For all the
heavenly
spirits are called angels and
heavenly virtues.
heavenly virtues.
Summa Theologica
On the contrary, It is written (Zech. 1:12): "The angel of the Lord
answered and said: O Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou not have mercy
on Jerusalem. " Therefore an angel speaks to God.
I answer that, As was said above ([864]AA[1],2), the angel speaks by
ordering his mental concept to something else. Now one thing is ordered
to another in a twofold manner. In one way for the purpose of giving
one thing to another, as in natural things the agent is ordered to the
patient, and in human speech the teacher is ordered to the learner; and
in this sense an angel in no way speaks to God either of what concerns
the truth, or of whatever depends on the created will; because God is
the principle and source of all truth and of all will. In another way
one thing is ordered to another to receive something, as in natural
things the passive is ordered to the agent, and in human speech the
disciple to the master; and in this way an angel speaks to God, either
by consulting the Divine will of what ought to be done, or by admiring
the Divine excellence which he can never comprehend; thus Gregory says
(Moral. ii) that "the angels speak to God, when by contemplating what
is above themselves they rise to emotions of admiration. "
Reply to Objection 1: Speech is not always for the purpose of making
something known to another; but is sometimes finally ordered to the
purpose of manifesting something to the speaker himself; as when the
disciples ask instruction from the master.
Reply to Objection 2: The angels are ever speaking to God in the sense
of praising and admiring Him and His works; but they speak to Him by
consulting Him about what ought to be done whenever they have to
perform any new work, concerning which they desire enlightenment.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether local distance influences the angelic speech?
Objection 1: It would seem that local distance affects the angelic
speech. For as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 13): "An angel works
where he is. " But speech is an angelic operation. Therefore, as an
angel is in a determinate place, it seems that an angel's speech is
limited by the bounds of that place.
Objection 2: Further, a speaker cries out on account of the distance of
the hearer. But it is said of the Seraphim that "they cried one to
another" (Is. 6:3). Therefore in the angelic speech local distance has
some effect.
On the contrary, It is said that the rich man in hell spoke to Abraham,
notwithstanding the local distance (Lk. 16:24). Much less therefore
does local distance impede the speech of one angel to another.
I answer that, The angelic speech consists in an intellectual
operation, as explained above ([865]AA[1],2,3). And the intellectual
operation of an angel abstracts from the "here and now. " For even our
own intellectual operation takes place by abstraction from the "here
and now," except accidentally on the part of the phantasms, which do
not exist at all in an angel. But as regards whatever is abstracted
from "here and now," neither difference of time nor local distance has
any influence whatever. Hence in the angelic speech local distance is
no impediment.
Reply to Objection 1: The angelic speech, as above explained (A[1], ad
2), is interior; perceived, nevertheless, by another; and therefore it
exists in the angel who speaks, and consequently where the angel is who
speaks. But as local distance does not prevent one angel seeing
another, so neither does it prevent an angel perceiving what is ordered
to him on the part of another; and this is to perceive his speech.
Reply to Objection 2: The cry mentioned is not a bodily voice raised by
reason of the local distance; but is taken to signify the magnitude of
what is said, or the intensity of the affection, according to what
Gregory says (Moral. ii): "The less one desires, the less one cries
out. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether all the angels know what one speaks to another?
Objection 1: It would seem that all the angels know what one speaks to
another. For unequal local distance is the reason why all men do not
know what one man says to another. But in the angelic speech local
distance has no effect, as above explained [866](A[4]). Therefore all
the angels know what one speaks to another.
Objection 2: Further, all the angels have the intellectual power in
common. So if the mental concept of one ordered to another is known by
one, it is for the same reason known by all.
Objection 3: Further, enlightenment is a kind of speech. But the
enlightenment of one angel by another extends to all the angels,
because, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. xv): "Each one of the heavenly
beings communicates what he learns to the others. " Therefore the speech
of one angel to another extends to all.
On the contrary, One man can speak to another alone; much more can this
be the case among the angels.
I answer that, As above explained ([867]AA[1],2), the mental concept of
one angel can be perceived by another when the angel who possesses the
concept refers it by his will to another. Now a thing can be ordered
through some cause to one thing and not to another; consequently the
concept of one (angel) may be known by one and not by another; and
therefore an angel can perceive the speech of one angel to another;
whereas others do not, not through the obstacle of local distance, but
on account of the will so ordering, as explained above.
From this appear the replies to the first and second objections.
Reply to Objection 3: Enlightenment is of those truths that emanate
from the first rule of truth, which is the principle common to all the
angels; and in that way all enlightenments are common to all. But
speech may be of something ordered to the principle of the created
will, which is proper to each angel; and in this way it is not
necessary that these speeches should be common to all.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE ANGELIC DEGREES OF HIERARCHIES AND ORDERS (EIGHT ARTICLES)
We next consider the degrees of the angels in their hierarchies and
orders; for it was said above ([868]Q[106], A[3]), that the superior
angels enlighten the inferior angels; and not conversely.
Under this head there are eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether all the angels belong to one hierarchy?
(2) Whether in one hierarchy there is only one order?
(3) Whether in one order there are many angels?
(4) Whether the distinction of hierarchies and orders is natural?
(5) Of the names and properties of each order.
(6) Of the comparison of the orders to one another.
(7) Whether the orders will outlast the Day of Judgment?
(8) Whether men are taken up into the angelic orders?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether all the angels are of one hierarchy?
Objection 1: It would seem that all the angels belong to one hierarchy.
For since the angels are supreme among creatures, it is evident that
they are ordered for the best. But the best ordering of a multitude is
for it to be governed by one authority, as the Philosopher shows
(Metaph. xii, Did. xi, 10; Polit. iii, 4). Therefore as a hierarchy is
nothing but a sacred principality, it seems that all the angels belong
to one hierarchy.
Objection 2: Further, Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iii) that "hierarchy
is order, knowledge, and action. " But all the angels agree in one order
towards God, Whom they know, and by Whom in their actions they are
ruled. Therefore all the angels belong to one hierarchy.
Objection 3: Further, the sacred principality called hierarchy is to be
found among men and angels. But all men are of one hierarchy. Therefore
likewise all the angels are of one hierarchy.
On the contrary, Dionysius (Coel. Hier. vi) distinguishes three
hierarchies of angels.
I answer that, Hierarchy means a "sacred" principality, as above
explained. Now principality includes two things: the prince himself and
the multitude ordered under the prince. Therefore because there is one
God, the Prince not only of all the angels but also of men and all
creatures; so there is one hierarchy, not only of all the angels, but
also of all rational creatures, who can be participators of sacred
things; according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei xii, 1): "There are two
cities, that is, two societies, one of the good angels and men, the
other of the wicked. " But if we consider the principality on the part
of the multitude ordered under the prince, then principality is said to
be "one" accordingly as the multitude can be subject in "one" way to
the government of the prince. And those that cannot be governed in the
same way by a prince belong to different principalities: thus, under
one king there are different cities, which are governed by different
laws and administrators. Now it is evident that men do not receive the
Divine enlightenments in the same way as do the angels; for the angels
receive them in their intelligible purity, whereas men receive them
under sensible signs, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i). Therefore
there must needs be a distinction between the human and the angelic
hierarchy. In the same manner we distinguish three angelic hierarchies.
For it was shown above ([869]Q[55], A[3]), in treating of the angelic
knowledge, that the superior angels have a more universal knowledge of
the truth than the inferior angels. This universal knowledge has three
grades among the angels. For the types of things, concerning which the
angels are enlightened, can be considered in a threefold manner. First
as preceding from God as the first universal principle, which mode of
knowledge belongs to the first hierarchy, connected immediately with
God, and, "as it were, placed in the vestibule of God," as Dionysius
says (Coel. Hier. vii). Secondly, forasmuch as these types depend on
the universal created causes which in some way are already multiplied;
which mode belongs to the second hierarchy. Thirdly, forasmuch as these
types are applied to particular things as depending on their causes;
which mode belongs to the lowest hierarchy. All this will appear more
clearly when we treat of each of the orders [870](A[6]). In this way
are the hierarchies distinguished on the part of the multitude of
subjects.
Hence it is clear that those err and speak against the opinion of
Dionysius who place a hierarchy in the Divine Persons, and call it the
"supercelestial" hierarchy. For in the Divine Persons there exists,
indeed, a natural order, but there is no hierarchical order, for as
Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iii): "The hierarchical order is so
directed that some be cleansed, enlightened, and perfected; and that
others cleanse, enlighten, and perfect"; which far be it from us to
apply to the Divine Persons.
Reply to Objection 1: This objection considers principality on the part
of the ruler, inasmuch as a multitude is best ruled by one ruler, as
the Philosopher asserts in those passages.
Reply to Objection 2: As regards knowing God Himself, Whom all see in
one way---that is, in His essence---there is no hierarchical
distinction among the angels; but there is such a distinction as
regards the types of created things, as above explained.
Reply to Objection 3: All men are of one species, and have one
connatural mode of understanding; which is not the case in the angels:
and hence the same argument does not apply to both.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there are several orders in one hierarchy?
Objection 1: It would seem that in the one hierarchy there are not
several orders. For when a definition is multiplied, the thing defined
is also multiplied. But hierarchy is order, as Dionysius says (Coel.
Hier. iii). Therefore, if there are many orders, there is not one
hierarchy only, but many.
Objection 2: Further, different orders are different grades, and grades
among spirits are constituted by different spiritual gifts. But among
the angels all the spiritual gifts are common to all, for "nothing is
possessed individually" (Sent. ii, D, ix). Therefore there are not
different orders of angels.
Objection 3: Further, in the ecclesiastical hierarchy the orders are
distinguished according to the actions of "cleansing," "enlightening,"
and "perfecting. " For the order of deacons is "cleansing," the order of
priests, is "enlightening," and of bishops "perfecting," as Dionysius
says (Eccl. Hier. v). But each of the angels cleanses, enlightens, and
perfects. Therefore there is no distinction of orders among the angels.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Eph. 1:20,21) that "God has set the
Man Christ above all principality and power, and virtue, and dominion":
which are the various orders of the angels, and some of them belong to
one hierarchy, as will be explained [871](A[6]).
I answer that, As explained above, one hierarchy is one
principality---that is, one multitude ordered in one way under the rule
of a prince. Now such a multitude would not be ordered, but confused,
if there were not in it different orders. So the nature of a hierarchy
requires diversity of orders.
This diversity of order arises from the diversity of offices and
actions, as appears in one city where there are different orders
according to the different actions; for there is one order of those who
judge, and another of those who fight, and another of those who labor
in the fields, and so forth.
But although one city thus comprises several orders, all may be reduced
to three, when we consider that every multitude has a beginning, a
middle, and an end. So in every city, a threefold order of men is to be
seen, some of whom are supreme, as the nobles; others are the last, as
the common people, while others hold a place between these, as the
middle-class [populus honorabilis]. In the same way we find in each
angelic hierarchy the orders distinguished according to their actions
and offices, and all this diversity is reduced to three---namely, to
the summit, the middle, and the base; and so in every hierarchy
Dionysius places three orders (Coel. Hier. vi).
Reply to Objection 1: Order is twofold. In one way it is taken as the
order comprehending in itself different grades; and in that way a
hierarchy is called an order. In another way one grade is called an
order; and in that sense the several orders of one hierarchy are so
called.
Reply to Objection 2: All things are possessed in common by the angelic
society, some things, however, being held more excellently by some than
by others. Each gift is more perfectly possessed by the one who can
communicate it, than by the one who cannot communicate it; as the hot
thing which can communicate heat is more perfect that what is unable to
give heat. And the more perfectly anyone can communicate a gift, the
higher grade he occupies, as he is in the more perfect grade of
mastership who can teach a higher science. By this similitude we can
reckon the diversity of grades or orders among the angels, according to
their different offices and actions.
Reply to Objection 3: The inferior angel is superior to the highest man
of our hierarchy, according to the words, "He that is the lesser in the
kingdom of heaven, is greater than he"---namely, John the Baptist, than
whom "there hath not risen a greater among them that are born of women"
(Mat. 11:11). Hence the lesser angel of the heavenly hierarchy can not
only cleanse, but also enlighten and perfect, and in a higher way than
can the orders of our hierarchy. Thus the heavenly orders are not
distinguished by reason of these, but by reason of other different
acts.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there are many angels in one order?
Objection 1: It seems that there are not many angels in one order. For
it was shown above ([872]Q[50], A[4]), that all the angels are unequal.
But equals belong to one order. Therefore there are not many angels in
one order.
Objection 2: Further, it is superfluous for a thing to be done by many,
which can be done sufficiently by one. But that which belongs to one
angelic office can be done sufficiently by one angel; so much more
sufficiently than the one sun does what belongs to the office of the
sun, as the angel is more perfect than a heavenly body. If, therefore,
the orders are distinguished by their offices, as stated above
[873](A[2]), several angels in one order would be superfluous.
Objection 3: Further, it was said above (OBJ 1) that all the angels are
unequal. Therefore, if several angels (for instance, three or four),
are of one order, the lowest one of the superior order will be more
akin to the highest of the inferior order than with the highest of his
own order; and thus he does not seem to be more of one order with the
latter than with the former. Therefore there are not many angels of one
order.
On the contrary, It is written: "The Seraphim cried to one another"
(Is. 6:3). Therefore there are many angels in the one order of the
Seraphim.
I answer that, Whoever knows anything perfectly, is able to distinguish
its acts, powers, and nature, down to the minutest details, whereas he
who knows a thing in an imperfect manner can only distinguish it in a
general way, and only as regards a few points. Thus, one who knows
natural things imperfectly, can distinguish their orders in a general
way, placing the heavenly bodies in one order, inanimate inferior
bodies in another, plants in another, and animals in another; whilst he
who knows natural things perfectly, is able to distinguish different
orders in the heavenly bodies themselves, and in each of the other
orders.
Now our knowledge of the angels is imperfect, as Dionysius says (Coel.
Hier. vi). Hence we can only distinguish the angelic offices and orders
in a general way, so as to place many angels in one order. But if we
knew the offices and distinctions of the angels perfectly, we should
know perfectly that each angel has his own office and his own order
among things, and much more so than any star, though this be hidden
from us.
Reply to Objection 1: All the angels of one order are in some way equal
in a common similitude, whereby they are placed in that order; but
absolutely speaking they are not equal. Hence Dionysius says (Coel.
Hier. x) that in one and the same order of angels there are those who
are first, middle, and last.
Reply to Objection 2: That special distinction of orders and offices
wherein each angel has his own office and order, is hidden from us.
Reply to Objection 3: As in a surface which is partly white and partly
black, the two parts on the borders of white and black are more akin as
regards their position than any other two white parts, but are less
akin in quality; so two angels who are on the boundary of two orders
are more akin in propinquity of nature than one of them is akin to the
others of its own order, but less akin in their fitness for similar
offices, which fitness, indeed, extends to a definite limit.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the distinction of hierarchies and orders comes from the angelic
nature?
Objection 1: It would seem that the distinction of hierarchies and of
orders is not from the nature of the angels. For hierarchy is "a sacred
principality," and Dionysius places in its definition that it
"approaches a resemblance to God, as far as may be" (Coel. Hier. iii).
But sanctity and resemblance to God is in the angels by grace, and not
by nature. Therefore the distinction of hierarchies and orders in the
angels is by grace, and not by nature.
Objection 2: Further, the Seraphim are called "burning" or "kindling,"
as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii). This belongs to charity which
comes not from nature but from grace; for "it is poured forth in our
hearts by the Holy Ghost Who is given to us" (Rom. 5:5): "which is said
not only of holy men, but also of the holy angels," as Augustine says
(De Civ. Dei xii). Therefore the angelic orders are not from nature,
but from grace.
Objection 3: Further, the ecclesiastical hierarchy is copied from the
heavenly. But the orders among men are not from nature, but by the gift
of grace; for it is not a natural gift for one to be a bishop, and
another a priest, and another a deacon. Therefore neither in the angels
are the orders from nature, but from grace only.
On the contrary, The Master says (ii, D. 9) that "an angelic order is a
multitude of heavenly spirits, who are likened to each other by some
gift of grace, just as they agree also in the participation of natural
gifts. " Therefore the distinction of orders among the angels is not
only by gifts of grace, but also by gifts of nature.
I answer that, The order of government, which is the order of a
multitude under authority, is derived from its end. Now the end of the
angels may be considered in two ways. First, according to the faculty
of nature, so that they may know and love God by natural knowledge and
love; and according to their relation to this end the orders of the
angels are distinguished by natural gifts. Secondly, the end of the
angelic multitude can be taken from what is above their natural powers,
which consists in the vision of the Divine Essence, and in the
unchangeable fruition of His goodness; to which end they can reach only
by grace; and hence as regards this end, the orders in the angels are
adequately distinguished by the gifts of grace, but dispositively by
natural gifts, forasmuch as to the angels are given gratuitous gifts
according to the capacity of their natural gifts; which is not the case
with men, as above explained ([874]Q[62], A[6]). Hence among men the
orders are distinguished according to the gratuitous gifts only, and
not according to natural gifts.
From the above the replies to the objections are evident.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the orders of the angels are properly named?
Objection 1: It would seem that the orders of the angels are not
properly named.
For all the heavenly spirits are called angels and
heavenly virtues. But common names should not be appropriated to
individuals. Therefore the orders of the angels and virtues are ineptly
named.
Objection 2: Further, it belongs to God alone to be Lord, according to
the words, "Know ye that the Lord He is God" (Ps. 99:3). Therefore one
order of the heavenly spirits is not properly called "Dominations. "
Objection 3: Further, the name "Domination" seems to imply government
and likewise the names "Principalities" and "Powers. " Therefore these
three names do not seem to be properly applied to three orders.
Objection 4: Further, archangels are as it were angel princes.
Therefore this name ought not to be given to any other order than to
the "Principalities. "
Objection 5: Further, the name "Seraphim" is derived from ardor, which
pertains to charity; and the name "Cherubim" from knowledge. But
charity and knowledge are gifts common to all the angels. Therefore
they ought not to be names of any particular orders.
Objection 6: Further, Thrones are seats. But from the fact that God
knows and loves the rational creature He is said to sit within it.
Therefore there ought not to be any order of "Thrones" besides the
"Cherubim" and "Seraphim. " Therefore it appears that the orders of
angels are not properly styled.
On the contrary is the authority of Holy Scripture wherein they are so
named. For the name "Seraphim" is found in Is. 6:2; the name "Cherubim"
in Ezech. 1 (Cf. 10:15,20); "Thrones" in Col. 1:16; "Dominations,"
"Virtues," "Powers," and "Principalities" are mentioned in Eph. 1:21;
the name "Archangels" in the canonical epistle of St. Jude (9), and the
name "Angels" is found in many places of Scripture.
I answer that, As Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii), in the names of the
angelic orders it is necessary to observe that the proper name of each
order expresses its property. Now to see what is the property of each
order, we must consider that in coordinated things, something may be
found in a threefold manner: by way of property, by way of excess, and
by way of participation. A thing is said to be in another by way of
property, if it is adequate and proportionate to its nature: by excess
when an attribute is less than that to which it is attributed, but is
possessed thereby in an eminent manner, as we have stated ([875]Q[13],
A[2]) concerning all the names which are attributed to God: by
participation, when an attribute is possessed by something not fully
but partially; thus holy men are called gods by participation.
Therefore, if anything is to be called by a name designating its
property, it ought not to be named from what it participates
imperfectly, nor from that which it possesses in excess, but from that
which is adequate thereto; as, for instance, when we wish properly to
name a man, we should call him a "rational substance," but not an
"intellectual substance," which latter is the proper name of an angel;
because simple intelligence belongs to an angel as a property, and to
man by participation; nor do we call him a "sensible substance," which
is the proper name of a brute; because sense is less than the property
of a man, and belongs to man in a more excellent way than to other
animals.
So we must consider that in the angelic orders all spiritual
perfections are common to all the angels, and that they are all more
excellently in the superior than in the inferior angels. Further, as in
these perfections there are grades, the superior perfection belongs to
the superior order as its property, whereas it belongs to the inferior
by participation; and conversely the inferior perfection belongs to the
inferior order as its property, and to the superior by way of excess;
and thus the superior order is denominated from the superior
perfection.
So in this way Dionysius (Coel. Hier. vii) explains the names of the
orders accordingly as they befit the spiritual perfections they
signify. Gregory, on the other hand, in expounding these names (Hom.
xxxiv in Evang. ) seems to regard more the exterior ministrations; for
he says that "angels are so called as announcing the least things; and
the archangels in the greatest; by the virtues miracles are wrought; by
the powers hostile powers are repulsed; and the principalities preside
over the good spirits themselves. "
Reply to Objection 1: Angel means "messenger. " So all the heavenly
spirits, so far as they make known Divine things, are called "angels. "
But the superior angels enjoy a certain excellence, as regards this
manifestation, from which the superior orders are denominated. The
lowest order of angels possess no excellence above the common
manifestation; and therefore it is denominated from manifestation only;
and thus the common name remains as it were proper to the lowest order,
as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. v). Or we may say that the lowest order
can be specially called the order of "angels," forasmuch as they
announce things to us immediately.
"Virtue" can be taken in two ways. First, commonly, considered as the
medium between the essence and the operation, and in that sense all the
heavenly spirits are called heavenly virtues, as also "heavenly
essences. " Secondly, as meaning a certain excellence of strength; and
thus it is the proper name of an angelic order. Hence Dionysius says
(Coel. Hier. viii) that the "name 'virtues' signifies a certain virile
and immovable strength"; first, in regard of those Divine operations
which befit them; secondly, in regard to receiving Divine gifts. Thus
it signifies that they undertake fearlessly the Divine behests
appointed to them; and this seems to imply strength of mind.
Reply to Objection 2: As Dionysius says (Div. Nom. xii): "Dominion is
attributed to God in a special manner, by way of excess: but the Divine
word gives the more illustrious heavenly princes the name of Lord by
participation, through whom the inferior angels receive the Divine
gifts. " Hence Dionysius also states (Coel. Hier. viii) that the name
"Domination" means first "a certain liberty, free from servile
condition and common subjection, such as that of plebeians, and from
tyrannical oppression," endured sometimes even by the great. Secondly,
it signifies "a certain rigid and inflexible supremacy which does not
bend to any servile act, or to the act, of those who are subject to or
oppressed by tyrants. " Thirdly, it signifies "the desire and
participation of the true dominion which belongs to God. " Likewise the
name of each order signifies the participation of what belongs to God;
as the name "Virtues" signifies the participation of the Divine virtue;
and the same principle applies to the rest.
Reply to Objection 3: The names "Domination," "Power," and
"Principality" belong to government in different ways. The place of a
lord is only to prescribe what is to be done. So Gregory says (Hom.
xxiv in Evang. ), that "some companies of the angels, because others are
subject to obedience to them, are called dominations. " The name "Power"
points out a kind of order, according to what the Apostle says, "He
that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordination of God" (Rom. 13:2).
And so Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. viii) that the name "Power"
signifies a kind of ordination both as regards the reception of Divine
things, and as regards the Divine actions performed by superiors
towards inferiors by leading them to things above. Therefore, to the
order of "Powers" it belongs to regulate what is to be done by those
who are subject to them. To preside [principari] as Gregory says (Hom.
xxiv in Ev. ) is "to be first among others," as being first in carrying
out what is ordered to be done. And so Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. ix)
that the name of "Principalities" signifies "one who leads in a sacred
order. " For those who lead others, being first among them, are properly
called "princes," according to the words, "Princes went before joined
with singers" (Ps. 67:26).
Reply to Objection 4: The "Archangels," according to Dionysius (Coel.
Hier. ix), are between the "Principalities" and the "Angels. " A medium
compared to one extreme seems like the other, as participating in the
nature of both extremes; thus tepid seems cold compared to hot, and hot
compared to cold. So the "Archangels" are called the "angel princes";
forasmuch as they are princes as regards the "Angels," and angels as
regards the Principalities. But according to Gregory (Hom. xxiv in Ev. )
they are called "Archangels," because they preside over the one order
of the "Angels"; as it were, announcing greater things: and the
"Principalities" are so called as presiding over all the heavenly
"Virtues" who fulfil the Divine commands.
Reply to Objection 5: The name "Seraphim" does not come from charity
only, but from the excess of charity, expressed by the word ardor or
fire. Hence Dionysius (Coel. Hier. vii) expounds the name "Seraphim"
according to the properties of fire, containing an excess of heat. Now
in fire we may consider three things. First, the movement which is
upwards and continuous. This signifies that they are borne inflexibly
towards God. Secondly, the active force which is "heat," which is not
found in fire simply, but exists with a certain sharpness, as being of
most penetrating action, and reaching even to the smallest things, and
as it were, with superabundant fervor; whereby is signified the action
of these angels, exercised powerfully upon those who are subject to
them, rousing them to a like fervor, and cleansing them wholly by their
heat. Thirdly we consider in fire the quality of clarity, or
brightness; which signifies that these angels have in themselves an
inextinguishable light, and that they also perfectly enlighten others.
In the same way the name "Cherubim" comes from a certain excess of
knowledge; hence it is interpreted "fulness of knowledge," which
Dionysius (Coel. Hier. vii) expounds in regard to four things: the
perfect vision of God; the full reception of the Divine Light; their
contemplation in God of the beauty of the Divine order; and in regard
to the fact that possessing this knowledge fully, they pour it forth
copiously upon others.
Reply to Objection 6: The order of the "Thrones" excels the inferior
orders as having an immediate knowledge of the types of the Divine
works; whereas the "Cherubim" have the excellence of knowledge and the
"Seraphim" the excellence of ardor. And although these two excellent
attributes include the third, yet the gift belonging to the "Thrones"
does not include the other two; and so the order of the "Thrones" is
distinguished from the orders of the "Cherubim" and the "Seraphim. " For
it is a common rule in all things that the excellence of the inferior
is contained in the superior, but not conversely. But Dionysius (Coel.
Hier. vii) explains the name "Thrones" by its relation to material
seats, in which we may consider four things. First, the site; because
seats are raised above the earth, and to the angels who are called
"Thrones" are raised up to the immediate knowledge of the types of
things in God. Secondly, because in material seats is displayed
strength, forasmuch as a person sits firmly on them. But here the
reverse is the case; for the angels themselves are made firm by God.
Thirdly, because the seat receives him who sits thereon, and he can be
carried thereupon; and so the angels receive God in themselves, and in
a certain way bear Him to the inferior creatures. Fourthly, because in
its shape, a seat is open on one side to receive the sitter; and thus
are the angels promptly open to receive God and to serve Him.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the grades of the orders are properly assigned?
Objection 1: It would seem that the grades of the orders are not
properly assigned. For the order of prelates is the highest. But the
names of "Dominations," "Principalities," and "Powers" of themselves
imply prelacy. Therefore these orders ought not to be supreme.
Objection 2: Further, the nearer an order is to God, the higher it is.
But the order of "Thrones" is the nearest to God; for nothing is nearer
to the sitter than the seat. Therefore the order of the "Thrones" is
the highest.
Objection 3: Further, knowledge comes before love, and intellect is
higher than will. Therefore the order of "Cherubim" seems to be higher
than the "Seraphim. "
Objection 4: Further, Gregory (Hom. xxiv in Evang. ) places the
"Principalities" above the "Powers. " These therefore are not placed
immediately above the Archangels, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. ix).
On the contrary, Dionysius (Coel. Hier. vii), places in the highest
hierarchy the "Seraphim" as the first, the "Cherubim" as the middle,
the "Thrones" as the last; in the middle hierarchy he places the
"Dominations," as the first, the "Virtues" in the middle, the "Powers"
last; in the lowest hierarchy the "Principalities" first, then the
"Archangels," and lastly the "Angels. "
I answer that, The grades of the angelic orders are assigned by Gregory
(Hom. xxiv in Ev. ) and Dionysius (Coel. Hier. vii), who agree as
regards all except the "Principalities" and "Virtues. " For Dionysius
places the "Virtues" beneath the "Dominations," and above the "Powers";
the "Principalities" beneath the "Powers" and above the "Archangels. "
Gregory, however, places the "Principalities" between the "Dominations"
and the "Powers"; and the "Virtues" between the "Powers" and the
"Archangels. " Each of these placings may claim authority from the words
of the Apostle, who (Eph. 1:20,21) enumerates the middle orders,
beginning from the lowest saying that "God set Him," i. e. Christ, "on
His right hand in the heavenly places above all Principality and Power,
and Virtue, and Dominion. " Here he places "Virtues" between "Powers"
and "Dominations," according to the placing of Dionysius. Writing
however to the Colossians (1:16), numbering the same orders from the
highest, he says: "Whether Thrones, or Dominations, or Principalities,
or Powers, all things were created by Him and in Him. " Here he places
the "Principalities" between "Dominations" and "Powers," as does also
Gregory.
Let us then first examine the reason for the ordering of Dionysius, in
which we see, that, as said above [876](A[1]), the highest hierarchy
contemplates the ideas of things in God Himself; the second in the
universal causes; and third in their application to particular effects.
And because God is the end not only of the angelic ministrations, but
also of the whole creation, it belongs to the first hierarchy to
consider the end; to the middle one belongs the universal disposition
of what is to be done; and to the last belongs the application of this
disposition to the effect, which is the carrying out of the work; for
it is clear that these three things exist in every kind of operation.
So Dionysius, considering the properties of the orders as derived from
their names, places in the first hierarchy those orders the names of
which are taken from their relation to God, the "Seraphim," "Cherubim,"
and "Thrones"; and he places in the middle hierarchy those orders whose
names denote a certain kind of common government or disposition---the
"Dominations," "Virtues," and "Powers"; and he places in the third
hierarchy the orders whose names denote the execution of the work, the
"Principalities," "Angels," and "Archangels. "
As regards the end, three things may be considered. For firstly we
consider the end; then we acquire perfect knowledge of the end;
thirdly, we fix our intention on the end; of which the second is an
addition to the first, and the third an addition to both. And because
God is the end of creatures, as the leader is the end of an army, as
the Philosopher says (Metaph. xii, Did. xi, 10); so a somewhat similar
order may be seen in human affairs. For there are some who enjoy the
dignity of being able with familiarity to approach the king or leader;
others in addition are privileged to know his secrets; and others above
these ever abide with him, in a close union. According to this
similitude, we can understand the disposition in the orders of the
first hierarchy; for the "Thrones" are raised up so as to be the
familiar recipients of God in themselves, in the sense of knowing
immediately the types of things in Himself; and this is proper to the
whole of the first hierarchy. The "Cherubim" know the Divine secrets
supereminently; and the "Seraphim" excel in what is the supreme
excellence of all, in being united to God Himself; and all this in such
a manner that the whole of this hierarchy can be called the "Thrones";
as, from what is common to all the heavenly spirits together, they are
all called "Angels. "
As regards government, three things are comprised therein, the first of
which is to appoint those things which are to be done, and this belongs
to the "Dominations"; the second is to give the power of carrying out
what is to be done, which belongs to the "Virtues"; the third is to
order how what has been commanded or decided to be done can be carried
out by others, which belongs to the "Powers. "
The execution of the angelic ministrations consists in announcing
Divine things. Now in the execution of any action there are beginners
and leaders; as in singing, the precentors; and in war, generals and
officers; this belongs to the "Principalities. " There are others who
simply execute what is to be done; and these are the "Angels. " Others
hold a middle place; and these are the "Archangels," as above
explained.
This explanation of the orders is quite a reasonable one. For the
highest in an inferior order always has affinity to the lowest in the
higher order; as the lowest animals are near to the plants. Now the
first order is that of the Divine Persons, which terminates in the Holy
Ghost, Who is Love proceeding, with Whom the highest order of the first
hierarchy has affinity, denominated as it is from the fire of love. The
lowest order of the first hierarchy is that of the "Thrones," who in
their own order are akin to the "Dominations"; for the "Thrones,"
according to Gregory (Hom. xxiv in Ev. ), are so called "because through
them God accomplishes His judgments," since they are enlightened by Him
in a manner adapted to the immediate enlightening of the second
hierarchy, to which belongs the disposition of the Divine
ministrations. The order of the "Powers" is akin to the order of the
"Principalities"; for as it belongs to the "Powers" to impose order on
those subject to them, this ordering is plainly shown at once in the
name of "Principalities," who, as presiding over the government of
peoples and kingdoms (which occupies the first and principal place in
the Divine ministrations), are the first in the execution thereof; "for
the good of a nation is more divine than the good of one man" (Ethic.
i, 2); and hence it is written, "The prince of the kingdom of the
Persians resisted me" (Dan. 10:13).
The disposition of the orders which is mentioned by Gregory is also
reasonable. For since the "Dominations" appoint and order what belongs
to the Divine ministrations, the orders subject to them are arranged
according to the disposition of those things in which the Divine
ministrations are effected. Still, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii),
"bodies are ruled in a certain order; the inferior by the superior; and
all of them by the spiritual creature, and the bad spirit by the good
spirit. " So the first order after the "Dominations" is called that of
"Principalities," who rule even over good spirits; then the "Powers,"
who coerce the evil spirits; even as evil-doers are coerced by earthly
powers, as it is written (Rom. 13:3,4). After these come the "Virtues,"
which have power over corporeal nature in the working of miracles;
after these are the "Angels" and the "Archangels," who announce to men
either great things above reason, or small things within the purview of
reason.
Reply to Objection 1: The angel's subjection to God is greater than
their presiding over inferior things; and the latter is derived from
the former. Thus the orders which derive their name from presiding are
not the first and highest; but rather the orders deriving their name
from their nearness and relation to God.
Reply to Objection 2: The nearness to God designated by the name of the
"Thrones," belongs also to the "Cherubim" and "Seraphim," and in a more
excellent way, as above explained.
Reply to Objection 3: As above explained ([877]Q[27], A[3]), knowledge
takes place accordingly as the thing known is in the knower; but love
as the lover is united to the object loved. Now higher things are in a
nobler way in themselves than in lower things; whereas lower things are
in higher things in a nobler way than they are in themselves. Therefore
to know lower things is better than to love them; and to love the
higher things, God above all, is better than to know them.
Reply to Objection 4: A careful comparison will show that little or no
difference exists in reality between the dispositions of the orders
according to Dionysius and Gregory. For Gregory expounds the name
"Principalities" from their "presiding over good spirits," which also
agrees with the "Virtues" accordingly as this name expressed a certain
strength, giving efficacy to the inferior spirits in the execution of
the Divine ministrations. Again, according to Gregory, the "Virtues"
seem to be the same as "Principalities" of Dionysius. For to work
miracles holds the first place in the Divine ministrations; since
thereby the way is prepared for the announcements of the "Archangels"
and the "Angels. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the orders will outlast the Day of Judgment?
Objection 1: It would seem that the orders of angels will not outlast
the Day of Judgment. For the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:24), that Christ
will "bring to naught all principality and power, when He shall have
delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father," and this will be in
the final consummation. Therefore for the same reason all others will
be abolished in that state.
Objection 2: Further, to the office of the angelic orders it belongs to
cleanse, enlighten, and perfect. But after the Day of Judgment one
angel will not cleanse, enlighten, or perfect another, because they
will not advance any more in knowledge. Therefore the angelic orders
would remain for no purpose.
Objection 3: Further, the Apostle says of the angels (Heb. 1:14), that
"they are all ministering spirits, sent to minister to them who shall
receive the inheritance of salvation"; whence it appears that the
angelic offices are ordered for the purpose of leading men to
salvation. But all the elect are in pursuit of salvation until the Day
of Judgment. Therefore the angelic offices and orders will not outlast
the Day of Judgment.
On the contrary, It is written (Judges 5:20): "Stars remaining in their
order and courses," which is applied to the angels. Therefore the
angels will ever remain in their orders.
