Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 4
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/9/q/bon-sent-II-d9-a1-q4
----------------------------------------
### Question IV. *From what each order of Angels is named.*

Fourthly it is asked concerning the naming of the orders; on which Gregory says that «each order is named from that which it received more fully as a gift». But it is objected against this:

1. Because that which it does not happen [for us] to know it does not happen [for us] to name; but the angelic spirits are unknown to us, therefore they are unnameable. If you say that they make themselves known to us when they reveal [things], then from this it follows that they ought to be named by one single name. For we name in the way that we know: therefore, if we know [them] through revelation, we ought all to name [them] and call them revealers: therefore there is no place there for distinctions of names.

2. Likewise, «a naming ought to be made from the worthier»; but charity is the most excellent gift that is in the Angels: therefore all ought to be named from charity, therefore all ought to be called Seraphim.

3. Likewise, «all gifts are common to all», as Gregory and the Master say in the text; but the naming of the angelic orders is made from the gratuitous gifts: therefore all their names ought to be common, just as the gifts also [are].

4. Likewise, if each order is named from that which it received more fully as a gift; and the supreme order received all the gifts of graces more fully than the inferior orders: therefore it ought to be named from all the gifts: therefore it will have the names of all the orders, just as [it has] the gifts.

5. Likewise, if an order is said to be named from that which it received more fully as a gift, either the excess of fullness is noted with respect to the other orders, or with respect to the other gifts. If with respect to the other orders, since an inferior order excels none of the superior orders in any gift, it ought to be named from none. But if it is said [to be] with respect to the other gifts, then either the gifts of the Angels will be unequal, or a naming will be made from none. But the gifts of graces in the same [angel] are equal, as will be made clear below in [Book] three: therefore an inferior order can be named from none of the gifts.

6. Likewise, in the reformed image love is made equal to knowledge: therefore, if the order of the Cherubim is named from the fullness of knowledge, there will be in it likewise a fullness of gratuitous love: therefore the name Cherubim and Seraphim ought to be attributed to the same order of Angels and not to others.

7. Likewise, since the order of the Cherubim is named from the fullness of knowledge, either it is named from the fullness of knowledge with respect to the inferior [orders], or with respect to the superior [orders]. Not with respect to the inferior, because such knowledge in them is not the noblest: therefore it is named from knowledge with respect to the superior. But this knowledge is wisdom: therefore it is named from the fullness of wisdom. But wisdom is the most excellent of all the gifts: therefore the Cherubim are named from the most excellent gift: therefore it seems that it is the supreme order, or that the worthier order is not named from the worthier name.

8. Likewise, since the Angels have certain names which are proper to them, certain which are common, certain which are proper and can be common; it is asked what is the account and difference of these names.

### Conclusion

> The naming of the Angels, as to the names proper to the individual orders, is taken from the gifts of graces according to the diverse states and grades in which they are distinguished and ordered.

**I respond:** For the understanding of these things it must be noted *They can be named in three ways.* that the Angels can be named through those things which are natural to them, can also be named through those things which are gratuitous to them, [and] can also be named through certain things which are in one way natural to them, in another way gratuitous. — *According to natural [endowments].* If they are named through those things which are natural to them, since their nature does not become known to us in particular, but in common, they thus have to be named by common names taken from a common nature and form; and this in two ways: either from the remote common [character], and so they are called heavenly essences; or from the proximate common [character], and so they are called heavenly spirits. — *According to gratuitous [gifts].* But if they are named according to the gratuitous gifts, then, since in these they have a state and grade differently, and thus a distinction, the orders in this way have to be named through them by proper names; proper, I say, whether with respect to the demons or with respect to the other orders, as they are called Seraphim and Thrones. — *According to both.* But if the naming is made from those things which can be — taken in one way — natural, and — taken in another way — gratuitous; then the names can be common and proper: common, I say, to the good and the wicked, and proper to the good, like Principalities and Powers, which, if they are named from a natural property, belong to the demons, but if from a gratuitous gift, belong to the holy Spirits; or [they can be] common to all the orders, but proper to certain ones, like Angels and Virtues. For if they are named from the natural gifts — namely, from the clarity of knowledge and the fortitude of power — then, since these two are in all, all can be called Angels, that is, fit for revealing; all also Virtues, that is, strong for working. But if they are named from the gift of grace, according as they are specially deputed to these offices — namely, to revealing mysteries and working miracles — then they are the proper names of certain orders. — *Conclusion.* From these things, therefore, it is gathered that the naming of the Angels, as to the names proper to the individual orders, is taken from the gifts of graces according to the diverse states and grades in which they are distinguished and ordered, as has been said.

But in the manner of taking these names, three things are to be considered. *Three things to be considered.* The first indeed, that one gift is worthier than another, as charity is said to be a gift excellent among the others. The second is that a superior order excels the inferior ones in all the gifts. The third is that a naming ought to be made from the worthier. — According to this, therefore, since there are nine states in which the angelic orders have to be arranged according to a differing precellence of the gratuitous [gifts], the supreme order claims for itself a name from the worthiest gift and state; the following order from a gift and state more closely approaching the highest, and this is the fullness of knowledge; and so concerning the others, descending down to the lowest. Hence in the naming a twofold excess is considered: both of gift over gift, and of order over order. And this is what Gregory means [when he says] that «eachorder is reckoned by the name of that thing which it received more fully as a gift», more fully, I say, with respect to the inferior [orders], unless that gift be of such dignity and excellence that one of the superior orders ought to be named from it; as is clear, since the order of the Cherubim received charity more fully than any of the inferior orders, yet is not named from it, because, since it is a most precellent gift, it is appropriated to the most excellent order. — These things having been seen, it is easy to respond to the objections.

*Solution of the opposing [arguments].* 1. To that, then, which is objected — that they are not known — it must be said that this is true of the knowledge which is through acquisition; but it is not true of the knowledge which is through revelation, in which manner blessed Paul and blessed John the Evangelist knew [them]; and therefore they were able to name [them] and to instruct others, as Paul instructed Dionysius. *Note.* Nevertheless the names of all the Angels are taken from sacred Scripture, as Seraphim from Isaiah six, Cherubim from the Psalms and from other places of Scripture, Thrones from Daniel seven; Dominations, Principalities, Powers, Virtues from diverse places of the Epistles of Paul, Angels and Archangels from diverse places both of the New and of the Old Testament. Since, therefore, sacred Scripture was divinely inspired, not humanly devised, the imposition of the names of the Angels was rather from the revelation of God than from human investigation.

2. To that which is objected — that a naming ought to be made from the worthier — it must be said that not only must this be attended to, that the naming of a thing be made from the worthier, but also that a name which befits several should be attributed to the worthier; and therefore, although all the orders could be named from the gift of charity and ardor, yet because that gift precels in the supreme order, that order alone ought to be named from it.

3. To that which is objected — that all gifts are common to all — it must be said that, as was touched on above, although there is in the gifts a commonness as to the habit, there is nevertheless a distinction as to the state. But the naming regards not only the substance of the habit, but also the precellence of the state.

4. 5. To that which is objected — that an order ought to be named from the gift which it received more fully — it must be said that this is not to be understood of everything which it received more fully, but of that which it received more fully and is the worthiest thing in it, especially if that be the worthiest order; and if an order be that which immediately follows it, it ought to be named from that which immediately follows the most precellent gift; and so consequently descending down to the lowest. And thus the response to this and to the following [objection] is clear, since the supreme [order] had to be named from the supreme, because that is the worthiest and it received [it] most fully. But the lowest [had to be named] from the lowest gift, because, since it is exceeded by the others in all [things], the name taken from the last gift had to be left to it — not because it possessed that more fully than the others, but because the others were named from that which they possessed more fully. From this it consequently came about that the lowest order was named from the lowest gift. — And if it is objected that one gift is not more excellent than another, because the gifts are equal; it must be said that, even if they are equal intensively, there is nevertheless in them a prerogative of some excellence, as charity is said by the Apostle to be greater than faith and hope.

6. To that which is objected — that where knowledge is greater, love is greater — it must be said that this is true, at least in glory. Hence, just as in the Seraphim there is a greater fullness of love, [so] there is a fuller fullness of knowledge; nor are they called Cherubim because there is in them a fuller fullness of knowledge absolutely, but with respect to the inferior orders.

7. To that which is objected — that the gift of wisdom is the most excellent — it must be said that wisdom, according as it is the most excellent gift, is named from *sapor* (taste, savor), not from *sapere* (to be wise), and thus includes charity; but the wisdom or knowledge from which the Cherubim are named denotes the knowledge of God, which, although it is the noblest knowledge and ordered to affection and therefore can be called wisdom, is nevertheless not so noble as the love from which is the savor. And therefore in that argument an equivocation is made in the name of wisdom.

8. To that which is asked last, the response is now clear from the foregoing.