Dist. 9, Divisio Textus
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-divisio
----------------------------------------
### 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. 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 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* 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*, 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

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*. 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 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.

*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. 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: «An Angel is an incorporeal substance, intellectual, ever in motion, free in choice, ministering to God, receiving immortality by grace, not by nature». Dionysius 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*,

*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; 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; 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*; and this is actual foulness, and is removed by saying *immaculate*. Second, foulness *adhering* or *advening*; and this is venial foulness, 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 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 [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

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*. *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: 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: 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. 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. Since, therefore, both the first reason and the second 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 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

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. 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* — 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 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, 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.

---