Dist. 6, Art. 3, Q. 1
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/2/d/6/q/bon-sent-II-d6-a3-q1
----------------------------------------
### ARTICLE III.

*Of the order and of the precedence after the fall.*

It is consequently asked in the third place, in what manner the demons are ordered after the fall. And concerning this two [things] are asked. First it is asked, whether there is among them a distinction of orders. Secondly, whether there is precedence among the evil angels.

### QUESTION I.

*Whether there is a distinction of orders among the demons.*

It is asked, therefore, whether there is among them a distinction of orders. And that [there is] so, it seems [thus].

1. The Apostle, to the Ephesians, last [chapter], calls them *principalities and powers,* and the other Saints [call them] by the names of the other orders: therefore it seems that, if they kept the name and not in vain, then in some manner they kept the thing, and thus that the orders are distinct in them.

2. Likewise, from their own nature they were created distinct and perfect and ordered; but Dionysius says «that they have the things given them by nature most intact»: therefore there still remains an order among them.

3. Likewise, nothing *in the universe* is disordered, although it may be disordered *in itself,* because it cannot be befouled: therefore the demons in their own manner are ordered, like the Angels: therefore there is an order among them too.

4. Likewise, the *nature* of the Angels, as far as it was of itself, was apt for the orders, and *grace* coming would have perfected the orders, because it would have been given to them according to the vigor of [their] natural [endowments]: therefore since likewise by the greater vigor of natural [endowments] there was order and greatness in fault, it seems that likewise by fault the order is not taken away, but rather perfected.

ON THE CONTRARY: 1. Hugh of Saint Victor: «All consented to the same malice and made one order of a perverse fellowship»: therefore there is not among them a distinction of orders.

2. Likewise, «evil is the corruption of mode, species, and order»; but by sin they became evil, therefore disordered: therefore there is not an order among them, since all are evil.

3. Likewise, the disordering is greater in fault, or through fault, than in punishment — for punishment reduces fault to some order — but in punishments there is not an order of nature: therefore neither in [things] existing in sins. *Proof of the minor:* Job, tenth [chapter]: *Where there is no order, but everlasting horror dwells;* he speaks of the place of punishments.

4. Likewise, the better the nature, the greater the fault [is] in it: therefore the higher anyone [is] by nature, the lower [he is] by fault, because a greater fault makes [one] worse: therefore fault perverts the whole order of nature and takes away altogether the order of grace: therefore there is no order among them.

CONCLUSION.

*After the fall there remains among the demons a distinction of orders, but imperfect and perverse.*

I RESPOND: It must be said that one must speak of the Angels as regards a threefold state, namely of *glory* and of *nature instituted* and *fallen.* As regards the state of *glory* one must posit in them a *perfect* distinction of orders; as regards the state of *nature*, a distinction of orders, but *imperfect;* as regards the state of *fault,* a distinction of orders, but *imperfect* and *perverse:* *imperfect,* on account of the privation of grace, which perfects the aptitude of nature; *perverse,* on account of the presence of fault, which, although it does not corrupt the substance of the natural [endowments], yet befouls and disorders [them]. And that is manifest, if it be attended to.

For those who had the better natural [endowments], those sinned and sin the more grievously, both because they desired the more ardently, and because they were the more ungrateful, and also because they now harass the more sharply. By reason of the nobility of nature they excel in the order of nature, and they excel in the greatness of fault, and as regards this they are the worse, and therefore ought to be the lower.

I concede, therefore, that there is among the demons an order according to the preeminence of natural [endowments], but yet perverse by the adjoining of faults. I concede therefore the reasons proving that there is among them some order, though slight, as has been seen.

To that, however, which is objected last, that fault is consonant with nature; it must be said that that consonance is rather a *discordance* than a *consonance.* For the greatness of fault makes [it] in truth *less,* the *greater* it is; and thus in a great nature it does not preserve the dignity of order, but rather perverts [it], because to be *magnified* in fault is to be *worsened* in a nature well constituted or instituted. — For what Dionysius says, that they have the things given [them] most intact; is true as regards *substance,* not as regards *aptitude* for a determinate operation.

But those [things] which are objected to the contrary are to be conceded, because they conclude truly, namely that there is not in them a perfect order, but rather a perverse one. And thus all [things] are clear.

SCHOLION.

I. On both questions of this article the ancient doctors sufficiently agree. — It is to be attended to, that in question 2, solutions 3 and 4, that *precedence* is denied as regards *right* and is restricted to precedence *in fact,* and indeed as long as the state of ministry lasts; on which see more below, d. 9, q. 6. But that which is denied, that the said precedence is by *right,* is to be understood on the part of the *will* of the demons, which is unjust and unworthy, not on the part of their *nature* and the divine ordination.

II. Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 37, m. 3. — St. Thomas, here the single question, a. 4; *Summa* 1, q. 109, a. 1, 2. — Bl. Albert, II *Sentences* d. 9, a. 6; *Summa* p. II, tr. 6, q. 26, m. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 1. — Giles of Rome, here q. 2, a. 3, d. 9, q. 3, dub. lat. 2, 3. — Durandus, here q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 4. — Biel, II *Sentences* d. 9, q. 1, before the end.