Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 8
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 9
Quaestio VIII. Utrum in eodem ordine Angelorum sit perfecta aequalitas, an quaedam gradatio.
Octavo quaeritur de ordinibus Angelorum in comparatione ad suum oppositum; et est quaestio, utrum in Angelis ordo compatiatur secum aequalitatem. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Per Dionysium. Dicit enim Dionysius1, quod illi qui sunt in una hierarchia, aequipotentes sunt; sed qui sunt aequipotentes sunt aequales: ergo in eadem hierarchia Angeli sunt aequales: ergo multo fortius in eodem ordine.
2. Item, per Augustinum de Vera Religione2: «In omnibus actibus convenientia placet, qua una salva, et pulcra sunt omnia; ipsa vero convenientia unitatem aequalitatemque appetit»: ergo si in angelicis ordinibus est perfecta pulcritudo, ergo et convenientia et aequalitas; sed non est aequalitas inter Angelos diversorum ordinum: ergo inter Angelos eiusdem ordinis.
3. Item, quorum donum et praemium est unum, ipsa habent aequalitatem; sed donum et praemium Angelorum eiusdem ordinis est unum, et status unus3: ergo videtur, quod habeant aequalitatem.
4. Item, hierarchia angelica maxime est repraesentativa supremae hierarchiae; sed in illa ordo non excludit aequalitatem4: ergo videtur, quod in hierarchia angelica debeat esse ordo cum aequalitate. Sed non est aequalitas in Angelis diversorum ordinum: ergo in Angelis eiusdem ordinis.
Contra: 1. Magister dicit in littera5: «Sicut in Apostolis alii aliis sunt digniores, ita in ordinibus Angelorum creditur recte esse».
2. Item, perfectiori modo participat rationem ordinis6, ubi est ordo in omnibus, quam ubi est ordo in aliquibus tantum; sed Angeli perfectissimo modo inter ceteras creaturas participant ordinem: ergo non solum inter Angelos diversorum ordinum, sed etiam inter Angelos eiusdem ordinis contingit ordinem assignare.
3. Item, «sapientis est ordinare7», et magis sapientis magis ordinare, ergo et maxime sapientis in eius effectu nobilissimo est res maxime ordinatas producere: ergo videtur, quod non solum sit ibi ordo inter Angelos diversorum ordinum, sed etiam inter Angelos eiusdem ordinis.
4. Item, lucifer dicitur fuisse maximus inter omnes Angelos; et constat, quod de aliquo ordine fuit: ergo Angeli illius ordinis non erant sibi aequales; pari ratione videtur, quod in aliis ordinibus alii sint superiores, alii inferiores.
Conclusio
Probabile est, inter Angelos eiusdem ordinis quandam reperiri gradationem, licet inter eos non sit tantus excessus, quantus est inter Angelos diversorum ordinum.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod sicut in suprema8 hierarchia propter summam perfectionem reperitur pulcritudo ex perfectissima aequalitate et similitudine parium, sic in angelica hierarchia reperitur pulcritudo perfecta in genere creaturae ex quadam gradatione disparium. In his enim duobus modis consistit pulcritudo et convenientia, sicut dicit Augustinus de Vera Religione9. Sed in suprema hierarchia ex sola similitudine et aequalitate potest esse perfectissima pulcritudo, quia in qualibet personarum aequalium est omnimoda et summa perfectio. In angelica vero hierarchia, quia illi spiritus, qui coordinantur, non habent singillatim summam perfectionem, necesse est, quod ex quadam convenienti diversitate, in quadam proportionali gradatione consurgat quaedam convenientia ordinata et pulcritudo in genere creaturae perfecta.
Et ideo sicut in Sanctis intelligimus, quod unus est ordo Apostolorum, alter Martyrum, alter Confessorum, et sic de aliis; et tamen in his ordinibus est gradatio quaedam, nec potest omnimoda reperiri aequalitas, cum de quolibet Sancto possit dici: Non est inventus similis illi, qui conservaret legem Excelsi10; sic suo modo intelligendum est in spiritibus angelicis. Ideo et in eodem ordine ponenda est quaedam gradatio et quidam ordo, licet non sit tantus excessus, quantus reperitur in Angelis diversorum ordinum. — Unde rationes hoc probantes concedendae sunt, quamvis non sint multum cogentes. Hoc enim videtur sentire tam Magister in littera11, quam Dionysius in libro de Angelica Hierarchia.
Solutio oppositorum. 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod aequipotentes sunt; dicendum, quod aequalitas illius posse attenditur vel accipitur secundum conformitatem conversionis12, secundum quam attenditur distinctio unius hierarchiae ab aliis; sicut prima hierarchia et ordines, qui sunt in illa, accipiuntur penes actum conversionis in Deum, non quia omnino aequaliter convertantur, sed quia ad hoc indifferenter omnes ordinantur et principaliter ab isto actu omnes denominantur.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod convenientia facit pulcritudinem; dicendum, quod, sicut ibidem dicit Augustinus, convenientia non tantum surgit ex aequalitate, sed etiam ex disparium congruenti gradatione; et sic in Angelis intelligendum est esse.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod habent idem donum et praemium; dicendum est, quod si intelligatur de praemio communi et increato, quod Deus est, verum est. Si autem intelligatur de beatitudine creata, vel de donis gratuitis13 quantum ad statum et dignitatem et praerogativam aliquam; sic non habet veritatem. Sic enim quilibet respectu alterius aliquam habet praerogativam secundum plus et minus.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod haec hierarchia repraesentat summam; dicendum, quod repraesentat, in quantum potest; et cum in illa suprema hierarchia sit ordo et perfecta pulcritudo in summa unitate et aequalitate, et haec in hierarchia creata non possint simul coexistere propter limitationem creaturae: ideo est ibi ponere ordinem et pulcritudinem cum diversitate et quadam disparilitate, ut quod non poterat hic fieri ex unitate, saltem impleretur ex plurium diversitate. — Et haec est ratio, quare Deus, cum habeat unum Filium, non tamen produxit unum solum Angelum, sed multos, quia Filius perfecte implet Patrem et imitatur, ut dicit Augustinus14, sed Angelus perfecte non exprimit Creatorem; ideo decuit eos creare in magna multitudine vel in multiformi ordine.
I. Quod inter singulos unius ordinis Angelos sit differentia multiplex, et quidem non tantum in officiis, sed etiam in proprietatibus naturae et gratiae, communiter ab antiquis doctoribus docetur. S. Thom., hic q. unica, a. 3; S. I. q. 108. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. p. II. tr. 10. q. 42. m. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 4. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5. — Biel, hic q. 1. in fine.
II. Quaestio sequens (9.) ab aliis Scholasticis vel omnino omittitur, vel tantum paucis verbis tangitur, ut a S. Thoma, hic q. unica, a. 7. ad 3. et S. I. q. 108. a. 4; Petr. a Tar., hic q. unica, a. 3. 4; Biel, hic q. 1. in fine.
---
Question VIII. Whether in the same order of Angels there is a perfect equality, or a certain gradation.
Eighthly it is asked concerning the orders of the Angels in comparison to their opposite; and the question is whether in the Angels an order is compatible with equality. And that it is so, [thus] it seems:
1. Through Dionysius. For Dionysius says1 that those who are in one hierarchy are equal in power; but those who are equal in power are equal: therefore in the same hierarchy the Angels are equal: therefore much more strongly in the same order.
2. Likewise, through Augustine, On True Religion2: «In all acts a fittingness pleases, by which, when it alone is preserved, all things also are beautiful; and this fittingness itself seeks unity and equality»: therefore if in the angelic orders there is a perfect beauty, then [there is] also fittingness and equality; but there is no equality among the Angels of diverse orders: therefore [there is equality] among the Angels of the same order.
3. Likewise, those whose gift and reward is one have equality; but the gift and reward of the Angels of the same order is one, and [their] state one3: therefore it seems that they have equality.
4. Likewise, the angelic hierarchy is most of all representative of the supreme hierarchy; but in that [supreme hierarchy] order does not exclude equality4: therefore it seems that in the angelic hierarchy there ought to be order with equality. But there is no equality among the Angels of diverse orders: therefore [there is] among the Angels of the same order.
On the contrary: 1. The Master says in the text5: «Just as among the Apostles some are worthier than others, so among the orders of the Angels it is rightly believed to be».
2. Likewise, the account of order is participated in a more perfect manner6 where there is order in all things, than where there is order in some things only; but the Angels among the other creatures participate in order in the most perfect manner: therefore not only among the Angels of diverse orders, but also among the Angels of the same order it is possible to assign an order.
3. Likewise, «it belongs to the wise man to order7», and to one more wise [it belongs] to order more, therefore also to the most wise [it belongs], in his noblest effect, to produce things most highly ordered: therefore it seems that there is order there not only among the Angels of diverse orders, but also among the Angels of the same order.
4. Likewise, Lucifer is said to have been the greatest among all the Angels; and it is established that he was of some order: therefore the Angels of that order were not equal to one another; by a like reasoning it seems that in the other orders some are superior, others inferior.
Conclusion
It is probable that among the Angels of the same order a certain gradation is found, although among them there is not so great an excess as there is among the Angels of diverse orders.
I respond: It must be said that, just as in the supreme8 hierarchy, on account of its highest perfection, beauty is found from the most perfect equality and likeness of equals, so in the angelic hierarchy beauty perfect in the genus of creature is found from a certain gradation of unequals. For in these two modes consist beauty and fittingness, as Augustine says in On True Religion9. But in the supreme hierarchy, from likeness and equality alone there can be the most perfect beauty, because in any of equal persons there is total and supreme perfection. But in the angelic hierarchy, because those spirits which are co-ordered do not have, taken singly, the supreme perfection, it is necessary that from a certain fitting diversity, in a certain proportional gradation, there arise a certain ordered fittingness and a beauty perfect in the genus of creature.
And therefore, just as among the Saints we understand that one is the order of the Apostles, another of the Martyrs, another of the Confessors, and so of the others; and yet in these orders there is a certain gradation, nor can a total equality be found, since of any Saint it can be said: There was not found one like to him, who kept the law of the Most High10; so, in its own manner, it must be understood in the angelic spirits. Therefore in the same order too there must be posited a certain gradation and a certain order, although there is not so great an excess as is found among the Angels of diverse orders. — Hence the arguments proving this are to be conceded, although they are not very compelling. For this seems to be the view both of the Master in the text11 and of Dionysius in the book On the Angelic Hierarchy.
Solution of the opposing [arguments]. 1. To that which is objected — that they are equal in power — it must be said that the equality of that power is regarded or taken according to the conformity of [their] conversion12, according to which is regarded the distinction of one hierarchy from the others; just as the first hierarchy and the orders which are in it are taken with respect to the act of conversion to God, not because they are converted altogether equally, but because to this all are ordered indifferently and from this act principally all are denominated.
2. To that which is objected — that fittingness makes beauty — it must be said that, as Augustine says in the same place, fittingness arises not only from equality, but also from a congruent gradation of unequals; and so it must be understood to be in the Angels.
3. To that which is objected — that they have the same gift and reward — it must be said that, if it is understood of the common and uncreated reward, which is God, it is true. But if it is understood of created beatitude, or of the gratuitous gifts13 as to state and dignity and some prerogative; thus it does not hold true. For thus each one, in respect of another, has some prerogative according to more and less.
4. To that which is objected — that this hierarchy represents the supreme one — it must be said that it does represent [it], in so far as it can; and since in that supreme hierarchy there is order and perfect beauty in the highest unity and equality, and these cannot coexist together in a created hierarchy on account of the limitation of the creature: therefore it is [right] there to posit order and beauty with diversity and a certain disparity, so that what could not here be brought about from unity might at least be fulfilled from the diversity of many. — And this is the reason why God, although He has one Son, did not nevertheless produce one Angel only, but many, because the Son perfectly fills and imitates the Father, as Augustine says14, but an Angel does not perfectly express the Creator; therefore it was fitting to create them in a great multitude or in a multiform order.
I. That among the individual Angels of one order there is a manifold difference — and indeed not only in offices, but also in the properties of nature and of grace — is commonly taught by the ancient doctors. St. Thomas, here the single question, a. 3; Summa I, q. 108, a. 3. — The Blessed Albert, here a. 7; Summa p. II, tr. 10, q. 42, m. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here the single question, a. 4. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 4. — Denis the Carthusian, here q. 5. — Biel, here q. 1, at the end.
II. The following question (9) is by other Scholastics either omitted altogether, or touched only in a few words, as by St. Thomas, here the single question, a. 7, [reply] to [argument] 3, and Summa I, q. 108, a. 4; Peter of Tarentaise, here the single question, a. 3 [and] 4; Biel, here q. 1, at the end.
---
- De Caelest. Hierarch. c. 8. § 1: Ipsam autem sanctarum Potestatum aequipotentem divinarum Dominationum et Virtutum etc.; c. 9. § 2: «Archangelorum ordo aequipotens quidem est caelestibus Principatibus» (qui sunt de eadem hierarchia).[Dionysius,] On the Celestial Hierarchy c. 8, § 1: «And [the order] of the holy Powers, equal in power to the divine Dominations and Virtues» etc.; c. 9, § 2: «The order of the Archangels is indeed equal in power to the celestial Principalities» (who are of the same hierarchy).
- Cap. 30. n. 53, ubi textus originalis In omnibus artibus pro In omnibus actibus, et in fine addit: vel in similitudine parium partium, vel gradatione imparium. — Vat. dein in angelicis spiritibus pro in angelicis ordinibus.[On True Religion,] c. 30, n. 53, where the original text [reads] In omnibus artibus (In all arts) for In omnibus actibus (In all acts), and at the end adds: vel in similitudine parium partium, vel gradatione imparium (or in the likeness of equal parts, or in the gradation of unequal ones). — The Vatican edition then [reads] in angelicis spiritibus (in the angelic spirits) for in angelicis ordinibus (in the angelic orders).
- Hoc constat ex definitione ordinis a Magistro, hic c. 2. tradita.This is established from the definition of order handed down by the Master, here in chapter 2.
- Cfr. 1. Sent. d. 20. a. 2. q. 1.Cf. 1 Sent. d. 20, a. 2, q. 1.
- Hic c. 5.Here, chapter 5.
- Vat. participatur ratio ordinis. — Vide Dionys., de Caelest. Hierarch. c. 10, ubi docet, quod propter proportionalitatem etiam in quolibet ordine sint primi, medii et infimi.The Vatican edition [reads] participatur ratio ordinis (the account of order is participated). — See Dionysius, On the Celestial Hierarchy c. 10, where he teaches that, on account of proportionality, even in any order there are first, middle, and lowest.
- Aristot., I. Metaph. c. 2. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 685, nota 1.Aristotle, Metaphysics book I, c. 2. Cf. tome I, page 685, note 1.
- In cod. Q additur scilicet divina. Idem recurrit aliquanto inferius.In codex Q is added scilicet divina (namely the divine [hierarchy]). The same recurs somewhat further below.
- Cap. 30. n. 55. Cfr. hic nota 2.[On True Religion,] c. 30, n. 55. Cf. here note 2.
- Eccli. 44, 20: Non est inventus similis illi in gloria, qui conservavit etc. Cfr. Breviarium, offic. Conf. Pontif.Ecclesiasticus 44:20: There was not found one like to him in glory, who kept etc. Cf. the Breviary, the office of a Confessor [who is a] Bishop.
- Cfr. hic lit. Magistri c. 2.Cf. here the text of the Master, chapter 2.
- Cod. aa subiungit in Deum.Codex aa subjoins in Deum (to God).
- Nonnulli codd. gratum facientibus; Vat. gratiarum.Several codices [read] gratum facientibus (sanctifying [gifts]); the Vatican edition [reads] gratiarum (of graces).
- Libr. VI. de Trin. c. 10. n. 11.[Augustine,] On the Trinity book VI, c. 10, n. 11. ---