Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 9
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 9
Quaestio IX. Utrum aliis substantiis quam Angelis competat per ordines distingui.
Nono et ultimo quaeritur de ordinibus Angelorum in comparatione ad suum disparatum; et est quaestio, utrum aliis substantiis rationalibus quam Angelis competat per ordines distingui. Et quod sic, videtur.
1. Sicut enim in Angelis est praecellentia naturalium et gratuitorum, ita etiam in animabus rationalibus: ergo si penes hoc attenditur ordo in Angelis1, pari ratione in animabus exutis.
2. Item, sicut divina bonitas et sapientia manifestatur in conditione Angelorum, ita etiam in conditione spirituum humanorum: ergo sicut facit Angelos in diversis ordinibus, ita videtur, quod faciat homines.
3. Item, ad reparationem ruinae angelicae in diversis ordinibus, homines assumuntur: ergo eisdem gradibus et eisdem ordinibus ordinabuntur in gloria, quibus ordinabuntur et Angeli: ergo videtur, quod non solum Angelis, sed etiam hominibus competat.
4. Item, ordo est nunc in ecclesiastica hierarchia, et ordines varii, cum tamen ipsa ecclesiastica hierarchia ex puris hominibus constet: ergo videtur, quod homines nati sint ordinari.
Ad oppositum arguitur sic. 1. Si ita competit ordo hominibus, sicut competit Angelis, ergo sicut Angelorum beatorum novem ordines assignantur, ita videtur, quod hominum: ergo saltem erunt decem et octo, quod tamen non ponitur2.
2. Item, omnes homines ex uno homine processerunt: ergo videtur, quod quantum est de natura sua, sint pares: ergo non videtur, quod hominibus competat ordo per naturam. Quodsi tu dicas, quod competit eis per gratiam; — cum3 gratia praesupponat naturam, ergo et ordo gratiae ordinem naturae: ergo si non est ordo naturae, nec gratiae.
3. Item, ordines Angelorum distinguuntur penes vim contemplativam et vim ministrativam; sed in animabus exutis non est ponere vim administrativam: ergo nec ordinum distinctionem.
4. Item, si ponatur ordo in gloria, debet poni ordo correspondens ordinibus repertis in via: ergo cum in clero sint multi ordines, in religiosis etiam sint multae ordinum distinctiones, in Sanctis etiam multi ordines, ut ordo Patriarcharum, Prophetarum, Apostolorum etc., videtur, quod multo plures essent ordines hominum quam Angelorum.
Conclusio
Distinctio ordinum in solis Angelis est proprie et perfecte; in hominibus vero in praesenti est tantum imperfecte et incerte, in futuro est quidem stabiliter, sed non undique.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod cum ad perfectam rationem ordinis concurrant praecellentia naturalium et gratuitorum sibi correspondentium, in eis solum proprie et perfecte est ponere ordinum distinctionem, in quibus est haec duo simul concurrentia reperire. Quoniam ergo in Angelis gratia correspondet naturae, et creati sunt in naturalium praecellentia et beatificati in differenti donorum praerogativa; hinc est, quod proprie est in eis et ordo et hierarchia; maxime cum illa praerogativa ita habeat stabilem permanentiam et distinctionem, quod nullam admittat confusionem. — In hominibus vero, etsi sit reperire praecellentiam in naturalibus et etiam in gratuitis, tamen haec duo ut plurimum sibi non correspondent, quia ubi melior est natura frequenter minor est gratia, et qui hodie minor est in merito cras fortassis erit maior4. Ideo in hominibus secundum statum praesentem non est proprie ordinum distinctio secundum gratuita, licet aliquo modo secundum auctoritates et officia et status professionum ordinetur Ecclesia. Dicendum est igitur, quod proprie et perfecte in solis Angelis ponenda est distinctio ordinum; in hominibus vero, etsi aliquo modo reperiatur, in praesenti reperitur imperfecte et incerte, in futuro vero, quamvis reperiatur stabiliter, non tamen reperitur undique, ut sic oporteat, eos qui praecellunt in gratia, praecellere in natura.
Ex his patet responsio ad rationes ad utramque partem. Rationes autem probantes, quod non competit ordo Angelis solum, loquuntur de ordine secundum qualemcumque completionem, sive perfectam, sive semiplenam. Rationes vero ad oppositum ostendentes, quod in hominibus non sit ordo, procedunt alia via. Non enim concludunt, quod nullus sit ibi ordo, sed quod ipsa humana natura non habeat tantam ordinum distinctionem, quantam habet angelica, quia hoc habet solummodo per quandam conformationem ad illam.
2. Illa tamen ratio non concludit: non est ibi ordo per naturam, ergo non per gratiam. Cum enim non oporteat, gratiam adaequari naturae, non oportet, ordinem gratiae praesupponere ordinem in natura, quamvis gratia praesupponat naturam, sicut5 accidens praesupponit subiectum. Et quia gratia nostra conformis est gratiae Angelorum, quamvis natura nostra non sit eiusdem speciei cum eorum natura; ideo, si qua in nobis erit ordinum distinctio, attendetur per conformitatem ad ordines angelicos. Ideo non oportebit, plures et novos ordines ex hominibus esse, nisi fortassis decimum, qui ad perfectionem Angelorum non poterit pervenire. — Hoc tamen quod nunc dictum est, dubium est, et Magister non videtur acceptare, quamvis, sicut supra6 dictum fuit, videatur satis probabile.
3. Nec illa ratio cogit de vi ministrativa, quia in distinctione ordinum magis consideratur status gratiae quam operatio alicuius potentiae.
Ex his manifesta sunt ea quae tanguntur in littera7.
Hoc solum sufficiat ad praesens exponere de nomine Seraphim. Aliquando enim in Scriptura legitur Seraphin per n, et tunc est pluralis numeri et neutri generis et significat coetum Angelorum illius ordinis. Aliquando vero scribitur per m; tunc est pluralis numeri et masculini generis et significat Angelos in illo ordine contentos. Aliquando legitur Seraph, et tunc est singularis numeri et masculini generis et significat Angelum illius ordinis. Unde versus:
Haec Seraphin dicas, hi Seraphim, Seraph dicas illum.
Vel aliter:
Dic Cherubim sanctos, Cherubin sacra, sit Cherub almus8.
---
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 Angels1, 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 posited2.
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; — since3 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 greater4. 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 as5 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 above6, 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 text7 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] be8.
---
- Hic c. 5. — De Dionys. vide supra pag. 255, nota 6.Here, chapter 5. — Concerning Dionysius see above, page 255, note 6.
- Ita cod. cc et ed. 1; Vat. et alii codd. non bene ex.Thus codex cc and edition 1; the Vatican edition and the other codices [read] ex, not well.
- Vat. Contra, et dein praesupponit, quod etiam plures codd. incongrue habent, licet habeant cum.The Vatican edition [reads] Contra (On the contrary), and then praesupponit (presupposes), which several codices also incongruously have, although they have cum (since).
- In Vat. additur in praemio.In the Vatican edition is added in praemio (in reward).
- Plurimi codd. cum edd. 1, 2, 3 tanquam, incongrue. Paulo inferius post quamvis natura in multis mss. et edd. 1, 2 desideratur nostra.Very many codices, together with editions 1, 2, 3, [read] tanquam (as though), incongruously. A little further below, after quamvis natura (although [our] nature), in many manuscripts and in editions 1, 2 the word nostra (our) is wanting.
- Hic q. 7. — Sententiam Magistri vide hic in lit. c. 6.Here, question 7. — For the opinion of the Master, see here in the text, chapter 6.
- Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion to the preceding question.
- Ea quae sequuntur desunt in edd. 3, 4 et in Vat. In hac obsoleta nominum interpretatione convenit etiam B. Albert., hic a. 5. ad ult. Ipsa sumta est ex Glossa ordinaria, quam vide apud Walafridum Strabum et Lyranum super Isai. 6, 6, et tribuitur Hieronymo, qui tamen (loc. cit.) tantum dicit: «Seraphim autem plurali numero appellantur, et singulari Seraph, sicut Cherubim et Cherub». Beda autem 1. de Tabernac. c. 5. ait: Et quidem numero singulari Cherub, plurali autem Cherubim dicitur, et est nomen generis masculini; sed graeca consuetudo neutro genere posuit Cherubim, m littera in n mutata.The things which follow are wanting in editions 3, 4 and in the Vatican edition. In this obsolete interpretation of the names the Blessed Albert also agrees, here a. 5, at the last [reply]. It is itself taken from the Glossa ordinaria, which see in Walafrid Strabo and in Lyra on Isaiah 6:6, and it is attributed to Jerome, who nevertheless (in the place cited) only says: «But Seraphim are called [so] in the plural number, and in the singular Seraph, just as Cherubim and Cherub». And Bede, in book 1 On the Tabernacle, c. 5, says: And indeed in the singular number it is said Cherub, but in the plural Cherubim, and it is a name of masculine gender; but Greek usage put Cherubim in the neuter gender, the letter m being changed into n. ---