Bonaventure

ARTICULUS I.

De quo ordine mali angeli ceciderunt.

QUAESTIO I.

Utrum lucifer fuerit de supremo ordine Angelorum.

Quaeritur ergo primo, de quo ordine fuerit lucifer. Et quod fuerit de supremo, hoc ostenditur.

1. Iob quadragesimo¹: Ipse est principium viarum Dei; sed non ordine naturae: ergo ordine dignitatis: ergo fuit praecellens inter creaturas ceteras, ergo et inter Angelos.

2. Item, Gregorius trigesimo secundo Moralium² tractans illud Ezechielis: Tu Cherub extentus et protegens etc.: «Quia comparatione claritatis suae ceterorum claritatem obumbrasse creditur, ideo ipse extentus et protegens perhibetur»; loquitur de lucifero: ergo etc. Et ibidem iterum: «Dum ceteris agminibus Angelorum praelatus, eorum claritatem transcendit, ex eorum comparatione clarior fuit». Et iterum in eodem libro: «Illa supernarum virtutum procerae altitudinis agmina in laetitiae aeternae viriditate plantata, quamvis excelsa fuerint condita, huic tamen nec praelata sunt nec coaequata».

3. Item, ratione. Lucifer appetiit omnibus praeesse et credidit, se posse obtinere, ut nulli subesset³; sed hoc non est probabile, nisi vidisset, se omnes praecellere: ergo fuit de supremo ordine.

4. Item, peccatum eius maximum fuit inter peccata omnium Angelorum, immo omnium creaturarum; sed tanto maius est vitium, quanto in nobiliori natura⁴: ergo si maximum peccatum habuit omnium aliorum, ergo quantum ad naturam ceteris maior fuit.

SED CONTRA: 1. Ezechielis vigesimo octavo⁵ dicitur ad luciferum: Tu Cherub, sicut exponit Gregorius; sed supremus ordo non est ordo Cherubim, sed Seraphim, sicut vult Dionysius: ergo non fuit de supremo ordine.

2. Item, Damascenus secundo libro, quarto capitulo⁶: «Ex his angelicis virtutibus, quae praeerant terrestri ordini, id est, eius qui circa terrena est ordinis, et cui terrae custodia a Deo commissa erat, liberi arbitrii sui electione aversus est»: ergo lucifer secundum Damascenum fuit de infimo ordine.

3. Item, ratione videtur, quia si ipse fuit supremus, ergo magis fuit deiformis, ergo magis ad peccatum inhabilis: ergo non peccavit, aut si peccavit, non ita profunde, sicut alii, ut videtur.

4. Item, si supremus inter omnes Angelos, ergo inter omnes creaturas nobilior: ergo magis a Deo dilectus, qui diligit omnia quae fecit⁷: ergo cum facillimum fuerit Domino ipsum conservare, non videtur probabile, quod ipsum permiserit ruere.

CONCLUSIO.

Lucifer fuit praecellens inter Angelos et de supremo ordine.

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod sicut testantur auctoritates sacrae Scripturae et Sanctorum, lucifer valde excellens fuit, et si stetisset, in supremo ordine collocatus fuisset, cum ad hoc haberet idoneitatem ex parte naturae. Sicut enim patebit infra⁸, distinctio ordinum consummata venit ex parte gratiae, sed dispositio ex parte naturae. — Unde concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc inductae.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod dicitur Cherub; dicendum, quod Seraphim interpretatur incendium⁹, et hoc est per caritatem; Angelus autem, licet a sua conditione habuerit plenitudinem scientiae, non tamen habuit incendium caritatis nisi a gratia. Et quia Cherubim dicitur plenitudo scientiae, sed Seraphim incendium caritatis; hinc est, quod dicitur Cherub, non Seraph; et hoc non ideo, quia esset de ordine Cherubim, sed quia habebat habitum illi ordini convenientem, non sic habitum convenientem ordini Seraphim, quamvis ad illum esset praeparatus.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod praeerat terrestri ordini; dicendum, quod Damascenus hoc dicit quantum ad vim administrativam, quia ceteri ei erant subiecti quantum ad actum ministerii. Et quia actus ministerii omnibus aliquo modo competit ex natura, sicut infra patebit¹⁰, quia omnes sunt administratorii spiritus; ideo ex hoc non habetur, quod Angelus fuerit de ordine infimo, immo esse potuit de supremo et praesidere terrenorum ministerio.

Sed tunc est quaestio: cum in Angelo esset vis contemplativa, quare magis per administrativam eum describit? Et dicendum, quod vis contemplativa attenditur in comparatione ad superius, sed administrativa in comparatione ad inferius. Et quoniam Angelus sumsit occasionem peccandi, considerando suam praesidentiam respectu inferiorum; ideo secundum illam vim eum describit. Unde Augustinus¹¹ dicit, quod consideratio Angeli in peccando fuit contrario modo considerationi centurionis, qui dixit Matthaei octavo: Ego homo sum sub potestate constitutus et habens sub me milites. Angelus e contrario primo consideravit milites et ministros sibi subditos; ideo elevatus est in superbiam.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod minus habilis ad peccandum; dicendum, quod verum est; attamen voluntas in omnibus Angelis libera erat et vertibilis, et ideo sine omni pronitate poterat quo volebat inclinari; et hinc est, quod ille gravius peccavit. Unde ad peccatum non necessario concurrit pronitas, sed vertibilitas; nec peccatum intenditur ex pronitate, sed magis ex naturae et donorum dignitate et conversionis profunditate. Et quia altior erat, ideo cecidit profundius; et quia fortior, ideo ad malum se convertit fortius et inseparabilius.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, quod videtur incredibile, quod Deus nobilissimam creaturam suam sic perire dimitteret; dicendum, quod mira in hoc ostenditur Dei iustitia, quae tantum servat iustitiam, ut ordinem institutum nullo modo infringat; tantum peccatum odit, ut propter peccatum quos carissimos reputavit abiicat. Unde credo, quod tam spectandum monstrum¹² divinae severitatis in Angelo nobilissimo et primo homine, quorum utrumque propriis manibus plasmavit et decoravit, Deus nobis infirmis apposuit et ostendit, ut addiscamus, quantum Deus odit peccatum, et maxime superbiam, quod pro uno motu cordis nobilissima omnium creaturarum aeternaliter et sine spe veniae est damnata, et pro uno esu pomi et ipse Adam et tota posteritas usque ad finem mundi est mortalitati et multiplici poenalitati subiecta; et nisi Dominus reliquisset nobis semen, quasi Sodoma fuissemus¹³. Ex his efficacissimum relinquitur argumentum, quod horrendum est incidere in manus Dei viventis. Si enim Deus non pepercit nobilissimo Angelo superbienti, quid erit de vilissimo cinere et abiectissimo, in altum se extollenti, cum iacere debeat in cinere et cilicio, immo in ipso sterquilinio?

SCHOLION.

I. Sententia, quam S. Bonav. hic exponit, est fere communis, tamen non omnino certa. S. Ioan. Damascenus (arg. 2. ad oppositum) aliter sensisse videtur (cfr. Richard. a Med., loc. cit.), cuius opinioni non esse praeiudicandum, dicit S. Thom. in Summa (loc. cit.), licet sententiam S. Bonaventurae probabiliorem esse censeat. — Pro praxi notanda est egregia doctrina in solut. ad 1.

II. Sequentem huius articuli quaest. specialiter tantum tractant Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 99. m. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2; Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. Alii paucis verbis eam solvunt secundum probabilitatem et in eodem sensu ac S. Bonav., ut S. Thom., S. 1. q. 63. a. 9. ad 3.

III. De hac quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. q. 98. m. 1. a. 1. 2. — Scot., apud H. de Montefortino t. II. p. 1. q. 63. a. 7. seq. — S. Thom., hic q. unica, a. 1; S. 1. q. 63. a. 7. — B. Albert., de hac et seq. q. hic a. 1; S. p. II. tr. 5. q. 20. m. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 1. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1.

---

ARTICLE I.

Of what order the evil angels fell from.

QUESTION I.

Whether Lucifer was of the supreme order of Angels.

It is asked, therefore, first, of what order Lucifer was. And that he was of the supreme [order], this is shown.

1. Job, fortieth [chapter]¹: He is the beginning of the ways of God; but not by the order of nature: therefore by the order of dignity: therefore he was preeminent among the other creatures, therefore also among the Angels.

2. Likewise, Gregory in the thirty-second [book] of the Morals², treating that [text] of Ezekiel: Thou Cherub, stretched out and protecting etc.: «Because by comparison with his own brightness he is believed to have overshadowed the brightness of the rest, therefore he himself is called stretched out and protecting»; he speaks of Lucifer: therefore etc. And in the same place again: «Set over the other hosts of Angels, he transcended their brightness, and by comparison with them he was the brighter». And again in the same book: «Those hosts of the lofty height of the supernal virtues, planted in the verdure of eternal joy, although they were created exalted, yet are neither set above this one nor made equal [to him]».

3. Likewise, by reason. Lucifer desired to be set over all and believed that he could obtain that he should be subject to none³; but this is not probable, unless he had seen that he excelled all: therefore he was of the supreme order.

4. Likewise, his sin was the greatest among the sins of all the Angels, indeed of all creatures; but a vice is so much the greater, the nobler the nature [in which it is]⁴: therefore if he had the greatest sin of all the others, therefore as regards nature he was greater than the rest.

BUT ON THE CONTRARY: 1. In Ezekiel, twenty-eighth [chapter]⁵, it is said to Lucifer: Thou Cherub, as Gregory expounds; but the supreme order is not the order of the Cherubim, but of the Seraphim, as Dionysius holds: therefore he was not of the supreme order.

2. Likewise, Damascene in the second book, fourth chapter⁶: «From these angelic virtues, which were set over the terrestrial order, that is, of the order which is concerned with earthly things, and to whom the guardianship of the earth had been committed by God, he was turned away by the choice of his own free will»: therefore Lucifer, according to Damascene, was of the lowest order.

3. Likewise, by reason it seems [so], because if he was supreme, therefore he was the more deiform, therefore the more unapt for sin: therefore he did not sin, or if he sinned, not so profoundly as the others, as it seems.

4. Likewise, if [he was] supreme among all the Angels, therefore nobler among all creatures: therefore the more loved by God, who loves all things which he made⁷: therefore, since it would have been most easy for the Lord to preserve him, it does not seem probable that he permitted him to fall.

CONCLUSION.

Lucifer was preeminent among the Angels and of the supreme order.

I RESPOND: It must be said that, as the authorities of sacred Scripture and of the Saints testify, Lucifer was exceedingly excellent, and if he had stood [firm], he would have been placed in the supreme order, since for this he had the fitness on the part of nature. For as will be clear below⁸, the distinction of the orders consummated comes on the part of grace, but the disposition on the part of nature. — Hence the reasons brought forward for this are to be conceded.

1. To that which is objected, that he is called Cherub; it must be said that Seraphim is interpreted burning⁹, and this is through charity; but the Angel, although from his condition he had the fullness of knowledge, yet did not have the burning of charity except from grace. And because Cherubim is said [to be] fullness of knowledge, but Seraphim the burning of charity; hence it is that he is called Cherub, not Seraph; and this not because he was of the order of the Cherubim, but because he had a habit befitting that order, not in like manner a habit befitting the order of the Seraphim, although he was prepared for that.

2. To that which is objected, that he was set over the terrestrial order; it must be said that Damascene says this as regards the administrative power, because the rest were subject to him as regards the act of ministry. And because the act of ministry belongs to all in some manner from nature, as will be clear below¹⁰, because they are all ministering spirits; therefore from this it is not had that the Angel was of the lowest order, but rather he could be of the supreme [order] and preside over the ministry of earthly things.

But then there is a question: since in the Angel there was the contemplative power, why does he describe him rather by the administrative? And it must be said that the contemplative power is regarded in comparison with what is above, but the administrative in comparison with what is below. And since the Angel took the occasion of sinning from considering his own presidency in respect of inferiors; therefore he describes him according to that power. Hence Augustine¹¹ says that the Angel's consideration in sinning was in a manner contrary to the consideration of the centurion, who said in Matthew, eighth [chapter]: I am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers. The Angel on the contrary first considered the soldiers and ministers subject to himself; therefore he was lifted up into pride.

3. To that which is objected, that [he was] less apt for sinning; it must be said that it is true; nevertheless the will in all the Angels was free and changeable, and therefore without any proneness it could be inclined whither it willed; and hence it is that he sinned the more grievously. Hence to sin there does not necessarily concur proneness, but changeableness; nor is sin intensified by proneness, but rather by the dignity of nature and of gifts and by the profundity of conversion. And because he was higher, therefore he fell more profoundly; and because [he was] stronger, therefore he turned himself to evil the more strongly and inseparably.

4. To that which is objected last, that it seems incredible that God would let his most noble creature so perish; it must be said that in this is shown the wondrous justice of God, which so keeps justice that it in no way breaks the order it has instituted; it so hates sin that for sin it casts away those whom it reputed most dear. Hence I believe that so notable a monstrous spectacle¹² of divine severity in the most noble Angel and in the first man — both of whom he fashioned and adorned with his own hands — God has set before us weak ones and shown, that we may learn how much God hates sin, and especially pride, since for one motion of the heart the most noble of all creatures is damned eternally and without hope of pardon, and for one eating of the apple both Adam himself and the whole posterity, even to the end of the world, is subjected to mortality and to manifold penalty; and unless the Lord had left us seed, we should have been as Sodom¹³. From these things a most efficacious argument is left, that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. For if God did not spare the most noble Angel in his pride, what will become of vilest and most abject ash, exalting itself on high, when it ought to lie in ash and in sackcloth, indeed in the very dunghill?

SCHOLION.

I. The opinion which St. Bonaventure here expounds is almost common, yet not altogether certain. St. John Damascene (arg. 2 ad oppositum) seems to have thought otherwise (cf. Richard of Mediavilla, loc. cit.), to whose opinion it is not to be prejudicial, says St. Thomas in the Summa (loc. cit.), although he judges St. Bonaventure's opinion to be more probable. — For practice, the excellent doctrine in the solution to [argument] 1 is to be noted.

II. The following question of this article is treated specially only by Alexander of Hales, Summa p. II, q. 99, m. 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 2; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 2. Others resolve it in few words according to probability and in the same sense as St. Bonaventure, as St. Thomas, Summa 1, q. 63, a. 9, ad 3.

III. On this question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. q. 98, m. 1, a. 1, 2. — Scotus, apud H. of Montefortino, t. II, p. 1, q. 63, a. 7 f. — St. Thomas, here the single question, a. 1; Summa 1, q. 63, a. 7. — Bl. Albert, on this and the following question, here a. 1; Summa p. II, tr. 5, q. 20, m. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1. — Giles of Rome, here q. 1, a. 1. — Durandus, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following question, here q. 1.