de Trin.* c. 8. n. 11.

en: Augustine, *On the Trinity* book XIV, c. 8, n. 11.

la: Aliqui codd. cum Vat. *conformat*, cod. cc et ed. 1 *confirmat*.

en: Some codices with the Vatican edition read *conformat* (*conforms*); codex cc and edition 1 read *confirmat* (*confirms*) [for *consummat*].

la: Ita certo habent codd. bb ee; in aliis codd. et edd. *activam*, nisi sint dubiae lectiones. *Foeditas acta* dicit foeditatem, peccaminosa actione in voluntate productam. Triplex foeditas respondet triplici *poenae*, scil. *actae, inflictae* et *contractae*. Cfr. infra d. 35. a. 1. q. 2, ubi consideratur peccatum, in quantum est et corruptio-actio et corruptio-passio. *Culpa* acta et contracta legitur infra d. 31. a. 2. q. 2. in omnibus codd. et edd. Vide insuper d. 42. dub. 1. — Mox post *foeditas actualis* in cod. I additur *mortalis*. S. Doctor infra d. 41. a. 2. q. 1, cum resolvit quaestionem: utrum omne peccatum actuale sit voluntarium, triplex distinguit voluntarium, scil. aut voluntate *aliena*, aut voluntate *propria*, aut *partim* voluntate aliena, *partim* voluntate propria. Primo modo voluntarium est peccatum originale, secundo modo voluntarium est peccatum actuale mortale, tertio autem modo peccatum veniale, quod quodam modo tenet rationem *poenae*, quodam modo rationem *culpae*. Cfr. etiam d. 42. a. 2. q. 1.

en: Thus certainly read codices bb and ee; in other codices and editions *activam*, unless these are doubtful readings. *Foeditas acta* (*foulness enacted*) denotes a foulness produced in the will by sinful action. The threefold foulness corresponds to a threefold *penalty*, namely *acted, inflicted*, and *contracted*. Cf. below d. 35, a. 1, q. 2, where sin is considered as both corruption-as-action and corruption-as-passion. *Culpa acta et contracta* is read below at d. 31, a. 2, q. 2, in all codices and editions. See in addition d. 42, dub. 1. — Soon after *foeditas actualis*, codex I adds *mortalis*. The Holy Doctor below at d. 41, a. 2, q. 1, when he resolves the question whether every actual sin is voluntary, distinguishes the voluntary threefold, namely either by *another's* will, or by *one's own* will, or *partly* by another's will and *partly* by one's own. In the first mode voluntary is original sin; in the second mode voluntary is actual mortal sin; in the third mode is venial sin, which somehow has the character of *penalty* and somehow that of *fault*. Cf. also d. 42, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Nam peccatum veniale *adhaeret*, quin expellat gratiam, et in quantum vitium est, *deordinat* sensualitatem, non liberum arbitrium (infra d. 24. p. II. a. 3. q. 1. seq.), in quantum poena *advenit*.

en: For venial sin *adheres* without expelling grace, and insofar as it is vice, it *disorders* sensuality — not free choice (below d. 24, p. II, a. 3, q. 1ff.) — insofar as the penalty *comes upon* one.

la: Hic c. 2. — Cfr. de his infra q. 2. 3.

en: Here, c. 2 [of the Master's text]. — Cf. on these matters below, q. 2 and q. 3.

la: Secundum Aristot., I. *Topic.* c. 1. seq., topica illa pars logicae dicitur *locos* continens, ex quibus eruuntur argumenta, quibus probabiliter (dialectice) circa res disputare possimus. Inter hos *locos* habetur etiam definitio rei.

en: According to Aristotle, *Topics* book I, c. 1ff., that part of logic is called *topical* which contains *places* from which arguments are drawn by which we can dispute probably (dialectically) about things. Among these *places* is also reckoned the definition of a thing.

la: Praepositivus, *Sum.* p. II. ait: *Media [angelica] vel tripartita est: superior, media et infima, quas quidam, quibus placet graecizare, appellant epiphaniam, hyperphaniam, hypophaniam. Prima continet Seraphim, Cherubim et Thronos, unde sic describitur: superior hierarchia caelestis est incarescentis affectionis incendio, altioris intellectus fastigio iudicii libra resultatio distributa... In secundo similiter tres sunt ordines, scil. Principatus, Dominationes et Potestates; quae sic describitur: media hierarchia caelestis est divina illuminatio, participem scalari reverentia insigniens, usum dominandi excrescens, arcensque contrarium... Tertia hierarchia similiter tres habet ordines, scil. Virtutes, Angelos et Archangelos; quae sic describitur: inferior hierarchia caelestis est divinum principium naturae legibus occurrens, secreta revelans pro capacitate discreta vel diserta*. — Cod. cc et ed. 1 legunt *alia Eparchia, alia Mesarchia, alia Hyparchia*.

en: Praepositivus, *Summa* part II, says: *The intermediate [angelic hierarchy] is tripartite: superior, intermediate, and lowest, which some, who prefer to Grecize, call epiphany, hyperphany, hypophany. The first contains the Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones, whence it is so described: the superior celestial hierarchy is a distributed resultation from the kindling of inflamed affection, from the height of higher intellect, from the balance of judgment... In the second likewise are three orders, namely Principalities, Dominions, and Powers; which is so described: the intermediate celestial hierarchy is a divine illumination, signing the participant with scalar reverence, going beyond the use of dominating, and warding off the contrary... The third hierarchy likewise has three orders, namely Virtues, Angels, and Archangels; which is so described: the inferior celestial hierarchy is a divine principle meeting with the laws of nature, revealing secrets according to capacity, distinct or eloquent*. — Codex cc and edition 1 read *one Eparchia, another Mesarchia, another Hyparchia*.

la: *De Caelest. Hierarch.* c. 6. § 2. et c. 8. § 1. seq. — Gregor., in Evang. hom. 34. n. 7. — Bernard., V. *de Consid.* c. 4. n. 8.

en: Dionysius, *On the Celestial Hierarchy* c. 6, § 2, and c. 8, § 1ff. — Gregory, *Homily 34 on the Gospels*, n. 7. — Bernard, *On Consideration* book V, c. 4, n. 8.

la: *De Caelest. Hierarch.* c. 6. § 2. et c. 9. § 1. seqq. — Gregor. et Bernard. locis paulo superius citt.

en: Dionysius, *On the Celestial Hierarchy* c. 6, § 2, and c. 9, § 1ff. — Gregory and Bernard at the places cited just above.

la: In fere omnibus codd. et in edd. praecedentia mutilate et propter subnexa minus congrue sic exhibentur *est duplex: vel secundum ea quae essentialiter respiciunt hierarchiam, quae sunt ordo, scientia et actio, sic triplicem* etc. Cod. cc, ed. 1 et Vat. post *actio* interserunt *vel secundum status et officia. Si primo modo*. Secuti sumus cod. aa, eo excepto, quod in secundo disiunctionis membro pro *statum vel officia* substituimus *status et officia*, quod paulo inferius fere omnes codd. ponunt.

en: In almost all codices and editions the preceding [text] is mutilated, and, on account of what follows, less suitably exhibited thus: *est duplex: vel secundum ea quae essentialiter respiciunt hierarchiam, quae sunt ordo, scientia et actio, sic triplicem* etc. Codex cc, edition 1, and the Vatican edition, after *actio*, interpose *vel secundum status et officia. Si primo modo*. We have followed codex aa, with this exception, that in the second member of the disjunction in place of *statum vel officia* we have substituted *status et officia*, which a little below almost all the codices place.

la: Quas vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Which see here in the Master's text, c. 2.

la: Secundae divisionis, qua scil. caelestis hierarchia secundum essentialia vel secundum officia dividitur in supremam, mediam et infimam. — De sententia Dionysii cfr. secunda hierarchiae definitio, quae supra allata est; de sententia Gregorii vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: [I.e.,] of the second division, by which the celestial hierarchy is divided according to *essentials* or according to *offices* into supreme, intermediate, and lowest. — On the opinion of Dionysius cf. the second definition of hierarchy, which was set forth above; on the opinion of Gregory see here the Master's text, c. 2.

la: In cod. cc et ed. 1 deest *per se*.

en: In codex cc and edition 1 the words *per se* are absent.

la: Ed. 1, omissa particula *ex*, substituit *deprehendi potest*.

en: Edition 1, omitting the particle *ex*, substitutes *deprehendi potest*.

la: Cod. aa *quam multitudini*.

en: Codex aa: *quam multitudini*.

la: Codd. F H *si*.

en: Codices F and H: *si*.

la: Gregor., in Evang. hom. 34. n. 112. In medio aevo libri sub nomine Dionysii vulgo attribuebantur S. Dionysio Areopagitae, discipulo S. Pauli; quod ipse auctor pluries asserere videtur. Sed nunc ob gravissimas rationes fere communiter tenetur, auctorem eorum esse aetatis multo posterioris. Defenditur autem a cl. Hipler in docto libro a vulgata accusatione fraudis et haereticae doctrinae (cfr. Alzog, *Handbuch der Patrologie*, ed. 3. pag. 443 seqq.).

en: Gregory, *Homilies on the Gospels*, hom. 34, n. 112. — In the Middle Ages the books under the name of Dionysius were commonly attributed to St. Dionysius the Areopagite, the disciple of St. Paul, which the author himself seems repeatedly to assert. But now, for very weighty reasons, it is fairly commonly held that their author belongs to a much later age. He is defended, however, by the learned Hipler, in a learned book, from the common accusation of fraud and of heretical doctrine (cf. Alzog, *Handbuch der Patrologie*, 3rd ed., pp. 443 ff.). ---

translators_notes:
- s66 (2026-05-20): rebuilt from auto-chunked skeleton (raw 17004–17301) to Tier 2 — Latin re-set verbatim from IA djvu OCR over 450 dpi colcrops of pp.237–240, fresh literal English (Bonaventure's prologue: COMMENTARIUS opener + DIVISIO TEXTUS over Lombard's two-pars structure + PRAENOTATA DE NOMINIBUS ET DIVISIONIBUS ANGELORUM with hierarchia/Angelus/ordo definitions + three Divisiones with their rationes + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM listing the 9 quaestiones of the ARTICULUS UNICUS), no scholion (divisio chunk), 23-entry apparatus.
- p.237 R-col carries the separately-headed `NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM` block (footer ¹–⁴ = [^1]–[^4]) which opens this chunk's apparatus stream; the p.237 L-col footer block was taken in full by the prior chunk `d9-littera` as its [^16]–[^18] (Greg.loc.cit.n.11 + Aug.Enchirid./XXII de Civ.Dei + Rom.4:17) — no backfill needed. p.238 has 6 footer entries → [^5]–[^10]; p.239 has 6 → [^11]–[^16]; p.240 has 7 → [^17]–[^23]. All 23 markers verified column-by-column.
- Marginal labels preserved inline per locked Vol II convention: *Definitiones. I. Quid sit hierarchia.*, *Distinctio et explicatio 3 definitionum.*, *Definitio I.* through *Definitio 3.*, *Definitio magistralis.*, *II. Quid sit Angelus, 2 definitiones.*, *Defin. Damasceni explicatur.*, *Defin. Dionysii explicatur.*, *Ratio imaginis.* / *Ratio similitudinis.* / *Ratio deiformitatis.*, *III. Quid sit ordo angelicus.*, *Epilogus.*, *Divisiones.*, *Divisio 1.* / *Divisio 2.* / *Divisio 3 cum 3 subdivisionibus.*, *Ratio 1./2./3. divisionis.*, *Ratio 2. divisionis duplex.*, *Quoad supremam hierarch.*, *Quoad mediam hierarch. dupliciter.*, *Penes ordinatam potestatem.*, *Penes statum.* (×2).
- OCR garbles cleaned silently: Posl→Post; angelicorutii→angelicorum; ministeriimi→ministerium; angelicoruiu→angelicorum; quantuiu→quantum; commodatione→cognominatione (clean); subiectis* placeholder; spirituum (clean); deformitatem→deiformitatem; conformat→conformat preserved as variant in footer; partim-voluntate-aliena → partim voluntate propria reconciled across L-2/R-2 cascade split on p.239 [^13]; Au gelica→angelica; Au gelorum/Augelorum→Angelorum (×n); huius-notificationis→notificationis-explanatio (clean reflow); media+infima column-bleed on p.240 L-1 *Penes statum* sidebar reflowed column-by-column. Greek transliterations preserved verbatim: κατὰ χάριν ἐν τῇ φύσει τὸ ἀθάνατον εἰληφυῖα [^9]; τὸ ἀγαθὸν τῆς κρυφίας σιγῆς [^10]; *Eparchia/Mesarchia/Hyparchia* hellenizing variant [^17].
- The two-stage Praepositivus citation chain ([^8] for the magistral *Ordinata potestas* def with Sum. p.I gloss; [^17] for the supplementary Sum. p.II *Media-tripartita* gloss with the epiphaniam/hyperphaniam/hypophaniam Greek-spelling discussion) reads as Quaracchi's compositional spine for the praenotata.
- The LONG [^13] *Foeditas acta/contracta/inflicta* gloss cascade-splits across p.239 L-2 and R-2 (cod. aa reading reconciled with cod. cc/ed.1/Vat. interpolation) — fully reassembled.
- The LONG [^20] editorial-decision note (cod. aa selection over the cod. cc/ed.1/Vat. *vel secundum status et officia. Si primo modo* interpolation, with *statum vel officia* → *status et officia* editorial substitution) is the densest textual-criticism entry in d.9 divisio and is preserved verbatim.
- s67 (2026-05-21): repaired a p.241 body dropout introduced by the s66 build. The s66 OCR cascade-merged two distinct `sumsit` clauses, dropping ~170 words: (A) the *tertia hierarchia* subdivision `Divisio etiam tertiae hierarchiae...penes actionem ministerialem...regimen principum/multitudinis/personae singularis...Et per istum modum distinguit et ordinat Dionysius` and (B) the Gregorius/Dionysius reconciliation `distinctionem tertiae hierarchiae Gregorius et Bernardus. Ex his apparet ratio harum divisionum...Sed cum utrumque horum simul non possit esse verum...magis innitendum est dicto Dionysii`. Restored from raw 17280–17301 over 450 dpi p.241 colcrops; the s66 secunda-hierarchia close had also been paraphrased (`ideo Gregorius distinxit ordines mediae hierarchiae secundum hunc modum`) — corrected to the literal `ideo primo Dominationes, secundo Principatus et tertio Potestates enumerantur a Gregorio et a Bernardo`. Apparatus +4 ([^24]–[^27], p.241 footer ¹–⁴); `<!-- page 241 -->` break added; printed_pages [237–240] → [237–241]. **Apparatus is now 27 entries, not 23.**
- Outgoing cross-chunk split at mid-p.241 L-col CLEAN: TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM ends `Nono et ultimo in comparatione ad disparatum.` (raw 17301); immediately below `ARTICULUS UNICUS. *De ordinibus Angelorum.* QUAESTIO I. *Utrum Angeli diversorum ordinum sint diversarum specierum per naturam.* Primo igitur est quaestio de ordinibus Angelorum...` belongs to next chunk `d9-a1-q1` (raw 17302+) — ART UNICUS opener folds into a1-q1 per locked Vol II convention.
- No `[?]` flags — all superscripts + body anchors + the cross-chunk NOTAE-AD-COMMENTARIUM stream-opening + Greek transliterations + Praepositivus glosses + the cod. aa/cc/Vat. textual-criticism notes verified column-by-column on 450 dpi colcrops.
- d.1–d.10 polish-blocker (2026-05-22): the pass-2 marker-pairing audit found `[^5]` had an apparatus definition (`Cap. 30. n. 56.`, p.238 footer 1) but no body anchor in either language. The anchor was restored after `de Vera Religione` / `On True Religion` in *Definitio I* — confirmed against the 600 dpi p.238 crop (superscript ¹ printed there, and `Cap. 30. n. 56.` is the Augustine *de Vera Religione* locus).
- **DISTINCTION 9 NOW 2/11.** Next chunk: `d9-a1-q1` *Utrum Angeli diversorum ordinum sint diversarum specierum per naturam* (raw 17302+, p.240 R-col-mid through ~p.243 per skeleton scope; raw apparatus-audit ~23 footer notes — the heaviest q in d.9 by skeleton signal, opens with the rich *multiplicatio Angelorum* manifestat-divinam-potentiam fundamenta).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 241 -->

### Articulus unicus. *De ordinibus Angelorum.*

### Quaestio I. *Utrum Angeli diversorum ordinum sint diversarum specierum per naturam.*

Primo igitur est quaestio de ordinibus Angelorum in comparatione ad naturam substratam, et est quaestio, utrum Angeli diversorum ordinum sint diversarum specierum per naturam. Et quod sic, videtur.

*Ad oppositum.* 1. Multiplicatio Angelorum maxime manifestat divinam potentiam et sapientiam et bonitatem, et maior multiplicatio ad maiorem spectat manifestationem; sed maior est multiplicatio, quae est secundum numerum et speciem, quam quae est solum

<!-- page 242 -->

secundum numerum: ergo[^1] in Angelis reperitur utraque: ergo Angelus differt ab Angelo secundum speciem. Sed maxime differunt Angeli diversorum ordinum: ergo videtur, quod secundum speciem distinguantur.

2. Item, Angeli diversorum ordinum magis differunt quam Angeli eiusdem ordinis in simplicitate, quod est primum attributum[^2], ergo pari ratione et in personalitatis discretione: ergo cum Angeli eiusdem ordinis saltem differant numero, Angeli diversorum ordinum differunt plus quam numero. Sed maior differentia, quam ea quae est secundum numerum, non est nisi ea quae est secundum speciem: ergo etc. Si tu dicas, quod differunt magis aliqua differentia accidentali, sicut aqua diversorum fontium magis quam aqua eiusdem fontis; obiicitur contra hoc, quia magis differunt in simplicitate essentiae; sed simplicitas essentiae non est accidens Angelo, cum nullo modo possit intendi et remitti in eodem Angelo, sed est essentialis proprietas: ergo facit essentialiter differre: ergo idem quod prius.

3. Item, hoc videtur a simili: cum sint tria genera viventium, scilicet vegetabilium, sensibilium et intellectualium[^3], in genere eorum quae vivunt vita vegetabili, est ponere diversitatem non solum secundum numerum, sed etiam secundum speciem, sicut in plantis; et similiter in genere eorum quae participant vitam sensibilem, sicut in animalibus: ergo pari ratione in his quae participant vitam intellectualem, sicut in angelicis spiritibus. Si ergo est ibi differentia secundum speciem, cum maxime attendatur Angelorum differentia in diversis ordinibus, patet etc.

4. Item, sicut corpora luminosa sua varietate decorant caelum, et tamen sunt omnia luminosa, ita Angeli suo modo decorant empyreum, unde dicuntur *astra matutina*, Iob trigesimo octavo[^4]; sed luminaria caeli differunt specie, non numero solo, quia habent operationes et impressiones omnino diversas et speciales: ergo pari ratione et Angeli, qui sunt ornatus empyrei.

*Fundamenta.* **Contra:** 1. Omne quod est procul ab origine, dispergitur, et quod approximatur origini, colligitur et unitur, sicut patet in numeris, patet etiam in lumine et in aliis[^5]; sed Angeli sunt proximi causae originali omnium, scilicet Deo: ergo debent habere unitatem. Sed non possunt uniri secundum numerum; ergo debent secundum speciem completam.

2. Item, contingit reperire spiritualem sive rationalem naturam coniunctam et separatam; sed coniuncta non est nisi unius speciei: ergo nec separata. Si tu dicas, quod hoc venit ex parte corporis; hoc nihil est, quia non anima propter corpus, sed corpus propter animam[^6]. Et iterum, quid impediret, corpora secundum speciem diversa fuisse facta ab initio, si congrueret, spiritus rationales esse secundum species diversos?

3. Item, multitudo Angelorum facta est ad illius civitatis plenitudinem et decorem; sed in illa civitate maxime attenditur unitas et nexus et conformitas: ergo cum conformitas unius naturae faciat connexionem in caritate et ipsam adiuvet — propter quod etiam, ut Sancti dicunt[^7], Deus voluit non tantum homines facere similes, sed etiam omnes ex uno homine — ergo videtur etc.

4. Item, angelica natura est caput universi: ergo cum caput sit ratione speciei, non unius individui, et caput et status debet esse in uno, sicut arca consummata est in cubito[^8], ergo maxima debet esse unitas: ergo et secundum speciem.

5. Item, ruina angelica reparatur per hominem, qui est idem specie: si ergo competenter et congrue reparatur, videtur tunc, quod omnes ruentes fuerint unius speciei. Sed de quolibet ordine sunt lapsi[^9]: ergo omnes eiusdem speciei.

### Conclusio

> Magis probabile esse videtur, quod omnes Angeli sint eiusdem speciei.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod circa hoc duplex est opinio, et utraque probabilis.

*Opinio 1.* Una est, quod in Angelis est diversitas secundum *speciem* et etiam secundum *genera subalterna*, ut hierarchia sit quasi unum genus, et ordines tres[^10] faciant species. Et ad hoc ponendum moti sunt tum propter divinae bonitatis ostensionem, tum propter simile in aliis creaturis, tum etiam propter gradus repertos in ipsis Angelis. Cum enim Angeli eiusdem ordinis aliquo modo se excedant, videtur, quod Angeli diversorum ordinum et hierarchiarum adeo se excedant, quod etiam habeant in specie et in genere diversitatem.

*Opinio 2.* Alia positio est, quod Angeli omnes sunt *eiusdem* speciei, tum propter illius civitatis unionem, tum propter universi perfectionem.

<!-- page 243 -->

Licet autem utraque istarum positionum habeat aliquam probabilitatem, quia tamen per Scripturam non innotescit nobis diversitas operationum; et videtur, quod illi qui aggressi sunt hanc materiam determinare, sicut Dionysius[^11], divina inspiratione cognoverint et officium et naturam, et ipsi dicunt, quod omnia, quae sunt omnium ordinum, in omnibus reperiantur, licet magis excedenter in uno: videtur magis theologica et probabilis positio, nisi occurrat manifesta auctoritas in contrarium, quod *Conclusio.* omnes Angeli sint eiusdem speciei, sicut et omnes homines. Et quemadmodum in hominibus sunt gradus et ordines et quoad *naturalia* et quoad *officia* commissa sive dignitates et quoad *gratuita*, salva tamen unitate speciei; sic intelligendum est in Angelis. — Unde concedendae sunt rationes ad hanc partem inductae.

*Solutio oppositorum.* 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de manifestatione, dicendum, quod Deus non manifestat bonitatem, nisi salvo ordine sapientiae ordinantis mundum, et salva proprietate naturae, similiter salva condecentia et perfectione civitatis supernae. *Notandum.* Quoniam igitur creatura completior in mundo dat ei consummationem, ideo una est in specie. Rursus, quia supremum et optimum Angeli, quod est deiformis intellectus, unum[^12] est nec habet coniunctionem cum inferiori, ideo natura angelica debet esse una. Rursus, quoniam illa civitas debet esse unita et perfecte restaurata, ideo debet esse una. Et hae rationes possunt etiam assignari suo modo circa homines. — *Homines ab Angelis differunt specie.* Si quis autem vellet per hoc ostendere, quod homines et Angeli essent unius speciei; diceremus, quod Angeli non coniunguntur hominibus unitate naturae, sed obsequio beneficentiae; et homo similiter Angelo, quia ille istum adiuvat, iste illum reparat[^13], quod non esset, si essent eiusdem naturae; et ideo utrumque congruit civitati supernae.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de magis et minus, dicendum, quod intensio et remissio secundum proprietates inseparabiles non variant speciem *per se*, etsi *aliquando* concomitentur diversitatem speciei in his formis, quae concernunt diversam mixtionem elementorum, quae attenditur secundum qualitates activas, sicut dicitur calidum in quarto gradu differre a calido in primo. *Simpliciter* autem loquendo, non habet veritatem; quod patet, quia maior est intensio et gradus in gratiis et praemiis quam in naturalibus proprietatibus, et tamen non differunt specie, sed solum accidente. Nec valet: si non intenditur in eodem, ergo est essentialis[^14], sicut nec de gloria.

3. 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur per simile de aliis viventibus et de luminaribus, patet responsio, quod non est simile nec in re nec in ratione. In re non, quia illa habent diversas operationes specificas; non sic Angeli. Rursus[^15], illa sunt ordinata ad diversas necessitates, Angeli vero omnes ad unum principale. Rursus, in vita contemplativa est unitas, in activa multiformitas, et habitatio Angelorum est uniformis. Et praeterea, illa[^16] magis distant ab uno et summo: ideo etc.

english:
<!-- page 241 -->

### Sole Article. *On the orders of the Angels.*

### Question I. *Whether the Angels of different orders are of different species by nature.*

First, then, there is a question concerning the orders of the Angels in comparison to the underlying nature; and it is the question whether the Angels of different orders are of different species by nature. And that it is so seems [to be the case].

*To the opposite.* 1. The multiplication of the Angels most greatly manifests the divine power and wisdom and goodness, and a greater multiplication pertains to a greater manifestation; but greater is the multiplication which is according to number and species than that which is only according to

<!-- page 242 -->

number: therefore[^1] in the Angels both are found: therefore an Angel differs from an Angel according to species. But the Angels of different orders differ most of all: therefore it seems that they are distinguished according to species.

2. Likewise, the Angels of different orders differ more than the Angels of the same order in simplicity, which is the first attribute[^2]; therefore by parity of reasoning also in the distinctness of personality: therefore, since the Angels of the same order differ at least in number, the Angels of different orders differ by more than number. But a greater difference than that which is according to number is none other than that which is according to species: therefore etc. If you say that they differ more by some accidental difference, just as the water of different springs [differs] more than the water of the same spring — it is objected against this that they differ more in the simplicity of essence; but the simplicity of essence is not an accident to an Angel, since it can in no way be intensified and remitted in the same Angel, but is an essential property: therefore it makes [them] differ essentially: therefore the same as before.

3. Likewise, this seems [to follow] from a similitude: since there are three genera of living things, namely of vegetative, sensible, and intellectual[^3] [things], in the genus of those which live by vegetative life there is to be posited a diversity not only according to number, but also according to species, as in plants; and likewise in the genus of those which participate in sensible life, as in animals: therefore by parity of reasoning [it is so] in those which participate in intellectual life, as in the angelic spirits. If, therefore, there is there a difference according to species — since the difference of the Angels is attended to most of all in their different orders — it is clear etc.

4. Likewise, just as the luminous bodies by their variety adorn the heaven, and yet are all luminous, so the Angels in their own way adorn the empyrean — whence they are called *morning stars*, in Job thirty-eight[^4]; but the luminaries of heaven differ in species, not in number alone, since they have wholly diverse and special operations and impressions: therefore by parity of reasoning the Angels also, who are the adornment of the empyrean.

*Foundations.* **On the contrary:** 1. Everything which is far from its origin is dispersed, and what is brought near to its origin is gathered and united — as is clear in numbers, [and] clear also in light and in other things[^5]; but the Angels are nearest to the original cause of all things, namely God: therefore they ought to have unity. But they cannot be united according to number; therefore they ought [to be united] according to a complete species.

2. Likewise, it happens that spiritual or rational nature is found [both] conjoined [to a body] and separate; but the conjoined [nature] is only of one species: therefore neither [is] the separate. If you say that this comes from the side of the body — this is nothing, since the soul is not for the sake of the body, but the body for the sake of the soul[^6]. And again, what would have prevented bodies diverse according to species from having been made from the beginning, if it were fitting that rational spirits be diverse according to species?

3. Likewise, the multitude of the Angels was made for the fullness and beauty of that city; but in that city unity and connection and conformity are attended to most of all: therefore, since conformity of one nature produces a connection in charity and assists it — on account of which also, as the Saints say[^7], God willed not only to make men alike, but also [to make] all [men] from one man — therefore it seems etc.

4. Likewise, the angelic nature is the head of the universe: therefore, since a head is [head] by reason of species, not of one individual, and the head and the [proper] standing [of a thing] ought to be in one [thing] — just as the ark was completed in a cubit[^8] — therefore the unity ought to be greatest: therefore [it ought to be unity] also according to species.

5. Likewise, the angelic ruin is repaired through man, who is the same in species: if, therefore, it is repaired suitably and fittingly, then it seems that all who fell were of one species. But from every order [some] have fallen[^9]: therefore all [are] of the same species.

### Conclusion

> It seems to be more probable that all the Angels are of the same species.

**I respond:** It must be said that concerning this there is a twofold opinion, and each is probable.

*Opinion 1.* One is that in the Angels there is a diversity according to *species* and also according to *subaltern genera*, so that a hierarchy is, as it were, one genus, and the three orders[^10] constitute the species. And to posit this they were moved both on account of the manifestation of the divine goodness, and on account of the similitude [found] in other creatures, and also on account of the grades found in the Angels themselves. For since the Angels of the same order in some way exceed one another, it seems that the Angels of different orders and hierarchies exceed one another to such a degree that they have a diversity even in species and in genus.

*Opinion 2.* The other position is that all the Angels are of *the same* species, both on account of the union of that city, and on account of the perfection of the universe.

<!-- page 243 -->

But although each of these positions has some probability — yet because through Scripture the diversity of operations is not made known to us, and [because] it seems that those who undertook to determine this matter, such as Dionysius[^11], knew both the office and the nature by divine inspiration, and they themselves say that all the things which belong to all the orders are found in all [the Angels], although more eminently in one — the more theological and probable position seems [to be], unless a manifest authority should occur to the contrary, that *Conclusion.* all the Angels are of the same species, just as all men [are]. And just as in men there are grades and orders both as to *natural [endowments]* and as to *offices* committed [to them], or dignities, and as to *gratuitous [gifts]* — the unity of species nevertheless being preserved — so it is to be understood in the Angels. — Hence the arguments adduced for this part are to be conceded.

*Solution of the opposing [arguments].* 1. To that, then, which is objected concerning manifestation, it must be said that God does not manifest [His] goodness except with the order of the wisdom that orders the world preserved, and with the property of nature preserved, likewise with the becomingness and perfection of the supernal city preserved. *Note.* Since, therefore, a more complete creature in the world gives it [its] consummation, therefore [that creature] is one in species. Again, because the supreme and best [part] of an Angel, which is the deiform intellect, is one[^12] and has no conjunction with anything inferior, therefore the angelic nature ought to be one. Again, because that city ought to be united and perfectly restored, therefore it ought to be one. And these reasons can also be assigned, in their own way, concerning men. — *Men differ from the Angels in species.* But if anyone should wish by this to show that men and Angels are of one species, we would say that the Angels are not joined to men by unity of nature, but by the service of beneficence; and man likewise [is joined] to the Angel, since the one assists the other [and] the other repairs the one[^13] — which would not be, if they were of the same nature; and therefore each is suited to the supernal city.

2. To that which is objected concerning more and less, it must be said that intensification and remission according to inseparable properties do not vary the species *of themselves*, even though they *sometimes* accompany a diversity of species in those forms which involve a diverse mixture of the elements — [a mixture] which is attended to according to the active qualities, as a hot thing in the fourth degree is said to differ from a hot thing in the first. But, speaking *absolutely*, [the objection] does not hold true; which is clear, because the intensification and grade is greater in graces and rewards than in natural properties, and yet [these] do not differ in species, but only in accident. Nor is this valid: if it is not intensified in the same [subject], therefore it is essential[^14] — just as neither [does this hold] concerning glory.

3. 4. To that which is objected by the similitude concerning the other living things and concerning the luminaries, the response is clear: that it is not similar, neither in fact nor in reason. Not in fact, because those things have diverse specific operations; not so the Angels. Again[^15], those things are ordered to diverse necessities, but the Angels all to one principal [end]. Again, in the contemplative life there is unity, in the active [life] multiformity, and the dwelling of the Angels is uniform. And besides, those things[^16] are more distant from the one and supreme [being]: therefore etc.

la: Vat. perperam *sed*.

en: The Vatican edition wrongly reads *sed* (*but*) [for *ergo*].

la: Cfr. supra d. III. lit. Magistri, c. 1. seq. et in Comment. p. I. dub. 1. et 2, ubi etiam tangitur sequens difficultas de intensione et remissione essentiae.

en: Cf. above, d. 3, the text of the Master, c. 1 ff., and in the Commentary, p. I, dub. 1 and 2, where the following difficulty concerning the intensification and remission of essence is also touched upon.

la: Vide Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 13. seqq. (c. 2.). — Non pauci codd. incongrue *intelligibilium* et aliquanto inferius *intelligibilem* pro *intellectualem*.

en: See Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 13 ff. (c. 2). — Not a few codices incongruously [read] *intelligibilium* (*of intelligible things*), and somewhat below *intelligibilem* (*intelligible*), for *intellectualem* (*intellectual*).

la: Vers. 7. — De minori cfr. infra d. 14. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. seq.

en: Verse 7. — On the minor [premise] cf. below, d. 14, p. II, a. 2, q. 1 ff.

la: Libr. de Causis, prop. 17, ubi idem ostenditur de virtute.

en: The *Book of Causes*, proposition 17, where the same is shown concerning power.

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 36. seq. (c. 4.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 36 ff. (c. 4).

la: Cfr. August., XII. de Civ. Dei, c. 21.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On the City of God* XII, c. 21.

la: Gen. 6, 16: *Et in cubito consummabis summitatem eius.* — De maiori cfr. supra pag. 210, nota 10. — Vat. *ratione unius speciei* pro *ratione speciei*.

en: Genesis 6:16: *And in a cubit shalt thou finish the top of it.* — On the major [premise] cf. above, p. 210, note 10. — The Vatican edition reads *ratione unius speciei* (*by reason of one species*) for *ratione speciei* (*by reason of species*).

la: Cfr. supra d. 6. a. 1. q. 2. De prima prop. arg. vide infra q. 5. et 7.

en: Cf. above, d. 6, a. 1, q. 2. On the first argument [advanced] for the proposition, see below, q. 5 and 7.

la: In Vat. desideratur *tres*; intellige ordines unius hierarchiae. — De hac sententia cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. et 5.

en: In the Vatican edition *tres* (*three*) is absent; understand [it of] the orders of one hierarchy. — On this opinion cf. here the text of the Master, c. 3 and 5.

la: De Caelest. Hierarch. c. 11. seq., ubi docetur, omnes Angelos convenire in tribus, scil. quod sint *caelestes essentiae*, quod sint *caelestes virtutes* et quod sint *angeli*. — Paulo inferius post *in uno* cod. bb in marg. a suppari manu addit *quam in alio*.

en: *On the Celestial Hierarchy*, c. 11 ff., where it is taught that all the Angels agree in three things, namely that they are *celestial essences*, that they are *celestial powers*, and that they are *angels*. — A little below, after *in uno* (*in one*), codex bb adds in the margin, by a roughly contemporary hand, *quam in alio* (*than in another*).

la: Vat. *unus*. Vide supra d. 1. p. II. a. 3. q. 1. arg. 3. ad oppositum.

en: The Vatican edition reads *unus* (*one*, masculine). See above, d. 1, p. II, a. 3, q. 1, the 3rd argument to the opposite.

la: Congruentius diceretur: *quia iste illum adiuvat et ille istum reparat.* Cod. aa solum primum membrum hoc modo exhibet. — Vide supra d. 1. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. et a. 3. q. 1.

en: It would be more fittingly said: *because the one assists the other and the other repairs the one.* Codex aa exhibits only the first member in this way. — See above, d. 1, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, and a. 3, q. 1.

la: Plurimi codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 *ergo non est essentialis*; perperam. — Quod gratia et gloria per essentiam non differant, probatur infra d. 27. a. I. q. 3.

en: Very many codices, with editions 1, 2, 3, [read] *ergo non est essentialis* (*therefore it is not essential*) — wrongly. — That grace and glory do not differ by essence is proved below, d. 27, a. 1, q. 3.

la: Vat. *In ratione non: quia.*

en: The Vatican edition reads *In ratione non: quia* (*Not in reason: because...*).

la: Retinuimus cum Vat. *illa*, quod in aliis edd. et codd. desideratur.

en: We have retained, with the Vatican edition, *illa* (*those things*), which is absent in the other editions and codices. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Praeter ordinem consuetum tractationi quaestionum hic praemittitur additamentum, in quo agitur de distinctis nominibus, hierarchiis, ordinibus Angelorum, eorumque sufficientia secundum doctrinam librorum, qui dicuntur esse Dionysii (de auctore cfr. pag. 241, nota 4.), nec non S. Gregorii et Bernardi. In nonnullis autem dissentiunt et illi Patres et Scholastici. Nam S. Thomas non admittit locutionem hierarchiam *supercaelestem*, sive ipsam increatam Trinitatem, quam S. Bonav. docet secundum antiquos magistros, et quam recte intellectam admittunt B. Albert., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med. Profecto vocabulum *hierarchia* (sacer principatus) non convenit personis Ss. Trinitatis, si intelligitur ut ordo *principandi*, quasi una persona increata dominetur aliis, sed ut ordo *principiandi*, quo Pater a nullo est, Filius a Patre solo, Spiritus S. ab utroque, ut bene observant Petr. a Tar. et Richardus a Med. — Aliae differentiae, quae respiciunt interpretationem Dionysii et S. Gregorii, vel minoris sunt momenti, vel respiciunt res non certe, sed tantum secundum quandam probabilitatem determinandas. Ingeniose de hierarchiis et ordinibus Angelorum disserit S. Bonav., Hexaem. Serm. 21. (ante med.). — De omnibus istis tractant commentatores Lombardi distinctis quaestionibus in hac 9. distinctione, et Alex. Hal., p. IV. q. 10. tr. de officio Missae, p. II. § 1. circa med.; S. Thom., S. I. q. 108. a. 1. 2. 5. 6; B. Albert., S. p. II. tr. 10. q. 37. 38. 39.

**II.** De principiis, quae ad hanc 1. quaestionem spectant, cfr. supra d. 3. p. I. a. 2. q. 1, ubi in scholio n. II. etiam de diversis Scholasticorum opinionibus mentio fit, atque loci auctorum citati sunt, quibus subiungimus Petr. a Tar., hic a. 3. 4. — Henr. Gand., Quodl. 11. q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.

**III.** Sequentem quaestionem, de qua cfr. supra d. 6. a. 1. q. 1. 2, alii Scholastici in eodem sensu solvunt, speciatim S. Thom. (hic q. unica, a. 7.), qui dicit: «Distinctio ordinum est per diversum donum gratuitum sicut per principium formale, et per diversum donum naturale sicut per principium quasi materiale et dispositivum». De eadem quaestione tractant: Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 37. m. 1. 2. — S. Thom., loc. cit. et S. I. q. 108. a. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. p. II. tr. 10. q. 42. m. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 7. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 1. dub. lat. 3. — Biel, hic q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Beyond the customary order of treating questions, an addition is here prefixed, in which there is treated of the distinct names, hierarchies, and orders of the Angels, and of their sufficiency, according to the doctrine of the books which are said to be by Dionysius (on the author cf. p. 241, note 4), as also [according to that] of St. Gregory and Bernard. In some matters, however, both those Fathers and the Scholastics disagree. For St. Thomas does not admit the expression of a *supercelestial* hierarchy — that is, the uncreated Trinity itself — which St. Bonaventure teaches following the ancient masters, and which, rightly understood, B. Albert, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla admit. Indeed the word *hierarchy* (sacred principate) does not befit the persons of the Most Holy Trinity if it is understood as an order of *ruling* [principandi], as though one uncreated person dominated the others, but [it does befit them] as an order of *originating* [principiandi], by which the Father is from no one, the Son from the Father alone, the Holy Spirit from both — as Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla well observe. — The other differences, which regard the interpretation of Dionysius and St. Gregory, are either of lesser moment, or regard matters to be determined not with certainty, but only with a certain probability. St. Bonaventure discourses ingeniously on the hierarchies and orders of the Angels in the *Hexaemeron*, Sermon 21 (before the middle). — On all these matters the commentators on Lombard treat with distinct questions in this 9th distinction, and [so does] Alexander of Hales, p. IV, q. 10, tract on the office of the Mass, p. II, § 1, near the middle; St. Thomas, *Summa* I, q. 108, a. 1, 2, 5, 6; B. Albert, *Summa* p. II, tr. 10, q. 37, 38, 39.

**II.** Concerning the principles which pertain to this 1st question, cf. above, d. 3, p. I, a. 2, q. 1, where in the scholion, n. II, mention is also made of the diverse opinions of the Scholastics, and the passages of the authors are cited — to which we add Peter of Tarentaise, here a. 3, 4; Henry of Ghent, *Quodlibet* 11, q. 1; Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 5.

**III.** The following question — on which cf. above, d. 6, a. 1, q. 1, 2 — the other Scholastics solve in the same sense, especially St. Thomas (here, the sole question, a. 7), who says: «The distinction of the orders is by a diverse gratuitous gift as by a formal principle, and by a diverse natural gift as by a quasi-material and dispositive principle». On the same question there treat: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 37, m. 1, 2; St. Thomas, loc. cit. and *Summa* I, q. 108, a. 4; B. Albert, here a. 6, [and] *Summa* p. II, tr. 10, q. 42, m. 1; Peter of Tarentaise, here, the sole question, a. 7; Giles of Rome, here q. 2, a. 1, dub. lat. 3; Biel, here q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
- s67 (2026-05-21): built from auto-chunked skeleton (raw 17302–17466) to Tier 2 — Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR base over 450 dpi PDF column-band crops of printed pp.241–243 (PDF 263–265), fresh literal English, full apparatus, 3-paragraph SCHOLION (I–III). The ARTICULUS UNICUS opener (*De ordinibus Angelorum*) folds into q1 per locked Vol II convention.
- Structure: 4 *videtur* arguments (pro diversity of species — marginal *Ad oppositum*) + 5 *Contra* / *Fundamenta* arguments (pro unity of species) + CONCLUSIO (*omnes Angeli sint eiusdem speciei*) + Respondeo surveying two probable opinions (*Opinio 1* diversity by species/subaltern genera; *Opinio 2* one species) + the Bonaventurean determination (the unity position is *magis theologica et probabilis*) + Solutio oppositorum 1 / 2 / 3-4.
- Apparatus 16 entries: p.242 footer ¹–¹⁰ = [^1]–[^10]; p.243 footer ¹–⁶ = [^11]–[^16]. The skeleton apparatus-audit (~23) overcounts per Lesson 9 — the true count is 16. q1's p.241 portion (question opener + the start of *videtur* arg. 1) carries no footnotes; all four p.241 footer notes belong to `d9-divisio` (restored in the s67 divisio fix).
- Incoming cross-chunk boundary from `d9-divisio` CLEAN: divisio's TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM closes mid-p.241 L-col with `Nono et ultimo in comparatione ad disparatum.`; ARTICULUS UNICUS opens immediately below. Outgoing boundary at p.243: SCHOLION III ends `Biel, hic q. 1.`; QUAESTIO II opens on p.244 (next chunk `d9-a1-q2`).
- Marginal labels preserved inline per locked Vol II convention: *Ad oppositum.* (videtur args), *Fundamenta.* (Contra args), *Opinio 1.*, *Opinio 2.*, *Conclusio.* (restated mid-determination), *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Notandum.*, *Homines ab Angelis differunt specie.*
- OCR garbles cleaned silently against the 450 dpi crops: reperitur / personalitatis / intellectualium / luminaria / empyrei / coniunctam / beneficentiae / deiformis / multiformitas, etc. PDF over OCR where they diverge: [^6] `(c. 4.)` (IA OCR `(c. i.)`); footnote anchor positions verified column-by-column.
- `[?]` flag — RESOLVED (d.1–d.10 polish-blocker, 2026-05-22): SCHOLION II `Petr. a Tar., hic a. 3.` — the trailing numeral reads clearly as `4` on the 600 dpi p.243 R-col scholion (`subiungimus Petr. a Tar., hic a. 3. 4.`). The provisional `1` is **corrected to `4`** in both the Latin and English scholion. `[?]` dropped.
- **DISTINCTION 9 NOW 3/11.** Next chunk: `d9-a1-q2` *Utrum distinctio Angelorum sit a natura, an a gratia* (raw 17467+, opens p.244).

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