Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 9
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-q9
----------------------------------------
### Question IX. *Whether it belongs to other substances than Angels to be distinguished by orders.*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

From these things the things which are touched on in the text are made manifest.

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

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

Or otherwise:

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

---