Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 5
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 9
Quaestio V. Utrum ad singulos ordines Angelorum fiat assumtio salvandorum.
Quinto quaeritur de ordinum reparatione; et quaeritur, utrum ad singulos ordines Angelorum fiat assumtio salvandorum. Et quod sic, videtur.
1. Fundamenta. Super illud Psalmi1: Constitues eos principes super omnem terram, dicit Glossa: «Elegit pauperes, ut exaltaret ad ordines caeli, qui fiunt ex hominibus et Angelis».
2. Item, super illud Iosue primo2: Omnem locum, quem calcaverit pes vester etc., dicit Glossa: «Si diabolum vincere potuero, si meruero, ut eum conterat Deus sub pedibus meis, consequenter locum eius in caelo habebo»: ergo si diabolus fuit de excellentissimo ordine, sicut supra monstratum fuit distinctione sexta3, videtur, quod homo possit ascendere ad supremum ordinem Angelorum.
3. Item, ruina Angelorum restauranda est, aut superna civitas remanebit imperfecta; sed non restauratur ex angelis, quia casus angelorum est irreparabilis: ergo restaurabitur ex hominibus bonis.
4. Item, distinctio ordinum principaliter venit ex donis gratiarum4; sed in via videmus, quod aliqui assimilantur Seraphim in usu gratiae, aliqui Cherubim, et sic de aliis: ergo si Deus retribuit unicuique, secundum quod meruit, videtur, quod ad diversos ordines Angelorum homines debeant assumi, et ex eis Angelorum ordines restaurari.
Contra: Ad opposita. 1. Maior est unitas in superna Ierusalem quam in Ecclesia militante; sed nunc in via ordo hominum non admittit intra sui unitatem diversum in natura: ergo videtur, cum homo differat specie ab Angelo, quod ex Angelis et hominibus non debeat fieri unus ordo.
2. Item, sicut ordo notat quandam differentiam inter eos qui sunt ordinum diversorum, sic ponit convenientiam inter eos qui sunt eiusdem ordinis, quod patet ex ipsa definitione ordinis5; sed plus differt homo ab Angelo, quam differat ordo infimus a supremo: si ergo Angelus superioris ordinis et infimi non possunt in eodem ordine collocari, multo minus de hominibus et Angelis idem ordo integrari.
3. Item, corpus nunquam sublimatur ad dignitatem spiritus: ergo nunquam debet ibidem collocari corpus humanum, ubi collocatur spiritus angelicus, cum semper sit minus dignum, quantumcumque gloriosum: si ergo qui conveniunt in ordine conveniunt in sedium collocatione, videtur, ex hominibus et Angelis eundem ordinem constare non posse.
4. Item, Angelus in naturali capacitate excellit animam; sed gratia data est Angelis secundum suae naturae capacitatem, sicut supra6 dictum fuit, et Magister dicit in littera: ergo cum non possit dari gratia animabus supra suam capacitatem, nunquam possunt animae et Angeli in gratuitis adaequari: ergo nec ex eis idem ordo constitui.
Conclusio
Sicut de singulis ordinibus aliqui ceciderunt, sic etiam singuli ordines per homines restaurabuntur.
Respondeo: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, Duo praenotantur. quod, sicut praedictum fuit7, ad perfectionem ordinis duo concurrunt, natura scilicet et gratia: natura tanquam fundamentum et dispositio, gratia vero ut complementum et consummatio. Et quia aliquid tunc dicitur esse secundum quid, quando est in sola dispositione, tunc esse simpliciter, quando est in sua perfectione; cum daemones et Angeli in naturalibus conveniant, dicuntur8 aliquando daemones fuisse de diversis ordinibus Angelorum, quamvis nunquam plene fuerint in aliquo ordine; unde hoc intelligitur secundum quid, non simpliciter. — Ratio ex parte hominis. Quia vero homines possunt ad eminentiam gratiae et gloriae, in qua sunt Angeli, elevari, potest ex hominibus et Angelis idem ordo constitui, quia, quamvis non conveniant in natura, assimilantur tamen et aequantur in hac gratia; et per hunc modum reparatur Angelorum ruina. — Obiicitur. Et si tu obiicias, quod non potest esse conformitas in perfectione, ubi non est convenientia in praeambula dispositione; dicendum, quod hoc non habet locum in proposito, quia illud verum est in dispositione necessitatis, non autem in dispositione solius congruitatis. — Conclusio. Concedendum est igitur, quod, sicut de singulis ordinibus aliqui ceciderunt, sic etiam singuli ordines per homines restaurabuntur, sicut primae rationes ostendunt.
Solutio oppositorum. 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod ad unitatem ecclesiasticam non admittit homo rem alterius speciei; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia nullum animal invenire potest homo sibi simile in conformitate rationis; homo autem et Angelus in participatione rationis conveniunt, et quod plus est, in deiformitate gloriae. Et ideo possunt in eandem societatem et eiusdem societatis ordinem convenire, cum maior sit unitas voluntatum quam facierum et plus faciat ad unitatem pacis et societatis et ordinis conservandam.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod plus differt homo ab Angelo etc.; dicendum, quod verum est de difformitate, quae opponitur unitati naturae; sed non est verum de difformitate, quae opponitur unitati gratiae in statu et dignitate; unitas autem ordinis plus respicit hanc quam praecedentem. Et ideo illud non valet.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod corpus non sublimatur ad dignitatem spiritus; dicendum, quod verum est; sed tamen ex hoc non sequitur, quod non debeat locari cum Angelis. Sicut enim in statu viae et meriti anima sequitur locum corporis et in terra habitat, cum sit nata esse sursum; sic econtra in statu patriae et praemii corpus sequitur locum spiritus et ibidem erit, ubi natus est esse ipse spiritus, non propter se, sed propter eum cui coniungitur; et ideo in eisdem sedibus locatur cum angelicis spiritibus, ad quorum dignitatem per gratiam est humanus spiritus sublimatus.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Angelus habet capacitatem maiorem quam anima; dicendum, quod ratio illa calumniabilis est, et quantum ad maiorem et quantum ad assumtionem9. Notandum. Quamvis enim Angelus excedat animam in naturalibus secundum comparationem creaturae ad creaturam; tamen secundum comparationem ad Trinitatem summam, cuius est imago Angelus et anima, non oportet esse praecellentiam, cum magis videamus humanam naturam exaltatam quam angelicam tum per gratiam unionis in Christo, tum etiam per gratiam comprehensionis in Virgine beata. — Explicatio notabilis. Sed esto, quod adhuc ista propositio haberet veritatem, adhuc remanet in assumtione dubietas. Cum enim dicitur, quod Angeli susceperunt gratiam secundum capacitatem naturalium, non est intelligendum praecise, ita quod tantam susceperint, quod plus non potuerint capere, quia hoc non de facili posset probari nec auctoritate nec ratione; sed ita intelligitur, quod meliora naturalia habentibus plus datum est de gratia quam habentibus minora, quamvis isti et illi plus possent suscipere10. Et ex hoc non sequitur, quod anima humana non possit ad aequalitatem cum Angelis ascendere; immo absque dubio credendum est, posse, cum in Christo et beata Virgine videamus praecellere.
I. Antiqui doctores in hac 5. et seq. 6. quaestione solvenda satis conveniunt. Haec 5. quaest. magis determinatur infra q. 7; et de eadem agunt S. Thom., hic q. unica, a. 8; S. I. q. 108. a. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 8. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 5. — Aegid. R., hic q. 3. a. 1. — Durand., hic q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 6.
II. In corp. et fundam. 4. sequentis quaest. commemoratur doctrina Dionysii (de Hierarch. caelest. c. 7.), quod Angelis conveniant actus hierarchici, quibus superiores Angeli purgent, illuminent ac perficiant inferiores. Quae verba a S. Thoma (hic q. unica, a. 2.) sic explanantur: «Quantum ad remotionem privationis est purgatio, quantum ad influentiam luminis est illuminatio, sed quantum ad cognitionem consequentem, in quam dirigit lumen sicut in ultimum terminum, est perfectio». Supponitur autem, quod superiores Angeli, «quia Deum clarius vident quam inferiores, in ipso quasdam leges speciales inspiciunt et rationes, ad quarum conspectum inferiores per suum essentiale lumen gloriae non attingunt; (hinc) aliquas de illis revelant inferioribus, quando est placitum divinae voluntati, non efficiendo, ut inferiores illas leges in Deo conspiciant, sed tantummodo disponendo» (ita Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2.). De hac re disputant: Scot., hic q. 2. n. 25. seqq. — S. Thom., loc. cit. et S. I. q. 106. a. 3. — B. Albert., II. Sent. d. 10. a. 1; S. p. II. tr. 10. q. 40. n. 1. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 4. cum dubiis lat. — Durand., II. Sent. d. 11. q. 3. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 4. — Eadem autem principia S. Bonav. ponit supra d. 8. p. II. q. 4. et infra d. 10. a. 2. q. 1. 2, ubi loquitur de modo, quo et daemones et Angeli influunt in animas humanas, et ibi q. 2. ad 6. de distinctione inter dictos actus hierarchicos pauca dicit.
III. De tota 6. quaest. S. Thom., II. Sent. d. 11. q. 2. a. 6; S. I. q. 108. a. 7. — B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. p. II. tr. 10. q. 42. in fine. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 6. — Aegid. R., hic q. 3. a. 1. dub. lat. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 7.
---
Question V. Whether the assumption of those to be saved is made into each of the orders of Angels.
Fifthly it is asked concerning the restoration of the orders; and it is asked whether the assumption of those to be saved is made into each of the orders of Angels. And that it is so, [thus] it seems.
1. The fundamenta. On that [verse] of the Psalm1: You will appoint them princes over all the earth, the Gloss says: «He chose the poor, so that he might exalt to the orders of heaven, which are made up of men and Angels».
2. Likewise, on that [verse] of Joshua, chapter one2: Every place which the sole of your foot shall have trodden etc., the Gloss says: «If I shall have been able to conquer the devil, if I shall have merited that God crush him under my feet, I shall consequently have his place in heaven»: therefore, if the devil was of the most excellent order, as was shown above in distinction six3, it seems that man can ascend to the supreme order of Angels.
3. Likewise, the ruin of the Angels must be restored, or the heavenly city will remain incomplete; but it is not restored from angels, because the fall of the angels is irreparable: therefore it will be restored from good men.
4. Likewise, the distinction of the orders comes principally from the gifts of graces4; but in this present life we see that some are assimilated to the Seraphim in the use of grace, some to the Cherubim, and so concerning the others: therefore, if God repays each one according to what he has merited, it seems that men ought to be assumed into the diverse orders of Angels, and the orders of the Angels restored from them.
On the contrary: To the opposing [arguments]. 1. The unity in the heavenly Jerusalem is greater than [the unity] in the Church militant; but now in this present life the order of men does not admit within its unity what is diverse in nature: therefore it seems, since man differs in species from an Angel, that one order ought not to be made up of Angels and men.
2. Likewise, just as order denotes a certain difference among those who are of diverse orders, so it posits an agreement among those who are of the same order, which is clear from the very definition of order5; but man differs more from an Angel than the lowest order differs from the supreme: if therefore an Angel of a superior order and [an Angel] of the lowest cannot be placed in the same order, much less can the same order be made up of men and Angels.
3. Likewise, a body is never raised up to the dignity of a spirit: therefore a human body ought never to be placed where an angelic spirit is placed, since it is always less worthy, however glorious: if therefore those who agree in an order agree in the placement of seats, it seems that the same order cannot be made up of men and Angels.
4. Likewise, an Angel excels the soul in natural capacity; but grace is given to the Angels according to the capacity of their nature, as was said above6, and the Master says so in the text: therefore, since grace cannot be given to souls above their capacity, souls and Angels can never be made equal in gratuitous [gifts]: therefore neither can the same order be constituted from them.
Conclusion
Just as from each of the orders some have fallen, so also each of the orders will be restored through men.
I respond: For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted, Two things are noted beforehand. that, as was said before7, two things concur for the perfection of an order, namely nature and grace: nature as the foundation and disposition, but grace as the completion and consummation. And because a thing is then said to be in a certain respect when it is in the disposition alone, [and] then to be absolutely when it is in its perfection; since the demons and the Angels agree in their natural [endowments], the demons are sometimes said8 to have been of the diverse orders of Angels, although they were never fully in any order; hence this is understood in a certain respect, not absolutely. — The ground on the part of man. But because men can be elevated to the eminence of grace and glory in which the Angels are, the same order can be constituted from men and Angels, because, although they do not agree in nature, they are nevertheless assimilated and made equal in this grace; and in this manner the ruin of the Angels is repaired. — An objection. And if you object that there cannot be conformity in perfection where there is no agreement in the antecedent disposition; it must be said that this has no place in the matter at hand, because that is true of the disposition of necessity, but not of the disposition of mere congruity. — Conclusion. It must therefore be granted that, just as from each of the orders some have fallen, so also each of the orders will be restored through men, as the first arguments show.
Solution of the opposing [arguments]. 1. To that, then, which is objected to the contrary — that man does not admit a thing of another species into the ecclesiastical unity — it must be said that it is not alike, because man can find no animal like himself in a conformity of reason; but man and Angel agree in the participation of reason, and, what is more, in the deiformity of glory. And therefore they can come together into the same fellowship and into the order of the same fellowship, since the unity of wills is greater than [that] of faces and contributes more to the preserving of the unity of peace and of fellowship and of order.
2. To that which is objected — that man differs more from an Angel etc. — it must be said that this is true of the difformity which is opposed to the unity of nature; but it is not true of the difformity which is opposed to the unity of grace in state and dignity; and the unity of an order regards the latter more than the former. And therefore that [argument] is not valid.
3. To that which is objected — that a body is not raised up to the dignity of a spirit — it must be said that this is true; but nevertheless from this it does not follow that it ought not to be placed with the Angels. For just as in the state of the way and of merit the soul follows the place of the body and dwells on earth, although it is born to be on high; so, on the contrary, in the state of the fatherland and of reward the body follows the place of the spirit and will be there where the spirit itself is born to be — not for its own sake, but for the sake of that to which it is joined; and therefore it is placed in the same seats with the angelic spirits, to whose dignity the human spirit has been raised up through grace.
4. To that which is objected — that an Angel has a greater capacity than the soul — it must be said that that argument is calumnious, both as to the greater and as to the assumption9. Note. For although an Angel exceeds the soul in its natural [endowments] according to the comparison of creature to creature; nevertheless, according to the comparison to the supreme Trinity, of which both Angel and soul are the image, there need be no precellence, since we see human nature exalted rather than angelic — both through the grace of union in Christ, and also through the grace of comprehension in the blessed Virgin. — A noteworthy explanation. But suppose that this proposition still held truth, there still remains a doubt regarding the assumption. For when it is said that the Angels received grace according to the capacity of their natural [endowments], it is not to be understood precisely, as though they received so much that they could not receive more, because this could not easily be proved either by authority or by reason; but it is understood thus, that to those having better natural [endowments] more was given of grace than to those having lesser ones, although both these and those could receive more10. And from this it does not follow that the human soul cannot ascend to equality with the Angels; on the contrary, it must without doubt be believed that it can, since in Christ and the blessed Virgin we see it to precel.
I. The ancient doctors agree well enough in the solving of this 5th and the following 6th question. This 5th question is more fully determined below, in q. 7; and concerning it treat St. Thomas, here, the single question, a. 8; Summa I, q. 108, a. 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, the single question, a. 8. — Richard of Mediavilla, here, a. 2, q. 5. — Giles of Rome, here, q. 3, a. 1. — Durandus, here, q. 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. 6.
II. In the body and the 4th fundamentum of the following question is mentioned the teaching of Dionysius (On the Celestial Hierarchy c. 7), that there belong to the Angels hierarchical acts by which the superior Angels purge, illuminate, and perfect the inferior ones. These words are explained thus by St. Thomas (here, the single question, a. 2): «As to the removal of privation it is purgation; as to the influx of light it is illumination; but as to the consequent knowledge, into which the light directs as into the ultimate term, it is perfection». But it is presupposed that the superior Angels, «because they see God more clearly than the inferior ones, behold in him certain special laws and grounds, to the sight of which the inferior ones do not attain by their own essential light of glory; (hence) they reveal some of these to the inferior ones, when it is pleasing to the divine will — not by bringing it about that the inferior ones behold those laws in God, but only by disposing [them]» (so Richard of Mediavilla, here, a. 2, q. 2). On this matter dispute: Scotus, here, q. 2, n. 25 f. — St. Thomas, at the place cited, and Summa I, q. 106, a. 3. — Blessed Albert, II Sentences d. 10, a. 1; Summa p. II, tr. 10, q. 40, n. 1, 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, the single question, a. 2. — Giles of Rome, here, q. 1, a. 4, with the Latin dubia. — Durandus, II Sentences d. 11, q. 3. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. 4. — And St. Bonaventure sets down the same principles above, d. 8, p. II, q. 4, and below, d. 10, a. 2, q. 1, 2, where he speaks of the manner in which both demons and Angels exert influence on human souls, and there, q. 2, ad 6, says a little about the distinction between the said hierarchical acts.
III. On the whole 6th question, St. Thomas, II Sentences d. 11, q. 2, a. 6; Summa I, q. 108, a. 7. — Blessed Albert, here, a. 6; Summa p. II, tr. 10, q. 42, at the end. — Richard of Mediavilla, here, a. 2, q. 6. — Giles of Rome, here, q. 3, a. 1, dub. lat. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. 7.
---
- Psalm. 44, 17. — De Glossa cfr. Gregor., XXXI. Moral. c. 40. n. 99, ubi ostendit, quod Christus omnia, non solum in terris, sed etiam in caelis restauravit, «dum illuc humiliati homines redeunt, unde apostatae angeli superbiendo ceciderunt».Psalm 44:17 [Vulgate]. — Concerning the Gloss, cf. Gregory, Morals XXXI, c. 40, n. 99, where he shows that Christ restored all things, not only on earth but also in heaven, «when humbled men return thither, whence the apostate angels fell by being proud».
- Vers. 3, ubi Vulgata vestigium pedis vestri pro pes vester. — Glossam, quae invenitur apud Lyranum in Prologo, vide apud Origenem, Hom. 25. in Num. n. 6.[Joshua 1,] verse 3, where the Vulgate [reads] vestigium pedis vestri (the print of your foot) for pes vester (your foot). — For the Gloss, which is found in Lyra in the Prologue, see Origen, Homilies on Numbers, hom. 25, n. 6.
- Art. 1. q. 1.[Distinction six,] art. 1, q. 1.
- Cfr. supra q. 2.Cf. above, q. 2.
- Quam vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2. — In fine arg. cod. Y supplet peterit.Which [definition] see here in the text of the Master, c. 2. — At the end of the argument, codex Y supplies peterit.
- Quaest. 3, ubi etiam in arg. 2. pro parte affirm. verba Magistri allegantur.[Above,] question 3, where also in the 2nd argument for the affirmative part the words of the Master are alleged.
- Quaest. 2. in expositione definitionis, quam S. Doctor de ordine dedit in principio huius dist.[Above,] question 2, in the exposition of the definition which the holy Doctor gave concerning order at the beginning of this distinction.
- Vat. cum pluribus codd. dicitur.The Vatican edition, with several codices, [reads] dicitur (it is said) [for dicuntur].
- Sive minorem.Or [as to the] lesser.
- Cfr. supra q. 3.Cf. above, q. 3. ---