Directory:Logic Museum/Aquinas Summa-I-106-110

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE - QUESTIONS CVI - CX

Question 106 How an angel acts on another angel, through enlightenment
Question 107 How an angel acts on another angel, through speech
Question 108 The hierarchies of good spirits.
Question 109 The hierarchies of evil spirits.
Question 110 How an angel acts on a bodily creature

Latin	Latin
IЄ q. 106 pr. Deinde considerandum est quomodo una creatura moveat aliam. Erit autem haec consideratio tripartita, ut primo consideremus quomodo Angeli moveant, qui sunt creaturae pure spirituales; secundo, quomodo corpora moveant; tertio, quomodo homines, qui sunt ex spirituali et corporali natura compositi. Circa primum tria consideranda occurrunt, primo, quomodo Angelus agat in Angelum; secundo, quomodo in creaturam corporalem; tertio, quomodo in homines. Circa primum, considerare oportet de illuminatione, et locutione Angelorum, et ordinatione eorum ad invicem, tam bonorum, quam malorum. Circa illuminationem quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum unus Angelus moveat intellectum alterius illuminando. Secundo, utrum unus moveat voluntatem alterius. Tertio, utrum inferior Angelus possit illuminare superiorem. Quarto, utrum superior Angelus illuminet inferiorem de omnibus quae cognoscit.	Question 106. How one creature moves another. Does one angel move the intellect of another by enlightenment? Does one angel move the will of another? Can an inferior angel enlighten a superior angel? Does a superior angel enlighten an inferior angel in all that he knows himself?
IЄ q. 106 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod unus Angelus non illuminet alium. Angeli enim eandem beatitudinem possident nunc, quam nos in futuro expectamus. Sed tunc unus homo non illuminabit alium; secundum illud Ierem. XXXI, non docebit ultra vir proximum suum, et vir fratrem suum. Ergo etiam neque nunc unus Angelus illuminat alium.	Objection 1. It would seem that one angel does not enlighten another. For the angels possess now the same beatitude which we hope to obtain. But one man will not then enlighten another, according to Jeremiah 31:34: "They shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother." Therefore neither does an angel enlighten another now.
IЄ q. 106 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, triplex est lumen in Angelis, naturae, gratiae et gloriae. Sed Angelus illuminatur lumine naturae, a creante; lumine gratiae, a iustificante; lumine gloriae, a beatificante; quod totum Dei est. Ergo unus Angelus non illuminat alium.	Objection 2. Further, light in the angels is threefold; of nature, of grace, and of glory. But an angel is enlightened in the light of nature by the Creator; in the light of grace by the Justifier; in the light of glory by the Beatifier; all of which comes from God. Therefore one angel does not enlighten another.
IЄ q. 106 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, lumen est forma quaedam mentis. Sed mens rationalis a solo Deo formatur, nulla interposita creatura, ut Augustinus dicit in libro octoginta trium quaest. Ergo unus Angelus non illuminat mentem alterius.	Objection 3. Further, light is a form in the mind. But the rational mind is "informed by God alone, without created intervention," as Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 51). Therefore one angel does not enlighten the mind of another.
IЄ q. 106 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit Dionysius, VIII cap. Cael. Hier., quod Angeli secundae hierarchiae purgantur et illuminantur et perficiuntur per Angelos primae hierarchiae.	On the contrary, Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. viii) that "the angels of the second hierarchy are cleansed, enlightened and perfected by the angels of the first hierarchy."
IЄ q. 106 a. 1 c. Respondeo dicendum quod unus Angelus illuminat alium. Ad cuius evidentiam, considerandum est quod lumen, secundum quod ad intellectum pertinet, nihil est aliud quam quaedam manifestatio veritatis; secundum illud ad Ephes. V, omne quod manifestatur, lumen est. Unde illuminare nihil aliud est quam manifestationem cognitae veritatis alteri tradere; secundum quem modum apostolus dicit, ad Ephes. III, mihi, omnium sanctorum minimo, data est gratia haec, illuminare omnes quae sit dispensatio sacramenti absconditi a saeculis in Deo. Sic igitur unus Angelus dicitur illuminare alium, inquantum ei manifestat veritatem quam ipse cognoscit. Unde Dionysius dicit, VII cap. Cael. Hier., quod theologi plane monstrant caelestium substantiarum ornatus a supremis mentibus doceri deificas scientias. Cum autem ad intelligendum duo concurrant, ut supra diximus, scilicet virtus intellectiva, et similitudo rei intellectae; secundum haec duo unus Angelus alteri veritatem notam notificare potest. Primo quidem, fortificando virtutem intellectivam eius. Sicut enim virtus imperfectioris corporis confortatur ex situali propinquitate perfectioris corporis, ut minus calidum crescit in calore ex praesentia magis calidi; ita virtus intellectiva inferioris Angeli confortatur ex conversione superioris Angeli ad ipsum. Hoc enim facit in spiritualibus ordo conversionis, quod facit in corporalibus ordo localis propinquitatis. Secundo autem unus Angelus alteri manifestat veritatem, ex parte similitudinis intellectae. Superior enim Angelus notitiam veritatis accipit in universali quadam conceptione, ad quam capiendam inferioris Angeli intellectus non esset sufficiens, sed est ei connaturale ut magis particulariter veritatem accipiat. Superior ergo Angelus veritatem quam universaliter concipit, quodammodo distinguit, ut ab inferiori capi possit; et sic eam cognoscendam illi proponit. Sicut etiam apud nos, doctores, quod in summa capiunt, multipliciter distinguunt, providentes capacitati aliorum. Et hoc est quod Dionysius dicit, XV cap. Cael. Hier., unaquaeque substantia intellectualis datam sibi a diviniore uniformem intelligentiam, provida virtute dividit et multiplicat, ad inferioris sursum ductricem analogiam.	I answer that, One angel enlightens another. To make this clear, we must observe that intellectual light is nothing else than a manifestation of truth, according to Ephesians 5:13: "All that is made manifest is light." Hence to enlighten means nothing else but to communicate to others the manifestation of the known truth; according to the Apostle (Ephesians 3:8): "To me the least of all the saints is given this grace . . . to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God." Therefore one angel is said to enlighten another by manifesting the truth which he knows himself. Hence Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii): "Theologians plainly show that the orders of the heavenly beings are taught Divine science by the higher minds." Now since two things concur in the intellectual operation, as we have said (105, 3), namely, the intellectual power, and the likeness of the thing understood; in both of these one angel can notify the known truth to another. First, by strengthening his intellectual power; for just as the power of an imperfect body is strengthened by the neighborhood of a more perfect body --for instance, the less hot is made hotter by the presence of what is hotter; so the intellectual power of an inferior angel is strengthened by the superior angel turning to him: since in spiritual things, for one thing to turn to another, corresponds to neighborhood in corporeal things. Secondly, one angel manifests the truth to another as regards the likeness of the thing understood. For the superior angel receives the knowledge of truth by a kind of universal conception, to receive which the inferior angel's intellect is not sufficiently powerful, for it is natural to him to receive truth in a more particular manner. Therefore the superior angel distinguishes, in a way, the truth which he conceives universally, so that it can be grasped by the inferior angel; and thus he proposes it to his knowledge. Thus it is with us that the teacher, in order to adapt himself to others, divides into many points the knowledge which he possesses in the universal. This is thus expressed by Dionysius (Coel. Hier. xv): "Every intellectual substance with provident power divides and multiplies the uniform knowledge bestowed on it by one nearer to God, so as to lead its inferiors upwards by analogy."
IЄ q. 106 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod omnes Angeli, tam superiores quam inferiores, immediate vident Dei essentiam; et quantum ad hoc, unus non docet alium. De hac enim doctrina propheta loquitur, unde dicit non docebit vir fratrem suum, dicens, cognosce dominum. Omnes enim cognoscent me, a minimo eorum usque ad maximum. Sed rationes divinorum operum, quae in Deo cognoscuntur sicut in causa, omnes quidem Deus in seipso cognoscit, quia seipsum comprehendit, aliorum vero Deum videntium tanto unusquisque in Deo plures rationes cognoscit, quanto eum perfectius videt. Unde superior Angelus plura in Deo de rationibus divinorum operum cognoscit quam inferior; et de his eum illuminat. Et hoc est quod dicit Dionysius, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod Angeli existentium illuminantur rationibus.	Reply to Objection 1. All the angels, both inferior and superior, see the Essence of God immediately, and in this respect one does not teach another. It is of this truth that the prophet speaks; wherefore he adds: "They shall teach no more every man his brother, saying: 'Know the Lord': for all shall know Me, from the least of them even to the greatest." But all the types of the Divine works, which are known in God as in their cause, God knows in Himself, because He comprehends Himself; but of others who see God, each one knows the more types, the more perfectly he sees God. Hence a superior angel knows more about the types of the Divine works than an inferior angel, and concerning these the former enlightens the latter; and as to this Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that the angels "are enlightened by the types of existing things."
IЄ q. 106 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod unus Angelus non illuminat alium tradendo ei lumen naturae vel gratiae vel gloriae; sed confortando lumen naturale ipsius, et manifestando ei veritatem de his quae pertinent ad statum naturae, gratiae et gloriae, ut dictum est.	Reply to Objection 2. An angel does not enlighten another by giving him the light of nature, grace, or glory; but by strengthening his natural light, and by manifesting to him the truth concerning the state of nature, of grace, and of glory, as explained above.
IЄ q. 106 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod rationalis mens formatur immediate a Deo, vel sicut imago ab exemplari, quia non est facta ad alterius imaginem quam Dei, vel sicut subiectum ab ultima forma completiva, quia semper mens creata reputatur informis, nisi ipsi primae veritati inhaereat. Aliae vero illuminationes, quae sunt ab homine vel Angelo, sunt quasi dispositiones ad ultimam formam.	Reply to Objection 3. The rational mind is formed immediately by God, either as the image from the exemplar, forasmuch as it is made to the image of God alone; or as the subject by the ultimate perfecting form: for the created mind is always considered to be unformed, except it adhere to the first truth; while the other kinds of enlightenment that proceed from man or angel, are, as it were, dispositions to this ultimate form.
IЄ q. 106 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod unus Angelus possit movere voluntatem alterius. Quia secundum Dionysium, sicut unus Angelus illuminat alium, ita purgat et perficit; ut patet ex auctoritate supra inducta. Sed purgatio et perfectio videntur pertinere ad voluntatem, nam purgatio videtur esse a sordibus culpae, quae pertinet ad voluntatem; perfectio autem videtur esse per consecutionem finis, qui est obiectum voluntatis. Ergo unus Angelus potest movere voluntatem alterius.	Objection 1. It would seem that one angel can move another angel's will. Because, according to Dionysius quoted above (1), as one angel enlightens another, so does he cleanse and perfect another. But cleansing and perfecting seem to belong to the will: for the former seems to point to the stain of sin which appertains to will; while to be perfected is to obtain an end, which is the object of the will. Therefore an angel can move another angel's will.
IЄ q. 106 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, sicut Dionysius dicit VII cap. Cael. Hier., nomina Angelorum designant eorum proprietates. Seraphim autem incendentes dicuntur, aut calefacientes, quod est per amorem, qui ad voluntatem pertinet. Unus ergo Angelus movet voluntatem alterius.	Objection 2. Further, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii): "The names of the angels designate their properties." Now the Seraphim are so called because they "kindle" or "give heat": and this is by love which belongs to the will. Therefore one angel moves another angel's will.
IЄ q. 106 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, philosophus dicit, in III de anima, quod appetitus superior movet appetitum inferiorem. Sed sicut intellectus Angeli superioris superior est, ita etiam appetitus. Ergo videtur quod superior Angelus possit immutare voluntatem alterius.	Objection 3. Further, the Philosopher says (De Anima iii, 11) that the higher appetite moves the lower. But as the intellect of the superior angel is higher, so also is his will. It seems, therefore, that the superior angel can change the will of another angel.
IЄ q. 106 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra, eius est immutare voluntatem, cuius est iustificare, cum iustitia sit rectitudo voluntatis. Sed solus Deus est qui iustificat. Ergo unus Angelus non potest mutare voluntatem alterius.	On the contrary, To him it belongs to change the will, to whom it belongs to bestow righteousness: for righteousness is the rightness of the will. But God alone bestows righteousness. Therefore one angel cannot change another angel's will.
IЄ q. 106 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, voluntas immutatur dupliciter, uno modo, ex parte obiecti; alio modo ex parte ipsius potentiae. Ex parte quidem obiecti, movet voluntatem et ipsum bonum quod est voluntatis obiectum, sicut appetibile movet appetitum; et ille qui demonstrat obiectum, puta qui demonstrat aliquid esse bonum. Sed sicut supra dictum est, alia quidem bona aliqualiter inclinant voluntatem; sed nihil sufficienter movet voluntatem, nisi bonum universale, quod est Deus. Et hoc bonum solus ipse ostendit, ut per essentiam videatur a beatis, qui dicenti Moysi, ostende mihi gloriam tuam, respondit, ego ostendam tibi omne bonum, ut habetur Exod. XXXIII. Angelus ergo non sufficienter movet voluntatem, neque ut obiectum, neque ut ostendens obiectum. Sed inclinat eam, ut amabile quoddam, et ut manifestans aliqua bona creata ordinata in Dei bonitatem. Et per hoc inclinare potest ad amorem creaturae vel Dei, per modum suadentis. Ex parte vero ipsius potentiae, voluntas nullo modo potest moveri nisi a Deo. Operatio enim voluntatis est inclinatio quaedam volentis in volitum. Hanc autem inclinationem solus ille immutare potest, qui virtutem volendi creaturae contulit, sicut et naturalem inclinationem solum illud agens potest mutare, quod potest dare virtutem quam consequitur inclinatio naturalis. Solus autem Deus est qui potentiam volendi tribuit creaturae, quia ipse solus est auctor intellectualis naturae. Unde unus Angelus voluntatem alterius movere non potest.	I answer that, As was said above (105, 4), the will is changed in two ways; on the part of the object, and on the part of the power. On the part of the object, both the good itself which is the object of the will, moves the will, as the appetible moves the appetite; and he who points out the object, as, for instance, one who proves something to be good. But as we have said above (105, 4), other goods in a measure incline the will, yet nothing sufficiently moves the will save the universal good, and that is God. And this good He alone shows, that it may be seen by the blessed, Who, when Moses asked: "Show me Thy glory," answered: "I will show thee all good" (Exodus 33:18-19). Therefore an angel does not move the will sufficiently, either as the object or as showing the object. But he inclines the will as something lovable, and as manifesting some created good ordered to God's goodness. And thus he can incline the will to the love of the creature or of God, by way of persuasion. But on the part of the power the will cannot be moved at all save by God. For the operation of the will is a certain inclination of the willer to the thing willed. And He alone can change this inclination, Who bestowed on the creature the power to will: just as that agent alone can change the natural inclination, which can give the power to which follows that natural inclination. Now God alone gave to the creature the power to will, because He alone is the author of the intellectual nature. Therefore an angel cannot move another angel's will.
IЄ q. 106 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod secundum modum illuminationis, est accipienda et purgatio et perfectio. Et quia Deus illuminat immutando intellectum et voluntatem, purgat a defectibus intellectus et voluntatis, et perficit in finem intellectus et voluntatis. Angeli autem illuminatio refertur ad intellectum, ut dictum est. Et ideo etiam purgatio Angeli intelligitur a defectu intellectus, qui est nescientia; perfectio autem est consummatio in finem intellectus, qui est veritas cognita. Et hoc est quod dicit Dionysius, VI cap. Eccl. Hier., quod in caelesti hierarchia purgatio est in subiectis essentiis tanquam ignotorum illuminatio in perfectiorem eas scientiam ducens. Sicut si dicamus visum corporalem purgari, inquantum removentur tenebrae; illuminari vero, inquantum perfunditur lumine; perfici vero, secundum quod perducitur ad cognitionem colorati.	Reply to Objection 1. Cleansing and perfecting are to be understood according to the mode of enlightenment. And since God enlightens by changing the intellect and will, He cleanses by removing defects of intellect and will, and perfects unto the end of the intellect and will. But the enlightenment caused by an angel concerns the intellect, as explained above (1); therefore an angel is to be understood as cleansing from the defect of nescience in the intellect; and as perfecting unto the consummae end of the intellect, and this is the knowledge of truth. Thus Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vi): that "in the heavenly hierarchy the chastening of the inferior essence is an enlightening of things unknown, that leads them to more perfect knowledge." For instance, we might say that corporeal sight is cleansed by the removal of darkness; enlightened by the diffusion of light; and perfected by being brought to the perception of the colored object.
IЄ q. 106 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod unus Angelus potest inducere alium ad amorem Dei per modum persuadentis, ut supra dictum est.	Reply to Objection 2. One angel can induce another to love God by persuasion as explained above.
IЄ q. 106 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod philosophus loquitur de appetitu inferiori sensitivo, qui potest moveri a superiori intellectivo, quia pertinet ad eandem naturam animae, et quia inferior appetitus est virtus in organo corporali. Quod in Angelis locum non habet.	Reply to Objection 3. The Philosopher speaks of the lower sensitive appetite which can be moved by the superior intellectual appetite, because it belongs to the same nature of the soul, and because the inferior appetite is a power in a corporeal organ. But this does not apply to the angels.
IЄ q. 106 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus inferior superiorem illuminare possit. Ecclesiastica enim hierarchia derivata est a caelesti, et eam repraesentat, unde et superna Ierusalem dicitur mater nostra, Gal. IV. Sed in Ecclesia etiam superiores illuminantur ab inferioribus et docentur; secundum illud apostoli, I ad Cor. XIV, potestis omnes per singulos prophetare, ut omnes discant, et omnes exhortentur. Ergo et in caelesti hierarchia superiores ab inferioribus possunt illuminari.	Objection 1. It would seem that an inferior angel can enlighten a superior angel. For the ecclesiastical hierarchy is derived from, and represents the heavenly hierarchy; and hence the heavenly Jerusalem is called "our mother" (Galatians 4:26). But in the Church even superiors are enlightened and taught by their inferiors, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 14:31): "You may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be exhorted." Therefore, likewise in the heavenly hierarchy, the superiors can be enlightened by inferiors.
IЄ q. 106 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, sicut ordo corporalium substantiarum dependet ex Dei voluntate, ita et ordo substantiarum spiritualium. Sed sicut dictum est, Deus quandoque praeter ordinem substantiarum corporalium operatur. Ergo quandoque etiam operatur praeter ordinem spiritualium substantiarum, illuminando inferiores non per medios superiores. Sic ergo inferiores illuminati a Deo, possunt superiores illuminare.	Objection 2. Further, as the order of corporeal substances depends on the will of God, so also does the order of spiritual substances. But, as was said above (105, 6), God sometimes acts outside the order of corporeal substances. Therefore He also sometimes acts outside the order of spiritual substances, by enlightening inferior otherwise than through their superiors. Therefore in that way the inferiors enlightened by God can enlighten superiors.
IЄ q. 106 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, unus Angelus alium illuminat, ad quem se convertit, ut supra dictum est. Sed cum ista conversio sit voluntaria, potest supremus Angelus ad infimum se convertere, mediis praetermissis. Ergo potest eum immediate illuminare, et ita potest illuminare superiores.	Objection 3. Further, one angel enlightens the other to whom he turns, as was above explained (1). But since this turning to another is voluntary, the highest angel can turn to the lowest passing over the others. Therefore he can enlighten him immediately; and thus the latter can enlighten his superiors.
IЄ q. 106 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit hanc legem esse divinitatis immobiliter firmatam, ut inferiora reducantur in Deum per superiora.	On the contrary, Dionysius says that "this is the Divine unalterable law, that inferior things are led to God by the superior" (Coel. Hier. iv; Eccl. Hier. v).
IЄ q. 106 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod inferiores Angeli nunquam illuminant superiores, sed semper ab eis illuminantur. Cuius ratio est quia, sicut supra dictum est, ordo continetur sub ordine, sicut causa continetur sub causa. Unde sicut ordinatur causa ad causam, ita ordo ad ordinem. Et ideo non est inconveniens, si aliquando aliquid fiat praeter ordinem inferioris causae, ad ordinandum in superiorem causam, sicut in rebus humanis praetermittitur mandatum praesidis, ut obediatur principi. Et ita contingit ut praeter ordinem naturae corporalis, aliquid Deus miraculose operetur, ad ordinandum homines in eius cognitionem. Sed praetermissio ordinis qui debetur spiritualibus substantiis, in nullo pertinet ad ordinationem hominum in Deum, cum operationes Angelorum non sint nobis manifestae, sicut operationes visibilium corporum. Et ideo ordo qui convenit spiritualibus substantiis, nunquam a Deo praetermittitur, quin semper inferiora moveantur per superiora, et non e converso.	I answer that, The inferior angels never enlighten the superior, but are always enlightened by them. The reason is, because, as above explained (105, 6), one order is under another, as cause is under cause; and hence as cause is ordered to cause, so is order to order. Therefore there is no incongruity if sometimes anything is done outside the order of the inferior cause, to be ordered to the superior cause, as in human affairs the command of the president is passed over from obedience to the prince. So it happens that God works miraculously outside the order of corporeal nature, that men may be ordered to the knowledge of Him. But the passing over of the order that belongs to spiritual substances in no way belongs to the ordering of men to God; since the angelic operations are not made known to us; as are the operations of sensible bodies. Thus the order which belongs to spiritual substances is never passed over by God; so that the inferiors are always moved by the superior, and not conversely.
IЄ q. 106 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ecclesiastica hierarchia imitatur caelestem aliqualiter, sed non perfecte consequitur eius similitudinem. In caelesti enim hierarchia tota ratio ordinis est ex propinquitate ad Deum. Et ideo illi qui sunt Deo propinquiores, sunt et gradu sublimiores, et scientia clariores, et propter hoc superiores nunquam ab inferioribus illuminantur. Sed in ecclesiastica hierarchia, interdum qui sunt Deo per sanctitatem propinquiores, sunt gradu infimi, et scientia non eminentes, et quidam in uno etiam secundum scientiam eminent, et in alio deficiunt. Et propter hoc superiores ab inferioribus doceri possunt.	Reply to Objection 1. The ecclesiastical hierarchy imitates the heavenly in some degree, but by a perfect likeness. For in the heavenly hierarchy the perfection of the order is in proportion to its nearness to God; so that those who are the nearer to God are the more sublime in grade, and more clear in knowledge; and on that account the superiors are never enlightened by the inferiors, whereas in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, sometimes those who are the nearer to God in sanctity, are in the lowest grade, and are not conspicuous for science; and some also are eminent in one kind of science, and fail in another; and on that account superiors may be taught by inferiors.
IЄ q. 106 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod non est similis ratio de hoc quod Deus agat praeter ordinem naturae corporalis, et naturae spiritualis, ut dictum est. Unde ratio non sequitur.	Reply to Objection 2. As above explained, there is no similarity between what God does outside the order of corporeal nature, and that of spiritual nature. Hence the argument does not hold.
IЄ q. 106 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Angelus voluntate convertitur ad alium Angelum illuminandum; sed voluntas Angeli semper regulatur lege divina, quae ordinem in Angelis instituit.	Reply to Objection 3. An angel turns voluntarily to enlighten another angel, but the angel's will is ever regulated by the Divine law which made the order in the angels.
IЄ q. 106 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus superior non illuminet inferiorem de omnibus quae ipse novit. Dicit enim Dionysius, XII cap. Cael. Hier., quod Angeli superiores habent scientiam magis universalem, inferiores vero magis particularem et subiectam. Sed plura continentur sub scientia universali quam sub particulari. Ergo non omnia quae sciunt superiores Angeli, cognoscunt inferiores per superiorum illuminationem.	Objection 1. It would seem that the superior angel does not enlighten the inferior concerning all he himself knows. For Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. xii) that the superior angels have a more universal knowledge; and the inferior a more particular and individual knowledge. But more is contained under a universal knowledge than under a particular knowledge. Therefore not all that the superior angels know, is known by the inferior, through these being enlightened by the former.
IЄ q. 106 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, Magister dicit, in XI distinctione II Sent., quod superiores Angeli cognoverunt a saeculis mysterium incarnationis, inferioribus vero ignotum fuit usquequo completum est. Quod videtur per hoc quod, quibusdam Angelis quaerentibus, quis est iste rex gloriae? Quasi ignorantibus, alii respondent, quasi scientes, dominus virtutum ipse est rex gloriae, ut Dionysius exponit VII cap. Cael. Hier. Hoc autem non esset, si superiores Angeli illuminarent inferiores de omnibus quae ipsi cognoscunt. Non ergo eos illuminant de omnibus sibi notis.	Objection 2. Further, the Master of the Sentences (ii, D, 11) says that the superior angels had long known the Mystery of the Incarnation, whereas the inferior angels did not know it until it was accomplished. Thus we find that on some of the angels inquiring, as it were, in ignorance: "Who is this King of glory?" other angels, who knew, answered: "The Lord of Hosts, He is the King of glory," as Dionysius expounds (Coel. Hier. vii). But this would not apply if the superior angels enlightened the inferior concerning all they know themselves. Therefore they do not do so.
IЄ q. 106 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, si omnia superiores Angeli inferioribus annuntiant quae cognoscunt, nihil inferioribus ignotum remanet, quod superiores cognoscant. Non ergo de cetero superiores poterunt illuminare inferiores. Quod videtur inconveniens. Non ergo superiores de omnibus inferiores illuminant.	Objection 3. Further, if the superior angels enlighten the inferior about all they know, nothing that the superior angels know would be unknown to the inferior angels. Therefore the superior angels could communicate nothing more to the inferior; which appears open to objection. Therefore the superior angels do not enlighten the inferior in all things.
IЄ q. 106 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit, quod in illa caelesti patria, licet quaedam data sint excellenter, nihil tamen possidetur singulariter. Et Dionysius dicit, XV cap. Cael. Hier., quod unaquaeque caelestis essentia intelligentiam sibi a superiori datam, inferiori communicat; ut patet ex auctoritate supra inducta.	On the contrary, Gregory [Peter Lombard, Sent. ii, D, ix; Cf. Gregory, Hom. xxxiv, in Ev.] says: "In that heavenly country, though there are some excellent gifts, yet nothing is held individually." And Dionysius says: "Each heavenly essence communicates to the inferior the gift derived from the superior" (Coel. Hier. xv), as quoted above (1).
IЄ q. 106 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod omnes creaturae ex divina bonitate participant ut bonum quod habent, in alia diffundant, nam de ratione boni est quod se aliis communicet. Et inde est etiam quod agentia corporalia similitudinem suam aliis tradunt, quantum possibile est. Quanto igitur aliqua agentia magis in participatione divinae bonitatis constituuntur, tanto magis perfectiones suas nituntur in alios transfundere, quantum possibile est. Unde beatus Petrus monet eos qui divinam bonitatem per gratiam participant, dicens, I Petr. IV, unusquisque, sicut accepit gratiam, in alterutrum illam administrantes, sicut boni dispensatores multiformis gratiae Dei. Multo igitur magis sancti Angeli, qui sunt in plenissima participatione divinae bonitatis, quidquid a Deo percipiunt, subiectis impartiuntur. Non tamen recipitur ab inferioribus ita excellenter sicut est in superioribus. Et ideo superiores semper remanent in altiori ordine, et perfectiorem scientiam habentes. Sicut unam et eandem rem plenius intelligit magister, quam discipulus qui ab eo addiscit.	I answer that, Every creature participates in the Divine goodness, so as to diffuse the good it possesses to others; for it is of the nature of good to communicate itself to others. Hence also corporeal agents give their likeness to others so far as they can. So the more an agent is established in the share of the Divine goodness, so much the more does it strive to transmit its perfections to others as far as possible. Hence the Blessed Peter admonishes those who by grace share in the Divine goodness; saying: "As every man hath received grace, ministering the same one to another; as good stewards of the manifold grace of God" (1 Peter 4:10). Much more therefore do the holy angels, who enjoy the plenitude of participation of the Divine goodness, impart the same to those below them. Nevertheless this gift is not received so excellently by the inferior as by the superior angels; and therefore the superior ever remain in a higher order, and have a more perfect knowledge; as the master understands the same thing better than the pupil who learns from him.
IЄ q. 106 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod superiorum Angelorum scientia dicitur esse universalior, quantum ad eminentiorem modum intelligendi.	Reply to Objection 1. The knowledge of the superior angels is said to be more universal as regards the more eminent mode of knowledge.
IЄ q. 106 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod verbum Magistri non sic est intelligendum, quod inferiores Angeli penitus ignoraverint mysterium incarnationis; sed quia non ita plene cognoverunt sicut superiores, et in eius cognitione postmodum profecerunt, dum illud mysterium impleretur.	Reply to Objection 2. The Master's words are not to be understood as if the inferior angels were entirely ignorant of the Mystery of the Incarnation but that they did not know it as fully as the superior angels; and that they progressed in the knowledge of it afterwards when the Mystery was accomplished.
IЄ q. 106 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, usque ad diem iudicii, semper nova aliqua supremis Angelis revelantur divinitus de his quae pertinent ad dispositionem mundi, et praecipue ad salutem electorum. Unde semper remanet unde superiores Angeli inferiores illuminent.	Reply to Objection 3. Till the Judgment Day some new things are always being revealed by God to the highest angels, concerning the course of the world, and especially the salvation of the elect. Hence there is always something for the superior angels to make known to the inferior.
IЄ q. 107 pr. Deinde considerandum est de locutionibus Angelorum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quinque. Primo, utrum unus Angelus loquatur alii. Secundo, utrum inferior superiori. Tertio, utrum Angelus Deo. Quarto, utrum in locutione Angeli aliquid distantia localis operetur. Quinto, utrum locutionem unius Angeli ad alterum omnes cognoscant.	Question 107. The speech of the angelsDoes one angel speak to another? Does the inferior speak to the superior? Does an angel speak to God? Is the angelic speech subject to local distance? Is all the speech of one angel to another known to all?
IЄ q. 107 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod unus Angelus alteri non loquatur. Dicit enim Gregorius, XVIII Moral., quod in statu resurrectionis uniuscuiusque mentem ab alterius oculis membrorum corpulentia non abscondit. Multo igitur minus mens unius Angeli absconditur ab altero. Sed locutio est ad manifestandum alteri quod latet in mente. Non igitur oportet quod unus Angelus alteri loquatur.	Objection 1. It would seem that one angel does not speak to another. For Gregory says (Moral. xviii) that, in the state of the resurrection "each one's body will not hide his mind from his fellows." Much less, therefore, is one angel's mind hidden from another. But speech manifests to another what lies hidden in the mind. Therefore it is not necessary that one angel should speak to another.
IЄ q. 107 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, duplex est locutio, interior, per quam aliquis sibi ipsi loquitur; et exterior, per quam aliquis loquitur alteri. Exterior autem locutio fit per aliquod sensibile signum, puta voce vel nutu vel aliquo corporis membro, puta lingua vel digito, quae Angelis competere non possunt. Ergo unus Angelus alteri non loquitur.	Objection 2. Further, speech is twofold; interior, whereby one speaks to oneself; and exterior, whereby one speaks to another. But exterior speech takes place by some sensible sign, as by voice, or gesture, or some bodily member, as the tongue, or the fingers, and this cannot apply to the angels. Therefore one angel does not speak to another.
IЄ q. 107 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, loquens excitat audientem ut attendat suae locutioni. Sed non videtur per quid unus Angelus excitet alium ad attendendum, hoc enim fit apud nos aliquo sensibili signo. Ergo unus Angelus non loquitur alteri.	Objection 3. Further, the speaker incites the hearer to listen to what he says. But it does not appear that one angel incites another to listen; for this happens among us by some sensible sign. Therefore one angel does not speak to another.
IЄ q. 107 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur I Cor. XIII, si linguis hominum loquar et Angelorum.	On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Corinthians 13:1): "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels."
IЄ q. 107 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in Angelis est aliqua locutio, sed, sicut dicit Gregorius II Moral., dignum est ut mens nostra, qualitatem corporeae locutionis excedens, ad sublimes atque incognitos modos locutionis intimae suspendatur. Ad intelligendum igitur qualiter unus Angelus alii loquatur, considerandum est quod, sicut supra diximus cum de actibus et potentiis animae ageretur, voluntas movet intellectum ad suam operationem. Intelligibile autem est in intellectu tripliciter, primo quidem, habitualiter, vel secundum memoriam, ut Augustinus dicit; secundo autem, ut in actu consideratum vel conceptum; tertio, ut ad aliud relatum. Manifestum est autem quod de primo gradu in secundum transfertur intelligibile per imperium voluntatis, unde in definitione habitus dicitur, quo quis utitur cum voluerit. Similiter autem et de secundo gradu transfertur in tertium per voluntatem, nam per voluntatem conceptus mentis ordinatur ad alterum, puta vel ad agendum aliquid, vel ad manifestandum alteri. Quando autem mens convertit se ad actu considerandum quod habet in habitu, loquitur aliquis sibi ipsi, nam ipse conceptus mentis interius verbum vocatur. Ex hoc vero quod conceptus mentis angelicae ordinatur ad manifestandum alteri, per voluntatem ipsius Angeli, conceptus mentis unius Angeli innotescit alteri, et sic loquitur unus Angelus alteri. Nihil est enim aliud loqui ad alterum, quam conceptum mentis alteri manifestare.	I answer that, The angels speak in a certain way. But, as Gregory says (Moral. ii): "It is fitting that our mind, rising above the properties of bodily speech, should be lifted to the sublime and unknown methods of interior speech." To understand how one angel speaks to another, we must consider that, as we explained above (82, 4), when treating of the actions and powers of the soul, the will moves the intellect to its operation. Now an intelligible object is present to the intellect in three ways; first, habitually, or in the memory, as Augustine says (De Trin. xiv, 6,7); secondly, as actually considered or conceived; thirdly, as related to something else. And it is clear that the intelligible object passes from the first to the second stage by the command of the will, and hence in the definition of habit these words occur, "which anyone uses when he wills." So likewise the intelligible object passes from the second to the third stage by the will; for by the will the concept of the mind is ordered to something else, as, for instance, either to the performing of an action, or to being made known to another. Now when the mind turns itself to the actual consideration of any habitual knowledge, then a person speaks to himself; for the concept of the mind is called "the interior word." And by the fact that the concept of the angelic mind is ordered to be made known to another by the will of the angel himself, the concept of one angel is made known to another; and in this way one angel speaks to another; for to speak to another only means to make known the mental concept to another.
IЄ q. 107 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in nobis interior mentis conceptus quasi duplici obstaculo clauditur. Primo quidem, ipsa voluntate, quae conceptum intellectus potest retinere interius, vel ad extra ordinare. Et quantum ad hoc, mentem unius nullus alius potest videre nisi solus Deus; secundum illud I Cor. II, quae sunt hominis, nemo novit nisi spiritus hominis, qui in ipso est. Secundo autem clauditur mens hominis ab alio homine per grossitiem corporis. Unde cum etiam voluntas ordinat conceptum mentis ad manifestandum alteri, non statim cognoscitur ab alio, sed oportet aliquod signum sensibile adhibere. Et hoc est quod Gregorius dicit, II Moral., alienis oculis intra secretum mentis, quasi post parietem corporis stamus, sed cum manifestare nosmetipsos cupimus, quasi per linguae ianuam egredimur, ut quales sumus intrinsecus, ostendamus. Hoc autem obstaculum non habet Angelus. Et ideo quam cito vult manifestare suum conceptum, statim alius cognoscit.	Reply to Objection 1. Our mental concept is hidden by a twofold obstacle. The first is in the will, which can retain the mental concept within, or can direct it externally. In this way God alone can see the mind of another, according to 1 Corinthians 2:11: "What man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him?" The other obstacle whereby the mental concept is excluded from another one's knowledge, comes from the body; and so it happens that even when the will directs the concept of the mind to make itself known, it is not at once make known to another; but some sensible sign must be used. Gregory alludes to this fact when he says (Moral. ii): "To other eyes we seem to stand aloof as it were behind the wall of the body; and when we wish to make ourselves known, we go out as it were by the door of the tongue to show what we really are." But an angel is under no such obstacle, and so he can make his concept known to another at once.
IЄ q. 107 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod locutio exterior quae fit per vocem, est nobis necessaria propter obstaculum corporis. Unde non convenit Angelo, sed sola locutio interior; ad quam pertinet non solum quod loquatur sibi interius concipiendo, sed etiam quod ordinet per voluntatem ad alterius manifestationem. Et sic lingua Angelorum metaphorice dicitur ipsa virtus Angeli, qua conceptum suum manifestat.	Reply to Objection 2. External speech, made by the voice, is a necessity for us on account of the obstacle of the body. Hence it does not befit an angel; but only interior speech belongs to him, and this includes not only the interior speech by mental concept, but also its being ordered to another's knowledge by the will. So the tongue of an angel is called metaphorically the angel's power, whereby he manifests his mental concept.
IЄ q. 107 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, quantum ad Angelos bonos, qui semper se invicem vident in verbo, non esset necessarium ponere aliquid excitativum, quia sicut unus semper videt alium, ita semper videt quidquid in eo est ad se ordinatum. Sed quia etiam in statu naturae conditae sibi invicem loqui poterant, et mali Angeli etiam nunc sibi invicem loquuntur; dicendum est quod, sicut sensus movetur a sensibili, ita intellectus movetur ab intelligibili. Sicut ergo per signum sensibile excitatur sensus, ita per aliquam virtutem intelligibilem potest excitari mens Angeli ad attendendum.	Reply to Objection 3. There is no need to draw the attention of the good angels, inasmuch as they always see each other in the Word; for as one ever sees the other, so he ever sees what is ordered to himself. But because by their very nature they can speak to each other, and even now the bad angels speak to each other, we must say that the intellect is moved by the intelligible object just as sense is affected by the sensible object. Therefore, as sense is aroused by the sensible object, so the mind of an angel can be aroused to attention by some intelligible power.
IЄ q. 107 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inferior Angelus superiori non loquatur. Quia super illud I Cor. XIII, si linguis hominum loquar et Angelorum, dicit Glossa quod locutiones Angelorum sunt illuminationes, quibus superiores illuminant inferiores. Sed inferiores nunquam illuminant superiores, ut supra dictum est. Ergo nec inferiores superioribus loquuntur.	Objection 1. It would seem that the inferior angel does not speak to the superior. For on the text (1 Corinthians 13:1), "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels," a gloss remarks that the speech of the angels is an enlightenment whereby the superior enlightens the inferior. But the inferior never enlightens the superior, as was above explained (106, 3). Therefore neither do the inferior speak to the superior.
IЄ q. 107 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, supra dictum est quod illuminare nihil est aliud quam illud quod est alicui manifestum, alteri manifestare. Sed hoc idem est loqui. Ergo idem est loqui, et illuminare, et sic idem quod prius.	Objection 2. Further, as was said above (106, 1), to enlighten means merely to acquaint one man of what is known to another; and this is to speak. Therefore to speak and to enlighten are the same; so the same conclusion follows.
IЄ q. 107 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, Gregorius dicit, II Moral., quod Deus ad Angelos loquitur, eo ipso quod eorum cordibus occulta sua invisibilia ostendit. Sed hoc ipsum est illuminare. Ergo omnis Dei locutio est illuminatio. Pari ergo ratione, omnis Angeli locutio est illuminatio. Nullo ergo modo Angelus inferior superiori loqui potest.	Objection 3. Further, Gregory says (Moral. ii): "God speaks to the angels by the very fact that He shows to their hearts His hidden and invisible things." But this is to enlighten them. Therefore, whenever God speaks, He enlightens. In the same way every angelic speech is an enlightening. Therefore an inferior angel can in no way speak to a superior angel.
IЄ q. 107 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod, sicut Dionysius exponit VII Cael. Hier., inferiores Angeli superioribus dixerunt, quis est iste rex gloriae?	On the contrary, According to the exposition of Dionysius (Coel. Hier. vii), the inferior angels said to the superior: "Who is this King of Glory?"
IЄ q. 107 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Angeli inferiores superioribus loqui possunt. Ad cuius evidentiam, considerandum est quod omnis illuminatio est locutio in Angelis, sed non omnis locutio est illuminatio. Quia sicut dictum est, Angelum loqui Angelo nihil aliud est quam conceptum suum ordinare ad hoc ut ei innotescat, per propriam voluntatem. Ea vero quae mente concipiuntur, ad duplex principium referri possunt, scilicet ad ipsum Deum, qui est prima veritas; et ad voluntatem intelligentis, per quam aliquid actu consideramus. Quia vero veritas est lumen intellectus, et regula omnis veritatis est ipse Deus; manifestatio eius quod mente concipitur, secundum quod dependet a prima veritate, et locutio est et illuminatio; puta si unus homo dicat alii, caelum est a Deo creatum, vel, homo est animal. Sed manifestatio eorum quae dependent ex voluntate intelligentis, non potest dici illuminatio, sed locutio tantum; puta si aliquis alteri dicat, volo hoc addiscere, volo hoc vel illud facere. Cuius ratio est, quia voluntas creata non est lux, nec regula veritatis, sed participans lucem, unde communicare ea quae sunt a voluntate creata, inquantum huiusmodi, non est illuminare. Non enim pertinet ad perfectionem intellectus mei, quid tu velis, vel quid tu intelligas, cognoscere, sed solum quid rei veritas habeat. Manifestum est autem quod Angeli dicuntur superiores vel inferiores per comparationem ad hoc principium quod est Deus. Et ideo illuminatio, quae dependet a principio quod est Deus, solum per superiores Angelos ad inferiores deducitur. Sed in ordine ad principium quod est voluntas, ipse volens est primus et supremus. Et ideo manifestatio eorum quae ad voluntatem pertinent, per ipsum volentem deducitur ad alios quoscumque. Et quantum ad hoc, et superiores inferioribus, et inferiores superioribus loquuntur.	I answer that, The inferior angels can speak to the superior. To make this clear, we must consider that every angelic enlightening is an angelic speech; but on the other hand, not every speech is an enlightening; because, as we have said (1), for one angel to speak to another angel means nothing else, but that by his own will he directs his mental concept in such a way, that it becomes known to the other. Now what the mind conceives may be reduced to a twofold principle; to God Himself, Who is the primal truth; and to the will of the one who understands, whereby we actually consider anything. But because truth is the light of the intellect, and God Himself is the rule of all truth; the manifestation of what is conceived by the mind, as depending on the primary truth, is both speech and enlightenment; for example, when one man says to another: "Heaven was created by God"; or, "Man is an animal." The manifestation, however, of what depends on the will of the one who understands, cannot be called an enlightenment, but is only a speech; for instance, when one says to another: "I wish to learn this; I wish to do this or that." The reason is that the created will is not a light, nor a rule of truth; but participates of light. Hence to communicate what comes from the created will is not, as such, an enlightening. For to know what you may will, or what you may understand does not belong to the perfection of my intellect; but only to know the truth in reality. Now it is clear that the angels are called superior or inferior by comparison with this principle, God; and therefore enlightenment, which depends on the principle which is God, is conveyed only by the superior angels to the inferior. But as regards the will as the principle, he who wills is first and supreme; and therefore the manifestation of what belongs to the will, is conveyed to others by the one who wills. In that manner both the superior angels speak to the inferior, and the inferior speak to the superior.
IЄ q. 107 a. 2 ad 1 Et per hoc patet solutio ad primum, et ad secundum.	From this clearly appear the replies to the first and second objections.
IЄ q. 107 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod omnis Dei locutio ad Angelos est illuminatio, quia cum voluntas Dei sit regula veritatis, etiam scire quid Deus velit, pertinet ad perfectionem et illuminationem mentis creatae. Sed non est eadem ratio de voluntate Angeli, ut dictum est.	Reply to Objection 3. Every speech of God to the angels is an enlightening; because since the will of God is the rule of truth, it belongs to the perfection and enlightenment of the created mind to know even what God wills. But the same does not apply to the will of the angels, as was explained above.
IЄ q. 107 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus Deo non loquatur. Locutio enim est ad manifestandum aliquid alteri. Sed Angelus nihil potest manifestare Deo, qui omnia novit. Ergo Angelus non loquitur Deo.	Objection 1. It would seem that an angel does not speak to God. For speech makes known something to another. But an angel cannot make known anything to God, Who knows all things. Therefore an angel does not speak to God.
IЄ q. 107 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, loqui est ordinare conceptum intellectus ad alterum, ut dictum est. Sed Angelus semper conceptum suae mentis ordinat in Deum. Si ergo aliquando Deo loquitur, semper Deo loquitur, quod potest videri alicui inconveniens, cum aliquando Angelus Angelo loquatur. Videtur ergo quod Angelus nunquam loquatur Deo.	Objection 2. Further, to speak is to order the mental concept in reference to another, as was shown above (1). But an angel ever orders his mental concept to God. So if an angel speaks to God, he ever speaks to God; which in some ways appears to be unreasonable, since an angel sometimes speaks to another angel. Therefore it seems that an angel never speaks to God.
IЄ q. 107 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Zachar. I, respondit Angelus domini, et dixit, domine exercituum, usquequo non misereberis Ierusalem? Loquitur ergo Angelus Deo.	On the contrary, It is written (Zechariah 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.
IЄ q. 107 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, locutio Angeli est per hoc, quod conceptus mentis ordinatur ad alterum. Sed aliquid ordinatur ad alterum dupliciter. Uno modo, ad hoc quod communicet alteri; sicut in rebus naturalibus agens ordinatur ad patiens et in locutione humana doctor ordinatur ad discipulum. Et quantum ad hoc, nullo modo Angelus loquitur Deo, neque de his quae ad rerum veritatem pertinent, neque de his quae dependent a voluntate creata, quia Deus est omnis veritatis et omnis voluntatis principium et conditor. Alio modo ordinatur aliquid ad alterum, ut ab eo aliquid accipiat; sicut in rebus naturalibus passivum ad agens, et in locutione humana discipulus ad magistrum. Et hoc modo Angelus loquitur Deo, vel consultando divinam voluntatem de agendis; vel eius excellentiam, quam nunquam comprehendit, admirando; sicut Gregorius dicit, II Moral., quod Angeli loquuntur Deo, cum per hoc quod super semetipsos respiciunt, in motum admirationis surgunt.	I answer that, As was said above (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."
IЄ q. 107 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod locutio non semper est ad manifestandum alteri; sed quandoque ad hoc ordinatur finaliter, ut loquenti aliquid manifestetur; sicut cum discipulus quaerit aliquid a magistro.	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.
IЄ q. 107 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod locutione qua Angeli loquuntur Deo laudantes ipsum et admirantes, semper Angeli Deo loquuntur. Sed locutione qua eius sapientiam consulunt super agendis, tunc ei loquuntur, quando aliquod novum per eos agendum occurrit, super quo desiderant illuminari.	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.
IЄ q. 107 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod localis distantia operetur aliquid in locutione angelica. Sicut enim dicit Damascenus, Angelus ubi est, ibi operatur. Locutio autem est quaedam operatio Angeli. Cum ergo Angelus sit in determinato loco, videtur quod usque ad determinatam loci distantiam Angelus loqui possit.	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.
IЄ q. 107 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, clamor loquentis fit propter distantiam audientis. Sed Isaiae VI dicitur de Seraphim, quod clamabat alter ad alterum. Ergo videtur quod in locutione Angelorum aliquid operetur localis distantia.	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" (Isaiah 6:3). Therefore in the angelic speech local distance has some effect.
IЄ q. 107 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod, sicut dicitur Luc. XVI, dives in Inferno positus loquebatur Abrahae, non impediente locali distantia. Multo igitur minus localis distantia potest impedire locutionem unius Angeli ad alterum.	On the contrary, It is said that the rich man in hell spoke to Abraham, notwithstanding the local distance (Luke 16:24). Much less therefore does local distance impede the speech of one angel to another.
IЄ q. 107 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod locutio Angeli in intellectuali operatione consistit, ut ex dictis patet. Intellectualis autem operatio Angeli omnino abstracta est a loco et tempore, nam etiam nostra intellectualis operatio est per abstractionem ab hic et nunc, nisi per accidens ex parte phantasmatum, quae in Angelis nulla sunt. In eo autem quod est omnino abstractum a loco et tempore, nihil operatur neque temporis diversitas, neque loci distantia. Unde in locutione Angeli nullum impedimentum facit distantia loci.	I answer that, The angelic speech consists in an intellectual operation, as explained above (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.
IЄ q. 107 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod locutio Angeli, sicut dictum est, est locutio interior, quae tamen ab alio percipitur, et ideo est in Angelo loquente, et per consequens ubi est Angelus loquens. Sed sicut distantia localis non impedit quin unus Angelus alium videre possit; ita etiam non impedit quin percipiat quod in eo ad se ordinatur, quod est eius locutionem percipere.	Reply to Objection 1. The angelic speech, as above explained (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.
IЄ q. 107 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod clamor ille non est vocis corporeae, qui fit propter distantiam loci; sed significat magnitudinem rei quae dicebatur, vel magnitudinem affectus, secundum quod dicit Gregorius, II Moral., tanto quisque minus clamat, quanto minus desiderat.	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."
IЄ q. 107 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod locutionem unius Angeli ad alterum omnes cognoscant. Quod enim unius hominis locutionem non omnes audiant, facit inaequalis loci distantia. Sed in locutione Angeli nihil operatur localis distantia, ut dictum est. Ergo uno Angelo loquente ad alterum, omnes percipiunt.	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 (4). Therefore all the angels know what one speaks to another.
IЄ q. 107 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, omnes Angeli communicant in virtute intelligendi. Si ergo conceptus mentis unius ordinatus ad alterum cognoscitur ab uno, pari ratione cognoscitur ab aliis.	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.
IЄ q. 107 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, illuminatio est quaedam species locutionis. Sed illuminatio unius Angeli ab altero, pervenit ad omnes Angelos, quia, ut Dionysius dicit XV cap. Cael. Hier., unaquaeque caelestis essentia intelligentiam sibi traditam aliis communicat. Ergo et locutio unius Angeli ad alterum, ad omnes perducitur.	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.
IЄ q. 107 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod unus homo potest alteri soli loqui. Multo igitur magis hoc in Angelis esse potest.	On the contrary, One man can speak to another alone; much more can this be the case among the angels.
IЄ q. 107 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, conceptus mentis unius Angeli percipi potest ab altero, per hoc quod ille cuius est conceptus, sua voluntate ordinat ipsum ad alterum. Potest autem ex aliqua causa ordinari aliquid ad unum, et non ad alterum. Et ideo potest conceptus unius ab aliquo uno cognosci, et non ab aliis. Et sic locutionem unius Angeli ad alterum potest percipere unus absque aliis, non quidem impediente distantia locali, sed hoc faciente voluntaria ordinatione, ut dictum est.	I answer that, As above explained (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.
IЄ q. 107 a. 5 ad 1 Unde patet responsio ad primum et secundum.	From this appear the replies to the first and second objections.
IЄ q. 107 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod illuminatio est de his quae emanant a prima regula veritatis, quae est principium commune omnium Angelorum, et ideo illuminationes sunt omnibus communes. Sed locutio potest esse de his quae ordinantur ad principium voluntatis creatae, quod est proprium unicuique Angelo, et ideo non oportet quod huiusmodi locutiones sint omnibus communes.	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.
IЄ q. 108 pr. Deinde considerandum est de ordinatione Angelorum secundum hierarchias et ordines, dictum est enim quod superiores inferiores illuminant, et non e converso. Et circa hoc quaeruntur octo. Primo, utrum omnes Angeli sint unius hierarchiae. Secundo, utrum in una hierarchia sit unus tantum ordo. Tertio, utrum in uno ordine sint plures Angeli. Quarto, utrum distinctio hierarchiarum et ordinum sit a natura. Quinto, de nominibus et proprietatibus singulorum ordinum. Sexto, de comparatione ordinum ad invicem. Septimo, utrum ordines durent post diem iudicii. Octavo, utrum homines assumantur ad ordines Angelorum.	Question 108. The angelic degrees of hierarchies and ordersDo all the angels belong to one hierarchy? In one hierarchy, is there only one order? In one order, are there many angels? Is the distinction of hierarchies and orders natural? The names and properties of each order The comparison of the orders to one another Will the orders outlast the Day of Judgment? Are men taken up into the angelic orders?
IЄ q. 108 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod omnes Angeli sint unius hierarchiae. Cum enim Angeli sint supremi inter creaturas, oportet dicere quod sint optime dispositi. Sed optima dispositio est multitudinis secundum quod continetur sub uno principatu; ut patet per philosophum, XII Metaphys., et in III Politic. Cum ergo hierarchia nihil sit aliud quam sacer principatus, videtur quod omnes Angeli sint unius hierarchiae.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, Dionysius dicit, in III cap. Cael. Hier., quod hierarchia est ordo, scientia et actio. Sed omnes Angeli conveniunt in uno ordine ad Deum, quem cognoscunt, et a quo in suis actionibus regulantur. Ergo omnes Angeli sunt unius hierarchiae.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, sacer principatus, qui dicitur hierarchia, invenitur in hominibus et Angelis. Sed omnes homines sunt unius hierarchiae. Ergo etiam omnes Angeli sunt unius hierarchiae.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Dionysius, VI cap. Cael. Hier., distinguit tres hierarchias Angelorum.	On the contrary, Dionysius (Coel. Hier. vi) distinguishes three hierarchies of angels.
IЄ q. 108 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod hierarchia est sacer principatus, ut dictum est. In nomine autem principatus duo intelliguntur, scilicet ipse princeps, et multitudo ordinata sub principe. Quia igitur unus est Deus princeps non solum omnium Angelorum, sed etiam hominum, et totius creaturae; ideo non solum omnium Angelorum, sed etiam totius rationalis creaturae, quae sacrorum particeps esse potest, una est hierarchia, secundum quod Augustinus dicit, in XII de Civ. Dei duas esse civitates, hoc est societates, unam in bonis Angelis et hominibus, alteram in malis. Sed si consideretur principatus ex parte multitudinis ordinatae sub principe, sic unus principatus dicitur secundum quod multitudo uno et eodem modo potest gubernationem principis recipere. Quae vero non possunt secundum eundem modum gubernari a principe, ad diversos principatus pertinent, sicut sub uno rege sunt diversae civitates, quae diversis reguntur legibus et ministris. Manifestum est autem quod homines alio modo divinas illuminationes percipiunt quam Angeli, nam Angeli percipiunt eas in intelligibili puritate, homines vero percipiunt eas sub sensibilium similitudinibus, ut Dionysius dicit I cap. Cael. Hier. Et ideo oportuit distingui humanam hierarchiam ab angelica. Et per eundem modum in Angelis tres hierarchiae distinguuntur. Dictum est enim supra, dum de cognitione Angelorum ageretur, quod superiores Angeli habent universaliorem cognitionem veritatis quam inferiores. Huiusmodi autem universalis acceptio cognitionis secundum tres gradus in Angelis distingui potest. Possunt enim rationes rerum de quibus Angeli illuminantur, considerari tripliciter. Primo quidem, secundum quod procedunt a primo principio universali, quod est Deus, et iste modus convenit primae hierarchiae, quae immediate ad Deum extenditur, et quasi in vestibulis Dei collocatur, ut Dionysius dicit VII cap. Cael. Hier. Secundo vero, prout huiusmodi rationes dependent ab universalibus causis creatis, quae iam aliquo modo multiplicantur, et hic modus convenit secundae hierarchiae. Tertio autem modo, secundum quod huiusmodi rationes applicantur singulis rebus, et prout dependent a propriis causis, et hic modus convenit infimae hierarchiae. Quod plenius patebit, cum de singulis ordinibus agetur. Sic igitur distinguuntur hierarchiae ex parte multitudinis subiectae. Unde manifestum est eos errare, et contra intentionem Dionysii loqui, qui ponunt in divinis personis hierarchiam quam vocant supercaelestem. In divinis enim personis est quidam ordo naturae, sed non hierarchiae. Nam, ut Dionysius dicit III cap. Cael. Hier., ordo hierarchiae est alios quidem purgari et illuminari et perfici, alios autem purgare et illuminare et perficere. Quod absit ut in divinis personis ponamus.	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 (55, 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 (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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de principatu ex parte principis, quia optimum est quod multitudo regatur ab uno principe, ut philosophus in praedictis locis intendit.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, quantum ad cognitionem ipsius Dei, quem omnes uno modo, scilicet per essentiam, vident, non distinguuntur in Angelis hierarchiae, sed quantum ad rationes rerum creatarum, ut dictum est.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod omnes homines sunt unius speciei, et unus modus intelligendi est eis connaturalis, non sic autem est in Angelis. Unde non est similis ratio.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in una hierarchia non sint plures ordines. Multiplicata enim definitione, multiplicatur et definitum. Sed hierarchia, ut Dionysius dicit, est ordo. Si ergo sunt multi ordines, non erit una hierarchia, sed multae.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, diversi ordines sunt diversi gradus. Sed gradus in spiritualibus constituuntur secundum diversa dona spiritualia. Sed in Angelis omnia dona spiritualia sunt communia, quia nihil ibi singulariter possidetur. Ergo non sunt diversi ordines Angelorum.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, in ecclesiastica hierarchia distinguuntur ordines secundum purgare, illuminare et perficere, nam ordo diaconorum est purgativus, sacerdotum illuminativus, episcoporum perfectivus, ut Dionysius dicit V cap. Eccles. Hier. Sed quilibet Angelus purgat, illuminat et perficit. Non ergo est distinctio ordinum in Angelis.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit ad Ephes. I, quod Deus constituit Christum hominem supra omnem principatum et potestatem et virtutem et dominationem; qui sunt diversi ordines Angelorum, et quidam eorum ad unam hierarchiam pertinent, ut infra patebit.	On the contrary, The Apostle says (Ephesians 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 (6).
IЄ q. 108 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, una hierarchia est unus principatus, idest una multitudo ordinata uno modo sub principis gubernatione. Non autem esset multitudo ordinata, sed confusa, si in multitudine diversi ordines non essent. Ipsa ergo ratio hierarchiae requirit ordinum diversitatem. Quae quidem diversitas ordinum secundum diversa officia et actus consideratur. Sicut patet quod in una civitate sunt diversi ordines secundum diversos actus, nam alius est ordo iudicantium, alius pugnantium, alius laborantium in agris, et sic de aliis. Sed quamvis multi sint unius civitatis ordines, omnes tamen ad tres possunt reduci, secundum quod quaelibet multitudo perfecta habet principium, medium et finem. Unde et in civitatibus triplex ordo hominum invenitur, quidam enim sunt supremi, ut optimates; quidam autem sunt infimi, ut vilis populus; quidam autem sunt medii, ut populus honorabilis. Sic igitur et in qualibet hierarchia angelica ordines distinguuntur secundum diversos actus et officia; et omnis ista diversitas ad tria reducitur, scilicet ad summum, medium et infimum. Et propter hoc in qualibet hierarchia Dionysius ponit tres ordines.	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).
IЄ q. 108 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ordo dupliciter dicitur. Uno modo, ipsa ordinatio comprehendens sub se diversos gradus, et hoc modo hierarchia dicitur ordo. Alio modo dicitur ordo gradus unus, et sic dicuntur plures ordines unius hierarchiae.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod in societate Angelorum omnia possidentur communiter; sed tamen quaedam excellentius habentur a quibusdam quam ab aliis. Unumquodque autem perfectius habetur ab eo qui potest illud communicare, quam ab eo qui non potest, sicut perfectius est calidum quod potest calefacere, quam quod non potest; et perfectius scit qui potest docere, quam qui non potest. Et quanto perfectius donum aliquis communicare potest, tanto in perfectiori gradu est, sicut in perfectiori gradu magisterii est qui potest docere altiorem scientiam. Et secundum hanc similitudinem consideranda est diversitas graduum vel ordinum in Angelis, secundum diversa officia et actus.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod inferior Angelus est superior supremo homine nostrae hierarchiae; secundum illud Matth. XI, qui minor est in regno caelorum, maior est illo, scilicet Ioanne Baptista, quo nullus maior inter natos mulierum surrexit. Unde minor Angelus caelestis hierarchiae potest non solum purgare sed illuminare et perficere, et altiori modo quam ordines nostrae hierarchiae. Et sic secundum distinctionem harum actionum non distinguuntur caelestes ordines; sed secundum alias differentias actionum.	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" (Matthew 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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod in uno ordine non sint plures Angeli. Dictum est enim supra omnes Angelos inaequales esse ad invicem. Sed unius ordinis esse dicuntur quae sunt aequalia. Ergo plures Angeli non sunt unius ordinis.	Objection 1. It seems that there are not many angels in one order. For it was shown above (50, 4), that all the angels are unequal. But equals belong to one order. Therefore there are not many angels in one order.
IЄ q. 108 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, quod potest sufficienter fieri per unum, superfluum est quod fiat per multa. Sed illud quod pertinet ad unum officium angelicum, sufficienter potest fieri per unum Angelum; multo magis quam per unum solem sufficienter fit quod pertinet ad officium solis, quanto perfectior est Angelus caelesti corpore. Si ergo ordines distinguuntur secundum officia, ut dictum est, superfluum est quod sint plures Angeli unius ordinis.	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 (2), several angels in one order would be superfluous.
IЄ q. 108 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, supra dictum est quod omnes Angeli sunt inaequales. Si ergo plures Angeli sint unius ordinis, puta tres vel quatuor, infimus superioris ordinis magis conveniet cum supremo inferioris quam cum supremo sui ordinis. Et sic non videtur quod magis sit unius ordinis cum hoc, quam cum illo. Non igitur sunt plures Angeli unius ordinis.	Objection 3. Further, it was said above (Objection 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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Isaiae VI dicitur, quod Seraphim clamabant alter ad alterum. Sunt ergo plures Angeli in uno ordine Seraphim.	On the contrary, It is written: "The Seraphim cried to one another" (Isaiah 6:3). Therefore there are many angels in the one order of the Seraphim.
IЄ q. 108 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod ille qui perfecte cognoscit res aliquas, potest usque ad minima et actus et virtutes et naturas earum distinguere. Qui autem cognoscit eas imperfecte, non potest distinguere nisi in universali, quae quidem distinctio fit per pauciora. Sicut qui imperfecte cognoscit res naturales, distinguit earum ordines in universali, ponens in uno ordine caelestia corpora, in alio corpora inferiora inanimata, in alio plantas, in alio animalia, qui autem perfectius cognosceret res naturales, posset distinguere et in ipsis corporibus caelestibus diversos ordines, et in singulis aliorum. Nos autem imperfecte Angelos cognoscimus, et eorum officia, ut Dionysius dicit VI cap. Cael. Hier. Unde non possumus distinguere officia et ordines Angelorum, nisi in communi; secundum quem modum, multi Angeli sub uno ordine continentur. Si autem perfecte cognosceremus officia Angelorum, et eorum distinctiones, perfecte sciremus quod quilibet Angelus habet suum proprium officium et suum proprium ordinem in rebus, multo magis quam quaelibet stella, etsi nos lateat.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod omnes Angeli unius ordinis sunt aliquo modo aequales, quantum ad communem similitudinem secundum quam constituuntur in uno ordine, sed simpliciter non sunt aequales. Unde Dionysius dicit, X cap. Cael. Hier., quod in uno et eodem ordine Angelorum, est accipere primos, medios et ultimos.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod illa specialis distinctio ordinum et officiorum secundum quam quilibet Angelus habet proprium officium et ordinem, est nobis ignota.	Reply to Objection 2. That special distinction of orders and offices wherein each angel has his own office and order, is hidden from us.
IЄ q. 108 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut in superficie quae partim est alba et partim nigra, duae partes quae sunt in confinio albi et nigri, magis conveniunt secundum situm quam aliquae duae partes albae, minus tamen secundum qualitatem; ita duo Angeli qui sunt in terminis duorum ordinum, magis secum conveniunt secundum propinquitatem naturae, quam unus eorum cum aliquibus aliis sui ordinis; minus autem secundum idoneitatem ad similia officia, quae quidem idoneitas usque ad aliquem certum terminum protenditur.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod distinctio hierarchiarum et ordinum non sit a natura in Angelis. Hierarchia enim dicitur sacer principatus, et in definitione eius Dionysius ponit quod deiforme, quantum possibile est, similat. Sed sanctitas et deiformitas est in Angelis per gratiam, non per naturam. Ergo distinctio hierarchiarum et ordinum in Angelis est per gratiam, non per naturam.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, Seraphim dicuntur ardentes, vel incendentes, ut Dionysius dicit VII cap. Cael. Hier. Hoc autem videtur ad caritatem pertinere, quae non est a natura, sed a gratia, diffunditur enim in cordibus nostris per spiritum sanctum, qui datus est nobis, ut dicitur ad Rom. V. Quod non solum ad sanctos homines pertinet, sed etiam de sanctis Angelis dici potest, ut Augustinus dicit XII de Civ. Dei. Ergo ordines in Angelis non sunt a natura, sed a gratia.	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" (Romans 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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, hierarchia ecclesiastica exemplatur a caelesti. Sed ordines in hominibus non sunt per naturam, sed per donum gratiae, non enim est a natura quod unus est episcopus, et alius est sacerdos, et alius diaconus. Ergo neque in Angelis sunt ordines a natura, sed a gratia tantum.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Magister dicit, IX dist. II Sent., quod ordo Angelorum dicitur multitudo caelestium spirituum, qui inter se aliquo munere gratiae similantur, sicut et naturalium datorum participatione conveniunt. Distinctio ergo ordinum in Angelis est non solum secundum dona gratuita, sed etiam secundum dona naturalia.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod ordo gubernationis, qui est ordo multitudinis sub principatu existentis, attenditur per respectum ad finem. Finis autem Angelorum potest accipi dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum facultatem suae naturae, ut scilicet cognoscant et ament Deum naturali cognitione et amore. Et secundum respectum ad hunc finem, distinguuntur ordines Angelorum secundum naturalia dona. Alio modo potest accipi finis angelicae multitudinis supra naturalem facultatem eorum, qui consistit in visione divinae essentiae, et in immobili fruitione bonitatis ipsius; ad quem finem pertingere non possunt nisi per gratiam. Unde secundum respectum ad hunc finem, ordines distinguuntur in Angelis completive quidem secundum dona gratuita, dispositive autem secundum dona naturalia, quia Angelis data sunt dona gratuita secundum capacitatem naturalium, quod non est in hominibus, ut supra dictum est. Unde in hominibus distinguuntur ordines secundum dona gratuita tantum, et non secundum naturam.	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 (62, 6). Hence among men the orders are distinguished according to the gratuitous gifts only, and not according to natural gifts.
IЄ q. 108 a. 4 ad arg. Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta.	From the above the replies to the objections are evident.
IЄ q. 108 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ordines Angelorum non convenienter nominentur. Omnes enim caelestes spiritus dicuntur et Angeli et virtutes caelestes. Sed nomina communia inconvenienter aliquibus appropriantur. Ergo inconvenienter nominatur unus ordo Angelorum, et alius virtutum.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, esse dominum est proprium Dei; secundum illud Psal. XCIX scitote quoniam dominus ipse est Deus. Ergo inconvenienter unus ordo caelestium spirituum dominationes vocatur.	Objection 2. Further, it belongs to God alone to be Lord, according to the words, "Know ye that the Lord He is God" (Psalm 99:3). Therefore one order of the heavenly spirits is not properly called "Dominations."
IЄ q. 108 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, nomen dominationis ad gubernationem pertinere videtur. Similiter autem et nomen principatuum, et potestatum. Inconvenienter ergo tribus ordinibus haec tria nomina imponuntur.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 5 arg. 4 Praeterea, Archangeli dicuntur quasi principes Angeli. Non ergo hoc nomen debet imponi alii ordini quam ordini principatuum.	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."
IЄ q. 108 a. 5 arg. 5 Praeterea, nomen Seraphim imponitur ab ardore qui ad caritatem pertinet, nomen autem Cherubim imponitur a scientia. Caritas autem et scientia sunt dona communia omnibus Angelis. Non ergo debent esse nomina specialium ordinum.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 5 arg. 6 Praeterea, throni dicuntur sedes. Sed ex hoc ipso Deus in creatura rationali sedere dicitur, quod ipsum cognoscit et amat. Non ergo debet esse alius ordo thronorum ab ordine Cherubim et Seraphim. Sic igitur videtur quod inconvenienter ordines Angelorum nominentur.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est auctoritas sacrae Scripturae, quae sic eos nominat. Nomen enim Seraphim ponitur Isaiae VI; nomen Cherubim Ezech. I; nomen thronorum, Coloss. I; dominationes autem et virtutes et potestates et principatus ponuntur Ephes. I; nomen autem Archangeli ponitur in canonica Iudae, nomina autem Angelorum in pluribus Scripturae locis.	On the contrary is the authority of Holy Scripture wherein they are so named. For the name "Seraphim" is found in Isaiah 6:2; the name "Cherubim" in Ezekiel 1 (Cf. 10:15-20); "Thrones" in Colossians 1:16; "Dominations," "Virtues," "Powers," and "Principalities" are mentioned in Ephesians 1:21; the name "Archangels" in the canonical epistle of St. Jude (9), and the name "Angels" is found in many places of Scripture.
IЄ q. 108 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in nominatione angelicorum ordinum, considerare oportet quod propria nomina singulorum ordinum proprietates eorum designant, ut Dionysius dicit VII cap. Cael. Hier. Ad videndum autem quae sit proprietas cuiuslibet ordinis, considerare oportet quod in rebus ordinatis tripliciter aliquid esse contingit, scilicet per proprietatem, per excessum, et per participationem. Per proprietatem autem dicitur esse aliquid in re aliqua, quod adaequatur et proportionatur naturae ipsius. Per excessum autem, quando illud quod attribuitur alicui, est minus quam res cui attribuitur, sed tamen convenit illi rei per quendam excessum; sicut dictum est de omnibus nominibus quae attribuuntur Deo. Per participationem autem, quando illud quod attribuitur alicui, non plenarie invenitur in eo, sed deficienter; sicut sancti homines participative dicuntur dii. Si ergo aliquid nominari debeat nomine designante proprietatem ipsius, non debet nominari ab eo quod imperfecte participat, neque ab eo quod excedenter habet; sed ab eo quod est sibi quasi coaequatum. Sicut si quis velit proprie nominare hominem, dicet eum substantiam rationalem, non autem substantiam intellectualem, quod est proprium nomen Angeli, quia simplex intelligentia convenit Angelo per proprietatem, homini vero per participationem; neque substantiam sensibilem, quod est nomen bruti proprium, quia sensus est minus quam id quod est proprium homini, et convenit homini excedenter prae aliis animalibus. Sic igitur considerandum est in ordinibus Angelorum, quod omnes spirituales perfectiones sunt omnibus Angelis communes et quod omnes abundantius existunt in superioribus quam in inferioribus. Sed cum in ipsis etiam perfectionibus sit quidam gradus, superior perfectio attribuitur superiori ordini per proprietatem, inferiori vero per participationem, e converso autem inferior attribuitur inferiori per proprietatem, superiori autem per excessum. Et ita superior ordo a superiori perfectione nominatur. Sic igitur Dionysius exponit ordinum nomina secundum convenientiam ad spirituales perfectiones eorum. Gregorius vero, in expositione horum nominum, magis attendere videtur exteriora ministeria. Dicit enim, quod Angeli dicuntur qui minima nuntiant; Archangeli, qui summa; virtutes per quas miracula fiunt; potestates quibus adversae potestates repelluntur; principatus, qui ipsis bonis spiritibus praesunt.	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 (13, 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."
IЄ q. 108 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Angelus nuntius dicitur. Omnes ergo caelestes spiritus, inquantum sunt manifestatores divinorum, Angeli vocantur. Sed superiores Angeli habent quandam excellentiam in hac manifestatione, a qua superiores ordines nominantur. Infimus autem Angelorum ordo nullam excellentiam supra communem manifestationem addit, et ideo a simplici manifestatione nominatur. Et sic nomen commune remanet infimo ordini quasi proprium, ut dicit Dionysius V cap. Cael. Hier. Vel potest dici quod infimus ordo specialiter dicitur ordo Angelorum, quia immediate nobis annuntiant. Virtus autem dupliciter accipi potest. Uno modo, communiter, secundum quod est media inter essentiam et operationem, et sic omnes caelestes spiritus nominantur caelestes virtutes, sicut et caelestes essentiae. Alio modo, secundum quod importat quendam excessum fortitudinis, et sic est proprium nomen ordinis. Unde Dionysius dicit, VIII cap. Cael. Hier., quod nomen virtutum significat quandam virilem et inconcussam fortitudinem, primo quidem ad omnes operationes divinas eis convenientes; secundo, ad suscipiendum divina. Et ita significat quod sine aliquo timore aggrediuntur divina quae ad eos pertinent, quod videtur ad fortitudinem animi pertinere.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut dicit Dionysius XII cap. de Div. Nom., dominatio laudatur in Deo singulariter per quendam excessum, sed per participationem, divina eloquia vocant dominos principaliores ornatus, per quos inferiores ex donis eius accipiunt. Unde et Dionysius dicit in VIII cap. Cael. Hier., quod nomen dominationum primo quidem significat quandam libertatem, quae est a servili conditione et pedestri subiectione, sicut plebs subiicitur, et a tyrannica oppressione, quam interdum etiam maiores patiuntur. Secundo significat quandam rigidam et inflexibilem gubernationem, quae ad nullum servilem actum inclinatur, neque ad aliquem actum subiectorum vel oppressorum a tyrannis. Tertio significat appetitum et participationem veri dominii, quod est in Deo. Et similiter nomen cuiuslibet ordinis significat participationem eius quod est in Deo; sicut nomen virtutum significat participationem divinae virtutis; et sic de aliis.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod nomen dominationis, et potestatis, et principatus, diversimode ad gubernationem pertinet. Nam domini est solummodo praecipere de agendis. Et ideo Gregorius dicit quod quaedam Angelorum agmina, pro eo quod eis cetera ad obediendum subiecta sunt, dominationes vocantur. Nomen vero potestatis ordinationem quandam designat; secundum illud apostoli ad Rom. XIII, qui potestati resistit, Dei ordinationi resistit. Et ideo Dionysius dicit quod nomen potestatis significat quandam ordinationem et circa susceptionem divinorum, et circa actiones divinas quas superiores in inferiores agunt, eas sursum ducendo. Ad ordinem ergo potestatum pertinet ordinare quae a subditis sint agenda. Principari vero, ut Gregorius dicit, est inter reliquos priorem existere, quasi primi sint in executione eorum quae imperantur. Et ideo Dionysius dicit, IX cap. Cael. Hier., quod nomen principatuum significat ductivum cum ordine sacro. Illi enim qui alios ducunt, primi inter eos existentes, principes proprie vocantur secundum illud Psalmi LXVII, praevenerunt principes coniuncti psallentibus.	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" (Romans 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" (Psalm 67:26).
IЄ q. 108 a. 5 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod Archangeli, secundum Dionysium, medii sunt inter principatus et Angelos. Medium autem comparatum uni extremo, videtur alterum, inquantum participat naturam utriusque, sicut tepidum respectu calidi est frigidum, respectu vero frigidi est calidum. Sic et Archangeli dicuntur quasi principes Angeli, quia respectu Angelorum sunt principes, respectu vero principatuum sunt Angeli. Secundum Gregorium autem, dicuntur Archangeli ex eo quod principantur soli ordini Angelorum, quasi magna nuntiantes. Principatus autem dicuntur ex eo quod principantur omnibus caelestibus virtutibus divinas iussiones explentibus.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 5 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod nomen Seraphim non imponitur tantum a caritate, sed a caritatis excessu, quem importat nomen ardoris vel incendii. Unde Dionysius, VII cap. Cael. Hier., exponit nomen Seraphim secundum proprietates ignis, in quo est excessus caliditatis. In igne autem tria possumus considerare. Primo quidem, motum, qui est sursum, et qui est continuus. Per quod significatur quod indeclinabiliter moventur in Deum. Secundo vero, virtutem activam eius, quae est calidum. Quod quidem non simpliciter invenitur in igne, sed cum quadam acuitate, quia maxime est penetrativus in agendo, et pertingit usque ad minima; et iterum cum quodam superexcedenti fervore. Et per hoc significatur actio huiusmodi Angelorum, quam in subditos potenter exercent, eos in similem fervorem excitantes, et totaliter eos per incendium purgantes. Tertio consideratur in igne claritas eius. Et hoc significat quod huiusmodi Angeli in seipsis habent inextinguibilem lucem, et quod alios perfecte illuminant. Similiter etiam nomen Cherubim imponitur a quodam excessu scientiae, unde interpretatur plenitudo scientiae. Quod Dionysius exponit quantum ad quatuor, primo quidem, quantum ad perfectam Dei visionem; secundo, quantum ad plenam susceptionem divini luminis; tertio, quantum ad hoc, quod in ipso Deo contemplantur pulchritudinem ordinis rerum a Deo derivatam; quarto, quantum ad hoc, quod ipsi pleni existentes huiusmodi cognitione, eam copiose in alios effundunt.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 5 ad 6 Ad sextum dicendum quod ordo thronorum habet excellentiam prae inferioribus ordinibus in hoc, quod immediate in Deo rationes divinorum operum cognoscere possunt. Sed Cherubim habent excellentiam scientiae; Seraphim vero excellentiam ardoris. Et licet in his duabus excellentiis includatur tertia, non tamen in illa quae est thronorum, includuntur aliae duae. Et ideo ordo thronorum distinguitur ab ordine Cherubim et Seraphim. Hoc enim est commune in omnibus, quod excellentia inferioris continetur in excellentia superioris, et non e converso. Exponit autem Dionysius nomen thronorum, per convenientiam ad materiales sedes. In quibus est quatuor considerare. Primo quidem, situm, quia sedes supra terram elevantur. Et sic ipsi Angeli qui throni dicuntur, elevantur usque ad hoc, quod in Deo immediate rationes rerum cognoscant. Secundo in materialibus sedibus consideratur firmitas, quia in ipsis aliquis firmiter sedet. Hic autem est e converso, nam ipsi Angeli firmantur per Deum. Tertio, quia sedes suscipit sedentem, et in ea deferri potest. Sic et isti Angeli suscipiunt Deum in seipsis, et eum quodammodo ad inferiores ferunt. Quarto, ex figura, quia sedes ex una parte est aperta ad suscipiendum sedentem. Ita et isti Angeli sunt per promptitudinem aperti ad suscipiendum Deum, et famulandum ipsi.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter gradus ordinum assignentur. Ordo enim praelatorum videtur esse supremus. Sed dominationes, principatus et potestates ex ipsis nominibus praelationem quandam habent. Ergo isti ordines debent esse inter omnes supremi.	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 to be supreme.
IЄ q. 108 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, quanto aliquis ordo est Deo propinquior, tanto est superior. Sed ordo thronorum videtur esse Deo propinquissimus, nihil enim coniungitur propinquius sedenti, quam sua sedes. Ergo ordo thronorum est altissimus.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, scientia est prior quam amor; et intellectus videtur esse altior quam voluntas. Ergo et ordo Cherubim videtur esse altior quam ordo Seraphim.	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."
IЄ q. 108 a. 6 arg. 4 Praeterea, Gregorius ponit principatus supra potestates. Non ergo collocantur immediate supra Archangelos, ut Dionysius dicit.	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).
IЄ q. 108 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra est quod Dionysius ponit, in prima quidem hierarchia. Seraphim ut primos, Cherubim ut medios, thronos ut ultimos; in media vero, dominationes ut primos, virtutes ut medios, potestates ut ultimos; in ultima, principatus ut primos, Archangelos ut medios, Angelos ut ultimos.	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."
IЄ q. 108 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod gradus angelicorum ordinum assignant et Gregorius et Dionysius, quantum ad alia quidem convenienter, sed quantum ad principatus et virtutes differenter. Nam Dionysius collocat virtutes sub dominationibus et supra potestates, principatus autem sub potestatibus et supra Archangelos, Gregorius autem ponit principatus in medio dominationum et potestatum, virtutes vero in medio potestatum et Archangelorum. Et utraque assignatio fulcimentum habere potest ex auctoritate apostoli. Qui, medios ordines ascendendo enumerans, dicit, Ephes. I, quod Deus constituit illum, scilicet Christum, ad dexteram suam in caelestibus, supra omnem principatum et potestatem et virtutem et dominationem, ubi virtutem ponit inter potestatem et dominationem, secundum assignationem Dionysii. Sed ad Coloss. I, enumerans eosdem ordines descendendo, dicit, sive throni, sive dominationes, sive principatus, sive potestates, omnia per ipsum et in ipso creata sunt, ubi principatus ponit medios inter dominationes et potestates, secundum assignationem Gregorii. Primo igitur videamus rationem assignationis Dionysii. In qua considerandum est quod, sicut supra dictum est, prima hierarchia accipit rationes rerum in ipso Deo; secunda vero in causis universalibus; tertia vero secundum determinationem ad speciales effectus. Et quia Deus est finis non solum angelicorum ministeriorum, sed etiam totius creaturae, ad primam hierarchiam pertinet consideratio finis; ad mediam vero dispositio universalis de agendis; ad ultimam autem applicatio dispositionis ad effectum, quae est operis executio; haec enim tria manifestum est in qualibet operatione inveniri. Et ideo Dionysius, ex nominibus ordinum proprietates illorum considerans, illos ordines in prima hierarchia posuit, quorum nomina imponuntur per respectum ad Deum, scilicet Seraphim et Cherubim et thronos. Illos vero ordines posuit in media hierarchia, quorum nomina designant communem quandam gubernationem sive dispositionem, scilicet dominationes, virtutes et potestates. Illos vero ordines posuit in tertia hierarchia, quorum nomina designant operis executionem, scilicet principatus, Angelos et Archangelos. In respectu autem ad finem, tria considerari possunt, nam primo, aliquis considerat finem; secundo vero, perfectam finis cognitionem accipit; tertio vero, intentionem suam in ipso defigit; quorum secundum ex additione se habet ad primum, et tertium ad utrumque. Et quia Deus est finis creaturarum sicut dux est finis exercitus, ut dicitur in XII Metaphys., potest aliquid simile huius ordinis considerari in rebus humanis, nam quidam sunt qui hoc habent dignitatis, ut per seipsos familiariter accedere possunt ad regem vel ducem; quidam vero super hoc habent, ut etiam secreta eius cognoscant; alii vero insuper circa ipsum semper inhaerent, quasi ei coniuncti. Et secundum hanc similitudinem accipere possumus dispositionem ordinum primae hierarchiae. Nam throni elevantur ad hoc, quod Deum familiariter in seipsis recipiant, secundum quod rationes rerum in ipso immediate cognoscere possunt, quod est proprium totius primae hierarchiae. Cherubim vero supereminenter divina secreta cognoscunt. Seraphim vero excellunt in hoc quod est omnium supremum, scilicet Deo ipsi uniri. Ut sic ab eo quod est commune toti hierarchiae, denominetur ordo thronorum; sicut ab eo quod est commune omnibus caelestibus spiritibus, denominatur ordo Angelorum. Ad gubernationis autem rationem tria pertinent. Quorum primum est definitio eorum quae agenda sunt, quod est proprium dominationum. Secundum autem est praebere facultatem ad implendum, quod pertinet ad virtutes. Tertium autem est ordinare qualiter ea quae praecepta vel definita sunt, impleri possint, ut aliqui exequantur, et hoc pertinet ad potestates. Executio autem angelicorum ministeriorum consistit in annuntiando divina. In executione autem cuiuslibet actus, sunt quidam quasi incipientes actionem et alios ducentes, sicut in cantu praecentores, et in bello illi qui alios ducunt et dirigunt, et hoc pertinet ad principatus. Alii vero sunt qui simpliciter exequuntur, et hoc pertinet ad Angelos. Alii vero medio modo se habent, quod ad Archangelos pertinet, ut supra dictum est. Invenitur autem congrua haec ordinum assignatio. Nam semper summum inferioris ordinis affinitatem habet cum ultimo superioris; sicut infima animalia parum distant a plantis. Primus autem ordo est divinarum personarum, qui terminatur ad spiritum sanctum, qui est amor procedens, cum quo affinitatem habet supremus ordo primae hierarchiae, ab incendio amoris denominatus. Infimus autem ordo primae hierarchiae est thronorum, qui ex suo nomine habent quandam affinitatem cum dominationibus, nam throni dicuntur, secundum Gregorium, per quos Deus sua iudicia exercet; accipiunt enim divinas illuminationes per convenientiam ad immediate illuminandum secundam hierarchiam, ad quam pertinet dispositio divinorum ministeriorum. Ordo vero potestatum affinitatem habet cum ordine principatuum, nam cum potestatum sit ordinationem subiectis imponere, haec ordinatio statim in nomine principatuum designatur, qui sunt primi in executione divinorum ministeriorum, utpote praesidentes gubernationi gentium et regnorum, quod est primum et praecipuum in divinis ministeriis; nam bonum gentis est divinius quam bonum unius hominis. Unde dicitur Dan. X, princeps regni Persarum restitit mihi. Dispositio etiam ordinum quam Gregorius ponit, congruitatem habet. Nam cum dominationes sint definientes et praecipientes ea quae ad divina ministeria pertinent, ordines eis subiecti disponuntur secundum dispositionem eorum in quos divina ministeria exercentur ut autem Augustinus dicit in III de Trin., corpora quodam ordine reguntur, inferiora per superiora, et omnia per spiritualem creaturam; et spiritus malus per spiritum bonum. Primus ergo ordo post dominationes dicitur principatuum, qui etiam bonis spiritibus principantur. Deinde potestates, per quas arcentur mali spiritus, sicut per potestates terrenas arcentur malefactores, ut habetur Rom. XIII. Post quas sunt virtutes, quae habent potestatem super corporalem naturam in operatione miraculorum. Post quas sunt Archangeli et Angeli, qui nuntiant hominibus vel magna, quae sunt supra rationem; vel parva, ad quae ratio se extendere potest.	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 (Ephesians 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 (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" (Daniel 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 (Romans 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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 6 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in Angelis potius est quod subiiciuntur Deo, quam quod inferioribus praesident, et hoc derivatur ex illo. Et ideo ordines nominati a praelatione non sunt supremi, sed magis ordines nominati a conversione ad Deum.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 6 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod illa propinquitas ad Deum quae designatur nomine thronorum, convenit etiam Cherubim et Seraphim, et excellentius, ut dictum est.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, cognitio est secundum quod cognita sunt in cognoscente; amor autem secundum quod amans unitur rei amatae. Superiora autem nobiliori modo sunt in seipsis quam in inferioribus, inferiora vero nobiliori modo in superioribus quam in seipsis. Et ideo inferiorum quidem cognitio praeeminet dilectioni, superiorum autem dilectio, et praecipue Dei, praeeminet cognitioni.	Reply to Objection 3. As above explained (27, 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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 6 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod, si quis diligenter consideret dispositiones ordinum secundum Dionysium et Gregorium, parum vel nihil differunt, si ad rem referantur. Exponit enim Gregorius principatuum nomen ex hoc, quod bonis spiritibus praesunt, et hoc convenit virtutibus, secundum quod in nomine virtutum intelligitur quaedam fortitudo dans efficaciam inferioribus spiritibus ad exequenda divina ministeria. Rursus virtutes, secundum Gregorium, videntur esse idem quod principatus secundum Dionysium. Nam hoc est primum in divinis ministeriis, miracula facere, per hoc enim paratur via Annuntiationi Archangelorum et Angelorum.	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."
IЄ q. 108 a. 7 arg. 1 Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ordines non remanebunt post diem iudicii. Dicit enim apostolus, I ad Cor. XV, quod Christus evacuabit omnem principatum et potestatem, cum tradiderit regnum Deo et patri, quod erit in ultima consummatione. Pari ergo ratione, in illo statu omnes alii ordines evacuabuntur.	Objection 1. It would seem that the orders of angels will not outlast the Day of Judgment. For the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 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 consummaion. Therefore for the same reason all others will be abolished in that state.
IЄ q. 108 a. 7 arg. 2 Praeterea, ad officium angelicorum ordinum pertinet purgare, illuminare et perficere. Sed post diem iudicii unus Angelus non purgabit aut illuminabit aut perficiet alium, quia non proficient amplius in scientia. Ergo frustra ordines angelici remanerent.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 7 arg. 3 Praeterea, apostolus dicit, ad Heb. I, de Angelis, quod omnes sunt administratorii spiritus, in ministerium missi propter eos qui haereditatem capiunt salutis, ex quo patet quod officia Angelorum ordinantur ad hoc, quod homines ad salutem adducantur. Sed omnes electi usque ad diem iudicii salutem consequuntur. Non ergo post diem iudicii remanebunt officia et ordines Angelorum.	Objection 3. Further, the Apostle says of the angels (Hebrews 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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 7 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Iudic. V, stellae manentes in ordine et cursu suo, quod exponitur de Angelis. Ergo Angeli semper in suis ordinibus remanebunt.	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.
IЄ q. 108 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in ordinibus angelicis duo possunt considerari, scilicet distinctio graduum, et executio officiorum. Distinctio autem graduum est in Angelis secundum differentiam gratiae et naturae, ut supra dictum est. Et utraque differentia semper in Angelis remanebit. Non enim posset naturarum differentia ab eis auferri, nisi eis corruptis, differentia etiam gloriae erit in eis semper, secundum differentiam meriti praecedentis. Executio autem officiorum angelicorum aliquo modo remanebit post diem iudicii, et aliquo modo cessabit. Cessabit quidem, secundum quod eorum officia ordinantur ad perducendum aliquos ad finem, remanebit autem, secundum quod convenit in ultima finis consecutione. Sicut etiam alia sunt officia militarium ordinum in pugna, et in triumpho.	I answer that, In the angelic orders we may consider two things; the distinction of grades, and the execution of their offices. The distinction of grades among the angels takes place according to the difference of grace and nature, as above explained (4); and these differences will ever remain in the angels; for these differences of natures cannot be taken from them unless they themselves be corrupted. The difference of glory will also ever remain in them according to the difference of preceding merit. As to the execution of the angelic offices, it will to a certain degree remain after the Day of Judgment, and to a certain degree will cease. It will cease accordingly as their offices are directed towards leading others to their end; but it will remain, accordingly as it agrees with the attainment of the end. Thus also the various ranks of soldiers have different duties to perform in battle and in triumph.
IЄ q. 108 a. 7 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod principatus et potestates evacuabuntur in illa finali consummatione quantum ad hoc, quod alios ad finem perducant, quia consecuto iam fine, non est necessarium tendere in finem. Et haec ratio intelligitur ex verbis apostoli, dicentis, cum tradiderit regnum Deo et patri, idest, cum perduxerit fideles ad fruendum ipso Deo.	Reply to Objection 1. The principalities and powers will come to an end in that final consummaion as regards their office of leading others to their end; because when the end is attained, it is no longer necessary to tend towards the end. This is clear from the words of the Apostle, "When He shall have delivered up the kingdom of God and the Father," i.e. when He shall have led the faithful to the enjoyment of God Himself.
IЄ q. 108 a. 7 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod actiones Angelorum super alios Angelos considerandae sunt secundum similitudinem actionum intelligibilium quae sunt in nobis. Inveniuntur autem in nobis multae intelligibiles actiones quae sunt ordinatae secundum ordinem causae et causati; sicut cum per multa media gradatim in unam conclusionem devenimus. Manifestum est autem quod cognitio conclusionis dependet ex omnibus mediis praecedentibus, non solum quantum ad novam acquisitionem scientiae, sed etiam quantum ad scientiae conservationem. Cuius signum est quod, si quis oblivisceretur aliquod praecedentium mediorum, opinionem quidem vel fidem de conclusione posset habere, sed non scientiam, ordine causarum ignorato. Sic igitur, cum inferiores Angeli rationes divinorum operum cognoscant per lumen superiorum Angelorum, dependet eorum cognitio ex lumine superiorum, non solum quantum ad novam acquisitionem scientiae, sed etiam quantum ad cognitionis conservationem. Licet ergo post iudicium non proficiant inferiores Angeli in cognitione aliquarum rerum, non tamen propter hoc excluditur quin a superioribus illuminentur.	Reply to Objection 2. The actions of angels over the other angels are to be considered according to a likeness to our own intellectual actions. In ourselves we find many intellectual actions which are ordered according to the order of cause and effect; as when we gradually arrive at one conclusion by many middle terms. Now it is manifest that the knowledge of a conclusion depends on all the preceding middle terms not only in the new acquisition of knowledge, but also as regards the keeping of the knowledge acquired. A proof of this is that when anyone forgets any of the preceding middle terms he can have opinion or belief about the conclusion, but not knowledge; as he is ignorant of the order of the causes. So, since the inferior angels know the types of the Divine works by the light of the superior angels, their knowledge depends on the light of the superior angels not only as regards the acquisition of knowledge, but also as regards the preserving of the knowledge possessed. So, although after the Judgment the inferior angels will not progress in the knowledge of some things, still this will not prevent their being enlightened by the superior angels.
IЄ q. 108 a. 7 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, etsi post diem iudicii homines non sint ulterius ad salutem adducendi per ministerium Angelorum; tamen illi qui iam salutem erunt consecuti, aliquam illustrationem habebunt per Angelorum officia.	Reply to Objection 3. Although after the Day of Judgment men will not be led any more to salvation by the ministry of the angels, still those who are already saved will be enlightened through the angelic ministry.
IЄ q. 108 a. 8 arg. 1 Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod homines non assumantur ad ordines Angelorum. Hierarchia enim humana continetur sub infima hierarchiarum caelestium, sicut infima sub media, et media sub prima. Sed Angeli infimae hierarchiae nunquam transferentur in mediam aut in primam. Ergo neque homines transferentur ad ordines Angelorum.	Objection 1. It would seem that men are not taken up into the orders of the angels. For the human hierarchy is stationed beneath the lowest heavenly hierarchy, as the lowest under the middle hierarchy and the middle beneath the first. But the angels of the lowest hierarchy are never transferred into the middle, or the first. Therefore neither are men transferred to the angelic orders.
IЄ q. 108 a. 8 arg. 2 Praeterea, ordinibus Angelorum aliqua officia competunt, utpote custodire, miracula facere, Daemones arcere, et huiusmodi, quae non videntur convenire animabus sanctorum. Ergo non transferentur ad ordines Angelorum.	Objection 2. Further, certain offices belong to the orders of the angels, as to guard, to work miracles, to coerce the demons, and the like; which do not appear to belong to the souls of the saints. Therefore they are not transferred to the angelic orders.
IЄ q. 108 a. 8 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut boni Angeli inducunt ad bonum, ita Daemones inducunt ad malum. Sed erroneum est dicere quod animae hominum malorum convertantur in Daemones, hoc enim Chrysostomus reprobat, super Matth. Ergo non videtur quod animae sanctorum transferantur ad ordines Angelorum.	Objection 3. Further, as the good angels lead on to good, so do the demons to what is evil. But it is erroneous to say that the souls of bad men are changed into demons; for Chrysostom rejects this (Hom. xxviii in Matt.). Therefore it does not seem that the souls of the saints will be transferred to the orders of angels.
IЄ q. 108 a. 8 s. c. Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Matth. XXII, de sanctis, quod erunt sicut Angeli Dei in caelo.	On the contrary, The Lord says of the saints that, "they will be as the angels of God" (Matthew 22:30).
IЄ q. 108 a. 8 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, ordines Angelorum distinguuntur et secundum conditionem naturae, et secundum dona gratiae. Si ergo considerentur Angelorum ordines solum quantum ad gradum naturae, sic homines nullo modo assumi possunt ad ordines Angelorum, quia semper remanebit naturarum distinctio. Quam quidam considerantes, posuerunt quod nullo modo homines transferri possunt ad aequalitatem Angelorum. Quod est erroneum, repugnat enim promissioni Christi, dicentis, Lucae XX, quod filii resurrectionis erunt aequales Angelis in caelis. Illud enim quod est ex parte naturae, se habet ut materiale in ratione ordinis, completivum vero est quod est ex dono gratiae, quae dependet ex liberalitate Dei, non ex ordine naturae. Et ideo per donum gratiae homines mereri possunt tantam gloriam, ut Angelis aequentur secundum singulos Angelorum gradus. Quod est homines ad ordines Angelorum assumi. Quidam tamen dicunt quod ad ordines Angelorum non assumuntur omnes qui salvantur, sed soli virgines vel perfecti; alii vero suum ordinem constituent, quasi condivisum toti societati Angelorum. Sed hoc est contra Augustinum, qui dicit XII de Civ. Dei, quod non erunt duae societates hominum et Angelorum, sed una, quia omnium beatitudo est adhaerere uni Deo.	I answer that, As above explained (4,7), the orders of the angels are distinguished according to the conditions of nature and according to the gifts of grace. Considered only as regards the grade of nature, men can in no way be assumed into the angelic orders; for the natural distinction will always remain. In view of this distinction, some asserted that men can in no way be transferred to an equality with the angels; but this is erroneous, contradicting as it does the promise of Christ saying that the children of the resurrection will be equal to the angels in heaven (Luke 20:36). For whatever belongs to nature is the material part of an order; whilst that which perfects is from grace which depends on the liberality of God, and not on the order of nature. Therefore by the gift of grace men can merit glory in such a degree as to be equal to the angels, in each of the angelic grades; and this implies that men are taken up into the orders of the angels. Some, however, say that not all who are saved are assumed into the angelic orders, but only virgins or the perfect; and that the other will constitute their own order, as it were, corresponding to the whole society of the angels. But this is against what Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xii, 9), that "there will not be two societies of men and angels, but only one; because the beatitude of all is to cleave to God alone."
IЄ q. 108 a. 8 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod gratia Angelis datur secundum proportionem naturalium; non autem sic est de hominibus, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo sicut inferiores Angeli non possunt transferri ad naturalem gradum superiorum, ita nec ad gratuitum. Homines vero possunt ad gratuitum conscendere, sed non ad naturalem.	Reply to Objection 1. Grace is given to the angels in proportion to their natural gifts. This, however, does not apply to men, as above explained (4; 62, 6). So, as the inferior angels cannot be transferred to the natural grade of the superior, neither can they be transferred to the superior grade of grace; whereas men can ascend to the grade of grace, but not of nature.
IЄ q. 108 a. 8 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Angeli, secundum naturae ordinem, medii sunt inter nos et Deum. Et ideo, secundum legem communem, per eos administrantur non solum res humanae, sed etiam omnia corporalia. Homines autem sancti, etiam post hanc vitam, sunt eiusdem naturae nobiscum. Unde secundum legem communem, non administrant humana, nec rebus vivorum intersunt, ut Augustinus dicit in libro de cura pro mortuis agenda. Ex quadam tamen speciali dispensatione interdum aliquibus sanctis conceditur, vel vivis vel mortuis, huiusmodi officia exercere, vel miracula faciendo, vel Daemones arcendo, vel aliquid huiusmodi; sicut Augustinus in eodem libro dicit.	Reply to Objection 2. The angels according to the order of nature are between us and God; and therefore according to the common law not only human affairs are administered by them, but also all corporeal matters. But holy men even after this life are of the same nature with ourselves; and hence according to the common law they do not administer human affairs, "nor do they interfere in the things of the living," as Augustine says (De cura pro mortuis xiii, xvi). Still, by a certain special dispensation it is sometimes granted to some of the saints to exercise these offices; by working miracles, by coercing the demons, or by doing something of that kind, as Augustine says (De cura pro mortuis xvi).
IЄ q. 108 a. 8 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod homines ad poenam Daemonum transferri, non est erroneum, sed quidam erronee posuerunt Daemones nihil aliud esse quam animas defunctorum. Et hoc Chrysostomus reprobat.	Reply to Objection 3. It is not erroneous to say that men are transferred to the penalty of demons; but some erroneously stated that the demons are nothing but souls of the dead; and it is this that Chrysostom rejects.
IЄ q. 109 pr. Deinde considerandum est de ordinatione malorum Angelorum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum ordines sint in Daemonibus. Secundo, utrum in eis sit praelatio. Tertio, utrum unus illuminet alium. Quarto, utrum subiiciantur praelationi bonorum Angelorum.	Question 109. The ordering of the bad angelsAre there orders among the demons? Is there precedence among them? Does one enlighten another? Are they subject to the precedence of the good angels?
IЄ q. 109 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod ordines non sint in Daemonibus. Ordo enim pertinet ad rationem boni, sicut et modus et species, ut Augustinus dicit in libro de natura boni; et e contrario inordinatio pertinet ad rationem mali. Sed in bonis Angelis nihil est inordinatum. Ergo in malis Angelis non sunt aliqui ordines.	Objection 1. It would seem that there are no orders among the demons. For order belongs to good, as also mode, and species, as Augustine says (De Nat. Boni iii); and on the contrary, disorder belongs to evil. But there is nothing disorderly in the good angels. Therefore in the bad angels there are no orders.
IЄ q. 109 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, ordines angelici sub aliqua hierarchia continentur. Sed Daemones non sunt sub aliqua hierarchia, quae est sacer principatus, cum ab omni sanctitate sint vacui. Ergo in Daemonibus non sunt ordines.	Objection 2. Further, the angelic orders are contained under a hierarchy. But the demons are not in a hierarchy, which is defined as a holy principality; for they are void of all holiness. Therefore among the demons there are no orders.
IЄ q. 109 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, Daemones de singulis ordinibus Angelorum ceciderunt, ut communiter dicitur. Si ergo aliqui Daemones dicuntur esse alicuius ordinis, quia de illo ordine ceciderunt; videtur quod deberent eis attribui nomina singulorum ordinum. Nunquam autem invenitur quod dicantur Seraphim, vel throni, vel dominationes. Ergo, pari ratione, non sunt in aliquibus ordinibus.	Objection 3. Further, the demons fell from every one of the angelic orders; as is commonly supposed. Therefore, if some demons are said to belong to an order, as falling from that order, it would seem necessary to give them the names of each of those orders. But we never find that they are called "Seraphim," or "Thrones," or "Dominations." Therefore on the same ground they are not to be placed in any other order.
IЄ q. 109 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Ephes. ult., quod est nobis colluctatio adversus principes et potestates, adversus mundi rectores tenebrarum harum.	On the contrary, The Apostle says (Ephesians 6:12): "Our wrestling . . . is against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness."
IЄ q. 109 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut iam dictum est, ordo angelicus consideratur et secundum gradum naturae, et secundum gradum gratiae. Gratia vero habet duplicem statum, scilicet imperfectum, qui est status merendi; et perfectum, qui est status gloriae consummatae. Si ergo considerentur ordines angelici quantum ad perfectionem gloriae, sic Daemones neque sunt in ordinibus angelicis, neque unquam fuerunt. Si autem considerentur quantum ad id quod est gratiae imperfectae, sic Daemones fuerunt quidem aliquando in ordinibus Angelorum, sed ab eis ceciderunt; secundum illud quod supra posuimus, omnes Angelos in gratia creatos fuisse. Si autem considerentur quantum ad id quod est naturae, sic adhuc sunt in ordinibus, quia data naturalia non amiserunt, ut Dionysius dicit.	I answer that, As explained above (108, 4,7,8), order in the angels is considered both according to the grade of nature; and according to that of grace. Now grace has a twofold state, the imperfect, which is that of merit; and the perfect, which is that of consummae glory. If therefore we consider the angelic orders in the light of the perfection of glory, then the demons are not in the angelic orders, and never were. But if we consider them in relation to imperfect grace, in that view the demons were at the time in the orders of angels, but fell away from them, according to what was said above (62, 3), that all the angels were created in grace. But if we consider them in the light of nature, in that view they are still in those orders; because they have not lost their natural gifts; as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv).
IЄ q. 109 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod bonum potest inveniri sine malo; sed malum non potest inveniri sine bono, ut supra habitum est. Et ideo Daemones, inquantum habent naturam bonam, ordinati sunt.	Reply to Objection 1. Good can exist without evil; whereas evil cannot exist without good (49, 3); so there is order in the demons, as possessing a good nature.
IЄ q. 109 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ordinatio Daemonum, si consideretur ex parte Dei ordinantis, est sacra, utitur enim Daemonibus propter seipsum. Sed ex parte voluntatis Daemonum, non est sacra, quia abutuntur sua natura ad malum.	Reply to Objection 2. If we consider the ordering of the demons on the part of God Who orders them, it is sacred; for He uses the demons for Himself; but on the part of the demons' will it is not a sacred thing, because they abuse their nature for evil.
IЄ q. 109 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod nomen Seraphim imponitur ab ardore caritatis, nomen autem thronorum ab inhabitatione divina, nomen autem dominationum importat libertatem quandam, quae omnia opponuntur peccato. Et ideo peccantibus Angelis huiusmodi nomina non attribuuntur.	Reply to Objection 3. The name "Seraphim" is given from the ardor of charity; and the name "Thrones" from the Divine indwelling; and the name "Dominations" imports a certain liberty; all of which are opposed to sin; and therefore these names are not given to the angels who sinned.
IЄ q. 109 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Daemonibus non sit praelatio. Omnis enim praelatio est secundum aliquem ordinem iustitiae. Sed Daemones totaliter a iustitia ceciderunt. Ergo in eis non est praelatio.	Objection 1. It would seem that there is no precedence among the demons. For every precedence is according to some order of justice. But the demons are wholly fallen from justice. Therefore there is no precedence among them.
IЄ q. 109 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, ubi non est obedientia et subiectio, non est praelatio. Haec autem sine concordia esse non possunt; quae in Daemonibus nulla est, secundum illud Prov. XIII, inter superbos semper sunt iurgia. Ergo in Daemonibus non est praelatio.	Objection 2. Further, there is no precedence where obedience and subjection do not exist. But these cannot be without concord; which is not to be found among the demons, according to the text, "Among the proud there are always contentions" (Proverbs 13:10). Therefore there is no precedence among the demons.
IЄ q. 109 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, si in eis est aliqua praelatio, aut hoc pertinet ad eorum naturam, aut ad eorum culpam vel poenam. Sed non ad eorum naturam, quia subiectio et servitus non est ex natura, sed est ex peccato subsecuta. Nec pertinet ad culpam vel poenam, quia sic superiores Daemones, qui magis peccaverunt, inferioribus subderentur. Non ergo est praelatio in Daemonibus.	Objection 3. If there be precedence among them it is either according to nature, or according to their sin or punishment. But it is not according to their nature, for subjection and service do not come from nature but from subsequent sin; neither is it according to sin or punishment, because in that case the superior demons who have sinned the most grievously, would be subject to the inferior. Therefore there is no precedence among the demons.
IЄ q. 109 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicit Glossa, I ad Cor. XV, quandiu durat mundus, Angeli Angelis, homines hominibus, et Daemones Daemonibus praesunt.	On the contrary, On 1 Corinthians 15:24 the gloss says: "While the world lasts, angels will preside over angels, men over men, and demons over demons."
IЄ q. 109 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, cum actio sequatur naturam rei, quorumcumque naturae sunt ordinatae, oportet quod etiam actiones sub invicem ordinentur. Sicut patet in rebus corporalibus, quia enim inferiora corpora naturali ordine sunt infra corpora caelestia actiones et motus eorum subduntur actionibus et motibus caelestium corporum. Manifestum est autem ex praemissis quod Daemonum quidam naturali ordine sub aliis constituuntur. Unde et actiones eorum sub actionibus superiorum sunt. Et hoc est quod rationem praelationis facit, ut scilicet actio subditi subdatur actioni praelati. Sic igitur ipsa naturalis dispositio Daemonum requirit quod sit in eis praelatio. Convenit etiam hoc divinae sapientiae, quae nihil in universo inordinatum relinquit, quae attingit a fine usque ad finem fortiter, et disponit omnia suaviter, ut dicitur Sap. VIII.	I answer that, Since action follows the nature of a thing, where natures are subordinate, actions also must be subordinate to each other. Thus it is in corporeal things, for as the inferior bodies by natural order are below the heavenly bodies, their actions and movements are subject to the actions and movements of the heavenly bodies. Now it is plain from what we have said (1), that the demons are by natural order subject to others; and hence their actions are subject to the action of those above them, and this is what we mean by precedence--that the action of the subject should be under the action of the prelate. So the very natural disposition of the demons requires that there should be authority among them. This agrees too with Divine wisdom, which leaves nothing inordinate, which "reacheth from end to end mightily, and ordereth all things sweetly" (Wisdom 8:1).
IЄ q. 109 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod praelatio Daemonum non fundatur super eorum iustitia, sed super iustitia Dei cuncta ordinantis.	Reply to Objection 1. The authority of the demons is not founded on their justice, but on the justice of God ordering all things.
IЄ q. 109 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod concordia Daemonum, qua quidam aliis obediunt, non est ex amicitia quam inter se habeant; sed ex communi nequitia, qua homines odiunt, et Dei iustitiae repugnant. Est enim proprium hominum impiorum, ut eis se adiungant et subiiciant, ad propriam nequitiam exequendam, quos potiores viribus vident.	Reply to Objection 2. The concord of the demons, whereby some obey others, does not arise from mutual friendships, but from their common wickedness whereby they hate men, and fight against God's justice. For it belongs to wicked men to be joined to and subject to those whom they see to be stronger, in order to carry out their own wickedness.
IЄ q. 109 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Daemones non sunt aequales secundum naturam, unde in eis est naturalis praelatio. Quod in hominibus non contingit, qui natura sunt pares. Quod autem superioribus inferiores subdantur, non est ad bonum superiorum, sed magis ad malum eorum; quia cum mala facere maxime ad miseriam pertineat, praeesse in malis est esse magis miserum.	Reply to Objection 3. The demons are not equal in nature; and so among them there exists a natural precedence; which is not the case with men, who are naturally equal. That the inferior are subject to the superior, is not for the benefit of the superior, but rather to their detriment; because since to do evil belongs in a pre-eminent degree to unhappiness, it follows that to preside in evil is to be more unhappy.
IЄ q. 109 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod in Daemonibus sit illuminatio. Illuminatio enim consistit in manifestatione veritatis. Sed unus Daemon potest alteri veritatem manifestare, quia superiores magis acumine naturalis scientiae vigent. Ergo superiores Daemones possunt inferiores illuminare.	Objection 1. It would seem that enlightenment is in the demons. For enlightenment means the manifestation of the truth. But one demon can manifest truth to another, because the superior excel in natural knowledge. Therefore the superior demons can enlighten the inferior.
IЄ q. 109 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, corpus quod superabundat in lumine, potest illuminare corpus quod in lumine deficit; sicut sol lunam. Sed superiores Daemones magis abundant in participatione luminis naturalis. Ergo videtur quod superiores Daemones possunt inferiores illuminare.	Objection 2. Further, a body abounding in light can enlighten a body deficient in light, as the sun enlightens the moon. But the superior demons abound in the participation of natural light. Therefore it seems that the superior demons can enlighten the inferior.
IЄ q. 109 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra, illuminatio cum purgatione est et perfectione, ut supra dictum est. Sed purgare non convenit Daemonibus; secundum illud Eccli. XXXIV, ab immundo quid mundabitur? Ergo etiam neque illuminare.	On the contrary, Enlightenment is not without cleansing and perfecting, as stated above (106, 1). But to cleanse does not befit the demons, according to the words: "What can be made clean by the unclean?" (Sirach 34:4). Therefore neither can they enlighten.
IЄ q. 109 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod in Daemonibus non potest esse illuminatio proprie. Dictum est enim supra quod illuminatio proprie est manifestatio veritatis, secundum quod habet ordinem ad Deum, qui illuminat omnem intellectum. Alia autem manifestatio veritatis potest esse locutio; sicut cum unus Angelus alteri suum conceptum manifestat. Perversitas autem Daemonum hoc habet, quod unus alium non intendit ordinare ad Deum, sed magis ab ordine divino abducere. Et ideo unus Daemon alium non illuminat; sed unus alii suum conceptum per modum locutionis intimare potest.	I answer that, There can be no enlightenment properly speaking among the demons. For, as above explained (107, 2), enlightenment properly speaking is the manifestation of the truth in reference to God, Who enlightens every intellect. Another kind of manifestation of the truth is speech, as when one angel manifests his concept to another. Now the demon's perversity does not lead one to order another to God, but rather to lead away from the Divine order; and so one demon does not enlighten another; but one can make known his mental concept to another by way of speech.
IЄ q. 109 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod non quaelibet veritatis manifestatio habet rationem illuminationis, sed solum quae dicta est.	Reply to Objection 1. Not every kind of manifestation of the truth is enlightenment, but only that which is above described.
IЄ q. 109 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod secundum ea quae ad naturalem cognitionem pertinent, non est necessaria manifestatio veritatis neque in Angelis neque in Daemonibus, quia, sicut supra dictum est, statim a principio suae conditionis omnia cognoverunt quae ad naturalem cognitionem pertinent. Et ideo maior plenitudo naturalis luminis quae est in superioribus Daemonibus, non potest esse ratio illuminationis.	Reply to Objection 2. According to what belongs to natural knowledge, there is no necessary manifestation of the truth either in the angels, or in the demons, because, as above explained (55, 2; 58, 2; 79, 2), they know from the first all that belongs to their natural knowledge. So the greater fulness of natural light in the superior demons does not prove that they can enlighten others.
IЄ q. 109 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod boni Angeli non habeant praelationem super malos. Praelatio enim Angelorum praecipue attenditur secundum illuminationes. Sed mali Angeli, cum sint tenebrae, non illuminantur a bonis. Ergo boni Angeli non habent praelationem super malos.	Objection 1. It would seem that the good angels have no precedence over the bad angels. For the angels' precedence is especially connected with enlightenment. But the bad angels, being darkness, are not enlightened by the good angels. Therefore the good angels do not rule over the bad.
IЄ q. 109 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, ad negligentiam praesidentis pertinere videntur ea quae per subditos male fiunt. Sed Daemones multa mala faciunt. Si igitur subsunt praelationi bonorum Angelorum, videtur in Angelis bonis esse aliqua negligentia. Quod est inconveniens.	Objection 2. Further, superiors are responsible as regards negligence for the evil deeds of their subjects. But the demons do much evil. Therefore if they are subject to the good angels, it seems that negligence is to be charged to the good angels; which cannot be admitted.
IЄ q. 109 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, praelatio Angelorum sequitur naturae ordinem, ut supra dictum est. Sed si Daemones de singulis ordinibus ceciderunt, ut communiter dicitur, multi Daemones multis bonis Angelis sunt superiores ordine naturae. Non ergo boni Angeli praelationem habent super omnes malos.	Objection 3. Further, the angels' precedence follows upon the order of nature, as above explained (2). But if the demons fell from every order, as is commonly said, many of the demons are superior to many good angels in the natural order. Therefore the good angels have no precedence over all the bad angels.
IЄ q. 109 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, III de Trin., quod spiritus vitae desertor atque peccator regitur per spiritum vitae rationalem, pium et iustum. Et Gregorius dicit quod potestates dicuntur Angeli quorum ditioni virtutes adversae subiectae sunt.	On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. iii), that "the treacherous and sinful spirit of life is ruled by the rational, pious, and just spirit of life"; and Gregory says (Hom. xxxiv) that "the Powers are the angels to whose charge are subjected the hostile powers."
IЄ q. 109 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod totus ordo praelationis primo et originaliter est in Deo, et participatur a creaturis secundum quod Deo magis appropinquant, illae enim creaturae super alias influentiam habent, quae sunt perfectiores et Deo propinquiores. Maxima autem perfectio, et per quam maxime Deo appropinquatur, est creaturarum fruentium Deo, sicut sunt sancti Angeli, qua perfectione Daemones privantur. Et ideo boni Angeli super malos praelationem habent, et per eos reguntur.	I answer that, The whole order of precedence is first and originally in God; and it is shared by creatures accordingly as they are the nearer to God. For those creatures, which are more perfect and nearer to God, have the power to act on others. Now the greatest perfection and that which brings them nearest to God belongs to the creatures who enjoy God, as the holy angels; of which perfection the demons are deprived; and therefore the good angels have precedence over the bad, and these are ruled by them.
IЄ q. 109 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod per sanctos Angelos multa de divinis mysteriis Daemonibus revelantur, cum divina iustitia exigit ut per Daemones aliqua fiant vel ad punitionem malorum, vel ad exercitationem bonorum, sicut in rebus humanis assessores iudicis revelant tortoribus eius sententiam. Huiusmodi autem revelationes, si ad Angelos revelantes comparentur, illuminationes sunt, quia ordinant eas ad Deum. Ex parte vero Daemonum, non sunt illuminationes, quia eas in Deum non ordinant, sed ad expletionem propriae iniquitatis.	Reply to Objection 1. Many things concerning Divine mysteries are made known by the holy angels to the bad angels, whenever the Divine justice requires the demons to do anything for the punishment of the evil; or for the trial of the good; as in human affairs the judge's assessors make known his sentence to the executioners. This revelation, if compared to the angelic revealers, can be called an enlightenment, forasmuch as they direct it to God; but it is not an enlightenment on the part of the demons, for these do not direct it to God; but to the fulfilment of their own wickedness.
IЄ q. 109 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod sancti Angeli sunt ministri divinae sapientiae. Unde sicut divina sapientia permittit aliqua mala fieri per malos Angelos vel homines, propter bona quae ex eis elicit; ita et boni Angeli non totaliter cohibent malos a nocendo.	Reply to Objection 2. The holy angels are the ministers of the Divine wisdom. Hence as the Divine wisdom permits some evil to be done by bad angels or men, for the sake of the good that follows; so also the good angels do not entirely restrain the bad from inflicting harm.
IЄ q. 109 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Angelus qui est inferior ordine naturae, praeest Daemonibus, quamvis superioribus ordine naturae; quia virtus divinae iustitiae, cui inhaerent boni Angeli, potior est quam virtus naturalis Angelorum. Unde et apud homines, spiritualis iudicat omnia, ut dicitur I ad Cor. II. Et philosophus dicit, in libro Ethic., quod virtuosus est regula et mensura omnium humanorum actuum.	Reply to Objection 3. An angel who is inferior in the natural order presides over demons, although these may be naturally superior; because the power of Divine justice to which the good angels cleave, is stronger than the natural power of the angels. Hence likewise among men, "the spiritual man judgeth all things" (1 Corinthians 2:15), and the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 4; x, 5) that "the virtuous man is the rule and measure of all human acts."
IЄ q. 110 pr. Deinde considerandum est de praesidentia Angelorum super creaturam corporalem. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum creatura corporalis administretur per Angelos. Secundo, utrum creatura corporalis obediat Angelis ad nutum. Tertio, utrum Angeli sua virtute possint immediate movere corpora localiter. Quarto, utrum Angeli boni vel mali possint facere miracula.	Question 110. How angels act on bodiesIs the corporeal creature governed by the angels? Does the corporeal creature obey the mere will of the angels? Can the angels by their own power immediately move bodies locally? Can the good or bad angels work miracles?
IЄ q. 110 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod creatura corporalis non administretur per Angelos. Res enim quae habent determinatum modum operandi, non indigent gubernari ab aliquo praesidente, ideo enim indigemus gubernari, ne aliter operemur quam oporteat. Sed res corporales habent determinatas actiones ex naturis sibi divinitus datis. Non ergo indigent gubernatione Angelorum.	Objection 1. It would seem that the corporeal creature is not governed by angels. For whatever possesses a determinate mode of action, needs not to be governed by any superior power; for we require to be governed lest we do what we ought not. But corporeal things have their actions determined by the nature divinely bestowed upon them. Therefore they do not need the government of angels.
IЄ q. 110 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, inferiora in entibus gubernantur per superiora. Sed in corporibus quaedam dicuntur inferiora, quaedam superiora. Inferiora igitur gubernantur per superiora. Non ergo est necessarium quod gubernentur per Angelos.	Objection 2. Further, the lowest things are ruled by the superior. But some corporeal things are inferior, and others are superior. Therefore they need not be governed by the angels.
IЄ q. 110 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, diversi ordines Angelorum distinguuntur secundum diversa officia. Sed si creaturae corporales administrantur per Angelos, tot erunt officia Angelorum, quot sunt species rerum. Ergo etiam tot erunt ordines Angelorum, quot sunt species rerum. Quod est contra supra dicta. Non ergo corporalis creatura administratur per Angelos.	Objection 3. Further, the different orders of the angels are distinguished by different offices. But if corporeal creatures were ruled by the angels, there would be as many angelic offices as there are species of things. So also there would be as many orders of angels as there are species of things; which is against what is laid down above (108, 2). Therefore the corporeal creature is not governed by angels.
IЄ q. 110 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, III de Trin., quod omnia corpora reguntur per spiritum vitae rationalem. Et Gregorius dicit, in IV Dial., quod in hoc mundo visibili nihil nisi per creaturam invisibilem disponi potest.	On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 4) that "all bodies are ruled by the rational spirit of life"; and Gregory says (Dial. iv, 6), that "in this visible world nothing takes place without the agency of the invisible creature."
IЄ q. 110 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod tam in rebus humanis quam in rebus naturalibus, hoc communiter invenitur, quod potestas particularis gubernatur et regitur a potestate universali; sicut potestas ballivi gubernatur per potestatem regis. Et in Angelis etiam est dictum quod superiores Angeli, qui praesunt inferioribus, habent scientiam magis universalem. Manifestum est autem quod virtus cuiuslibet corporis est magis particularis quam virtus spiritualis substantiae, nam omnis forma corporalis est forma individuata per materiam, et determinata ad hic et nunc; formae autem immateriales sunt absolutae et intelligibiles. Et ideo sicut inferiores Angeli, qui habent formas minus universales, reguntur per superiores; ita omnia corporalia reguntur per Angelos et hoc non solum a sanctis doctoribus ponitur, sed etiam ab omnibus philosophis qui incorporeas substantias posuerunt.	I answer that, It is generally found both in human affairs and in natural things that every particular power is governed and ruled by the universal power; as, for example, the bailiff's power is governed by the power of the king. Among the angels also, as explained above (55, 3 ; 108, 1), the superior angels who preside over the inferior possess a more universal knowledge. Now it is manifest that the power of any individual body is more particular than the power of any spiritual substance; for every corporeal form is a form individualized by matter, and determined to the "here and now"; whereas immaterial forms are absolute and intelligible. Therefore, as the inferior angels who have the less universal forms, are ruled by the superior; so are all corporeal things ruled by the angels. This is not only laid down by the holy doctors, but also by all philosophers who admit the existence of incorporeal substances.
IЄ q. 110 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod res corporales habent determinatas actiones, sed has actiones non exercent nisi secundum quod moventur, quia proprium corporis est quod non agat nisi motum. Et ideo oportet quod creatura corporalis a spirituali moveatur.	Reply to Objection 1. Corporeal things have determinate actions; but they exercise such actions only according as they are moved; because it belongs to a body not to act unless moved. Hence a corporeal creature must be moved by a spiritual creature.
IЄ q. 110 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio ista procedit secundum opinionem Aristotelis, qui posuit quod corpora caelestia moventur a substantiis spiritualibus; quarum numerum conatus fuit assignare secundum numerum motuum qui apparent in corporibus caelestibus. Sed non posuit quod essent aliquae substantiae spirituales quae haberent immediatam praesidentiam supra inferiora corpora, nisi forte animas humanas. Et hoc ideo, quia non consideravit aliquas operationes in inferioribus corporibus exerceri nisi naturales, ad quas sufficiebat motus corporum caelestium. Sed quia nos ponimus multa in corporibus inferioribus fieri praeter naturales actiones corporum, ad quae non sufficiunt virtutes caelestium corporum; ideo secundum nos, necesse est ponere quod Angeli habeant immediatam praesidentiam non solum supra caelestia corpora, sed etiam supra corpora inferiora.	Reply to Objection 2. The reason alleged is according to the opinion of Aristotle who laid down (Metaph. xi, 8) that the heavenly bodies are moved by spiritual substances; the number of which he endeavored to assign according to the number of motions apparent in the heavenly bodies. But he did not say that there were any spiritual substances with immediate rule over the inferior bodies, except perhaps human souls; and this was because he did not consider that any operations were exercised in the inferior bodies except the natural ones for which the movement of the heavenly bodies sufficed. But because we assert that many things are done in the inferior bodies besides the natural corporeal actions, for which the movements of the heavenly bodies are not sufficient; therefore in our opinion we must assert that the angels possess an immediate presidency not only over the heavenly bodies, but also over the inferior bodies.
IЄ q. 110 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod de substantiis immaterialibus diversimode philosophi sunt locuti. Plato enim posuit substantias immateriales esse rationes et species sensibilium corporum, et quasdam aliis universaliores, et ideo posuit substantias immateriales habere praesidentiam immediatam circa omnia sensibilia corpora, et diversas circa diversa. Aristoteles autem posuit quod substantiae immateriales non sunt species corporum sensibilium, sed aliquid altius et universalius, et ideo non attribuit eis immediatam praesidentiam supra singula corpora, sed solum supra universalia agentia, quae sunt corpora caelestia. Avicenna vero mediam viam secutus est. Posuit enim cum Platone, aliquam substantiam spiritualem praesidentem immediate sphaerae activorum et passivorum; eo quod, sicut Plato ponebat quod formae horum sensibilium derivantur a substantiis immaterialibus, ita etiam Avicenna hoc posuit. Sed in hoc a Platone differt, quod posuit unam tantum substantiam immaterialem praesidentem omnibus corporibus inferioribus, quam vocavit intelligentiam agentem. Doctores autem sancti posuerunt, sicut et Platonici, diversis rebus corporeis diversas substantias spirituales esse praepositas. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro octoginta trium quaest., unaquaeque res visibilis in hoc mundo habet angelicam potestatem sibi praepositam. Et Damascenus dicit, Diabolus erat ex iis angelicis virtutibus quae praeerant terrestri ordini. Et Origenes dicit, super illud Num. XXII, cum vidisset asina Angelum, quod opus est mundo Angelis, qui praesunt super bestias, et praesunt animalium nativitati, et virgultorum et plantationum et ceterarum rerum incrementis. Sed hoc non est ponendum propter hoc, quod secundum suam naturam unus Angelus magis se habeat ad praesidendum animalibus quam plantis, quia quilibet Angelus, etiam minimus, habet altiorem virtutem et universaliorem quam aliquod genus corporalium. Sed est ex ordine divinae sapientiae, quae diversis rebus diversos rectores praeposuit. Nec tamen propter hoc sequitur quod sint plures ordines Angelorum quam novem, quia, sicut supra dictum est, ordines distinguuntur secundum generalia officia. Unde sicut, secundum Gregorium, ad ordinem potestatum pertinent omnes Angeli qui habent proprie praesidentiam super Daemones; ita ad ordinem virtutum pertinere videntur omnes Angeli qui habent praesidentiam super res pure corporeas; horum enim ministerio interdum etiam miracula fiunt.	Reply to Objection 3. Philosophers have held different opinions about immaterial substances. For Plato laid down that immaterial substances were types and species of sensible bodies; and that some were more universal than others; and so he held that immaterial substances preside immediately over all sensible bodies, and different ones over different bodies. But Aristotle held that immaterial substances are not the species of sensible bodies, but something higher and more universal; and so he did not attribute to them any immediate presiding over single bodies, but only over the universal agents, the heavenly bodies. Avicenna followed a middle course. For he agreed with Plato in supposing some spiritual substance to preside immediately in the sphere of active and passive elements; because, as Plato also said, he held that the forms of these sensible things are derived from immaterial substances. But he differed from Plato because he supposed only one immaterial substance to preside over all inferior bodies, which he called the "active intelligence." The holy doctors held with the Platonists that different spiritual substances were placed over corporeal things. For Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 79): "Every visible thing in this world has an angelic power placed over it"; and Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 4): "The devil was one of the angelic powers who presided over the terrestrial order"; and Origen says on the text, "When the ass saw the angel" (Numbers 22:23), that "the world has need of angels who preside over beasts, and over the birth of animals, and trees, and plants, and over the increase of all other things" (Hom. xiv in Num.). The reason of this, however, is not that an angel is more fitted by his nature to preside over animals than over plants; because each angel, even the least, has a higher and more universal power than any kind of corporeal things: the reason is to be sought in the order of Divine wisdom, Who places different rulers over different things. Nor does it follow that there are more than nine orders of angels, because, as above expounded (108, 2), the orders are distinguished by their general offices. Hence as according to Gregory all the angels whose proper office it is to preside over the demons are of the order of the "powers"; so to the order of the "virtues" do those angels seem to belong who preside over purely corporeal creatures; for by their ministration miracles are sometimes performed.
IЄ q. 110 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod materia corporalis obediat Angelis ad nutum. Maior est enim virtus Angeli quam virtus animae. Sed conceptioni animae obedit materia corporalis, immutatur enim corpus hominis ex conceptione animae, ad calorem et frigus, et quandoque usque ad sanitatem et aegritudinem. Ergo multo magis secundum conceptionem Angeli, materia corporalis transmutatur.	Objection 1. It would seem that corporeal matter obeys the mere will of an angel. For the power of an angel excels the power of the soul. But corporeal matter obeys a conception of the soul; for the body of man is changed by a conception of the soul as regards heat and cold, and sometimes even as regards health and sickness. Therefore much more is corporeal matter changed by a conception of an angel.
IЄ q. 110 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, quidquid potest virtus inferior, potest virtus superior. Sed virtus Angeli est superior quam virtus corporalis. Corpus autem sua virtute potest transmutare materiam corporalem ad formam aliquam; sicut cum ignis generat ignem. Ergo multo fortius virtute sua Angeli possunt materiam corporalem transmutare ad aliquam formam.	Objection 2. Further, whatever can be done by an inferior power, can be done by a superior power. Now the power of an angel is superior to corporeal power. But a body by its power is able to transform corporeal matter; as appears when fire begets fire. Therefore much more efficaciously can an angel by his power transform corporeal matter.
IЄ q. 110 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, tota natura corporalis administratur per Angelos, ut dictum est, et sic videtur quod corpora se habet ad Angelos sicut instrumenta; nam ratio instrumenti est quod sit movens motum. Sed in effectibus aliquid invenitur ex virtute principalium agentium, quod non potest esse per virtutem instrumenti; et hoc est id quod est principalius in effectu. Sicut digestio nutrimenti est per virtutem caloris naturalis, qui est instrumentum animae nutritivae; sed quod generetur caro viva, est ex virtute animae. Similiter quod secetur lignum, pertinet ad serram; sed quod perveniatur ad formam lecti, est ex ratione artis. Ergo forma substantialis, quae est principalius in effectibus corporalibus, est ex virtute Angelorum. Materia ergo obedit, ad sui informationem, Angelis.	Objection 3. Further, all corporeal nature is under angelic administration, as appears above (1), and thus it appears that bodies are as instruments to the angels, for an instrument is essentially a mover moved. Now in effects there is something that is due to the power of their principal agents, and which cannot be due to the power of the instrument; and this it is that takes the principal place in the effect. For example, digestion is due to the force of natural heat, which is the instrument of the nutritive soul: but that living flesh is thus generated is due to the power of the soul. Again the cutting of the wood is from the saw; but that it assumes the length the form of a bed is from the design of the [joiner's] art. Therefore the substantial form which takes the principal place in the corporeal effects, is due to the angelic power. Therefore matter obeys the angels in receiving its form.
IЄ q. 110 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, III de Trin., non est putandum istis transgressoribus Angelis ad nutum servire hanc visibilium rerum materiam, sed soli Deo.	On the contrary, Augustine says "It is not to be thought, that this visible matter obeys these rebel angels; for it obeys God alone."
IЄ q. 110 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Platonici posuerunt formas quae sunt in materia, causari ex immaterialibus formis, quia formas materiales ponebant esse participationes quasdam immaterialium formarum. Et hos, quantum ad aliquid, secutus est Avicenna, qui posuit omnes formas quae sunt in materia, procedere a conceptione intelligentiae, et quod agentia corporalia sunt solum disponentia ad formas. Qui in hoc videntur fuisse decepti, quia existimaverunt formam quasi aliquid per se factum, ut sic ab aliquo formali principio procederet. Sed sicut philosophus probat in VII Metaphys., hoc quod proprie fit, est compositum, hoc enim proprie est quasi subsistens. Forma autem non dicitur ens quasi ipsa sit, sed sicut quo aliquid est, et sic per consequens nec forma proprie fit; eius enim est fieri, cuius est esse, cum fieri nihil aliud sit quam via in esse. Manifestum est autem quod factum est simile facienti, quia omne agens agit sibi simile. Et ideo id quod facit res naturales, habet similitudinem cum composito, vel quia est compositum, sicut ignis generat ignem; vel quia totum compositum, et quantum ad materiam et quantum ad formam, est in virtute ipsius; quod est proprium Dei. Sic igitur omnis informatio materiae vel est a Deo immediate, vel ab aliquo agente corporali; non autem immediate ab Angelo.	I answer that, The Platonists [Phaedo. xlix: Tim. (Did.) vol. ii, p. 218 asserted that the forms which are in matter are caused by immaterial forms, because they said that the material forms are participations of immaterial forms. Avicenna followed them in this opinion to some extent, for he said that all forms which are in matter proceed from the concept of the "intellect"; and that corporeal agents only dispose [matter] for the forms. They seem to have been deceived on this point, through supposing a form to be something made "per se," so that it would be the effect of a formal principle. But, as the Philosopher proves (Metaph. vii, Did. vi, 8), what is made, properly speaking, is the "composite": for this properly speaking, is, as it were, what subsists. Whereas the form is called a being, not as that which is, but as that by which something is; and consequently neither is a form, properly speaking, made; for that is made which is; since to be is nothing but the way to existence. Now it is manifest that what is made is like to the maker, forasmuch as every agent makes its like. So whatever makes natural things, has a likeness to the composite; either because it is composite itself, as when fire begets fire, or because the whole "composite" as to both matter and form is within its power; and this belongs to God alone. Therefore every informing of matter is either immediately from God, or form some corporeal agent; but not immediately from an angel.
IЄ q. 110 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod anima nostra unitur corpori ut forma; et sic non est mirum, si formaliter transmutatur ex conceptione ipsius; praesertim cum motus sensitivi appetitus, qui fit cum quadam transmutatione corporali, subdatur imperio rationis. Angelus autem non sic se habet ad corpora naturalia. Unde ratio non sequitur.	Reply to Objection 1. Our soul is united to the body as the form; and so it is not surprising for the body to be formally changed by the soul's concept; especially as the movement of the sensitive appetite, which is accompanied with a certain bodily change, is subject to the command of reason. An angel, however, has not the same connection with natural bodies; and hence the argument does not hold.
IЄ q. 110 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod id quod potest virtus inferior, potest superior non eodem, sed excellentiori modo, sicut intellectus cognoscit sensibilia excellentiori modo quam sensus. Et sic Angelus excellentiori modo transmutat materiam corporalem quam agentia corporalia, scilicet movendo ipsa agentia corporalia, tanquam causa superior.	Reply to Objection 2. Whatever an inferior power can do, that a superior power can do, not in the same way, but in a more excellent way; for example, the intellect knows sensible things in a more excellent way than sense knows them. So an angel can change corporeal matter in a more excellent way than can corporeal agents, that is by moving the corporeal agents themselves, as being the superior cause.
IЄ q. 110 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod nihil prohibet ex virtute Angelorum aliquos effectus sequi in rebus naturalibus, ad quae agentia corporalia non sufficerent. Sed hoc non est obedire materiam Angelis ad nutum; sicut nec coquis obedit materia ad nutum, quia aliquem modum decoctionis operantur per ignem secundum aliquam artis moderationem, quam ignis per se non faceret, cum reducere materiam in actum formae substantialis, non excedat virtutem corporalis agentis, quia simile natum est sibi simile facere.	Reply to Objection 3. There is nothing to prevent some natural effect taking place by angelic power, for which the power of corporeal agents would not suffice. This, however, is not to obey an angel's will (as neither does matter obey the mere will of a cook, when by regulating the fire according to the prescription of his art he produces a dish that the fire could not have produced by itself); since to reduce matter to the act of the substantial form does not exceed the power of a corporeal agent; for it is natural for like to make like.
IЄ q. 110 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod corpora non obediant Angelis ad motum localem. Motus enim localis corporum naturalium sequitur formas eorum. Sed Angeli non causant formas corporum naturalium, ut dictum est. Ergo neque possunt causare in eis motum localem.	Objection 1. It would seem that bodies do not obey the angels in local motion. For the local motion of natural bodies follows on their forms. But the angels do not cause the forms of natural bodies, as stated above (2). Therefore neither can they cause in them local motion.
IЄ q. 110 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, in VIII Physic. probatur quod motus localis est primus motuum. Sed Angeli non possunt causare alios motus, transmutando materiam formaliter. Ergo neque etiam possunt causare motum localem.	Objection 2. Further, the Philosopher (Phys. viii, 7) proves that local motion is the first of all movements. But the angels cannot cause other movements by a formal change of the matter. Therefore neither can they cause local motion.
IЄ q. 110 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, membra corporalia obediunt conceptioni animae ad motum localem, inquantum habent in seipsis aliquod principium vitae. In corporibus autem naturalibus non est aliquod principium vitae. Ergo non obediunt Angelis ad motum localem.	Objection 3. Further, the corporeal members obey the concept of the soul as regards local movement, as having in themselves some principle of life. In natural bodies, however, there is not vital principle. Therefore they do not obey the angels in local motion.
IЄ q. 110 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, III de Trin., quod Angeli adhibent semina corporalia ad aliquos effectus producendos. Sed hoc non possunt facere nisi localiter movendo. Ergo corpora obediunt eis ad motum localem.	On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 8,9) that the angels use corporeal seed to produce certain effects. But they cannot do this without causing local movement. Therefore bodies obey them in local motion.
IЄ q. 110 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Dionysius dicit VII cap. de Div. Nom., divina sapientia coniungit fines primorum principiis secundorum, ex quo patet quod natura inferior in sui supremo attingitur a natura superiori. Natura autem corporalis est infra naturam spiritualem. Inter omnes autem motus corporeos perfectior est motus localis, ut probatur in VIII Physic., cuius ratio est, quia mobile secundum locum non est in potentia ad aliquid intrinsecum, inquantum huiusmodi, sed solum ad aliquid extrinsecum, scilicet ad locum. Et ideo natura corporalis nata est moveri immediate a natura spirituali secundum locum. Unde et philosophi posuerunt suprema corpora moveri localiter a spiritualibus substantiis. Unde videmus quod anima movet corpus primo et principaliter locali motu.	I answer that, As Dionysius says (Div. Nom. vii): "Divine wisdom has joined the ends of the first to the principles of the second." Hence it is clear that the inferior nature at its highest point is in conjunction with superior nature. Now corporeal nature is below the spiritual nature. But among all corporeal movements the most perfect is local motion, as the Philosopher proves (Phys. viii, 7). The reason of this is that what is moved locally is not as such in potentiality to anything intrinsic, but only to something extrinsic--that is, to place. Therefore the corporeal nature has a natural aptitude to be moved immediately by the spiritual nature as regards place. Hence also the philosophers asserted that the supreme bodies are moved locally by the spiritual substances; whence we see that the soul moves the body first and chiefly by a local motion.
IЄ q. 110 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in corporibus sunt alii motus locales praeter eos qui consequuntur formas, sicut fluxus et refluxus maris non consequitur formam substantialem aquae, sed virtutem lunae. Et multo magis aliqui motus locales consequi possunt virtutem spiritualium substantiarum.	Reply to Objection 1. There are in bodies other local movements besides those which result from the forms; for instance, the ebb and flow of the sea does not follow from the substantial form of the water, but from the influence of the moon; and much more can local movements result from the power of spiritual substances.
IЄ q. 110 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Angeli, causando motum localem tanquam priorem, per eum causare possunt alios motus, adhibendo scilicet agentia corporalia ad huiusmodi effectus producendos; sicut faber adhibet ignem ad emollitionem ferri.	Reply to Objection 2. The angels, by causing local motion, as the first motion, can thereby cause other movements; that is, by employing corporeal agents to produce these effects, as a workman employs fire to soften iron.
IЄ q. 110 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Angeli habent virtutem minus contractam quam animae. Unde virtus motiva animae contrahitur ad corpus unitum, quod per eam vivificatur, quo mediante alia potest movere. Sed virtus Angeli non est contracta ad aliquod corpus. Unde potest corpora non coniuncta localiter movere.	Reply to Objection 3. The power of an angel is not so limited as is the power of the soul. Hence the motive power of the soul is limited to the body united to it, which is vivified by it, and by which it can move other things. But an angel's power is not limited to any body; hence it can move locally bodies not joined to it.
IЄ q. 110 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli possunt facere miracula. Dicit enim Gregorius, virtutes vocantur illi spiritus, per quos signa et miracula frequentius fiunt.	Objection 1. It would seem that the angels can work miracles. For Gregory says (Hom. xxxiv in Evang.): "Those spirits are called virtues by whom signs and miracles are usually done."
IЄ q. 110 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro octoginta trium quaestionum, quod magi faciunt miracula per privatos contractus, boni Christiani per publicam iustitiam, mali Christiani per signa publicae iustitiae. Sed magi faciunt miracula per hoc quod exaudiuntur a Daemonibus, ut ipse alibi in eodem libro dicit. Ergo Daemones miracula possunt facere. Ergo multo magis Angeli boni.	Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 79) that "magicians work miracles by private contracts; good Christians by public justice, bad Christians by the signs of public justice." But magicians work miracles because they are "heard by the demons," as he says elsewhere in the same work [Cf. Liber xxi, Sentent., sent. 4: among the supposititious works of St. Augustine]. Therefore the demons can work miracles. Therefore much more can the good angels.
IЄ q. 110 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, Augustinus in eodem libro dicit quod omnia quae visibiliter fiunt, etiam per inferiores potestates aeris huius non absurde fieri posse creduntur. Sed quando effectus aliquis naturalium causarum producitur absque ordine naturalis causae, hoc dicimus esse miraculum; puta cum aliquis sanatur a febre, non per operationem naturae. Ergo Angeli et Daemones possunt facere miracula.	Objection 3. Further, Augustine says in the same work [Cf. Liber xxi, Sentent., sent. 4: among the supposititious works of St. Augustine] that "it is not absurd to believe that all the things we see happen may be brought about by the lower powers that dwell in our atmosphere." But when an effect of natural causes is produced outside the order of the natural cause, we call it a miracle, as, for instance, when anyone is cured of a fever without the operation of nature. Therefore the angels and demons can work miracles.
IЄ q. 110 a. 4 arg. 4 Praeterea, virtus superior non subditur ordini inferioris causae. Sed natura corporalis est inferior Angelo. Ergo Angelus potest operari praeter ordinem corporalium agentium. Quod est miracula facere.	Objection 4. Further, superior power is not subject to the order of an inferior cause. But corporeal nature is inferior to an angel. Therefore an angel can work outside the order of corporeal agents; which is to work miracles.
IЄ q. 110 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod de Deo dicitur in Psalmo, qui facit mirabilia magna solus.	On the contrary, It is written of God (Psalm 135:4): "Who alone doth great wonders."
IЄ q. 110 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod miraculum proprie dicitur, cum aliquid fit praeter ordinem naturae. Sed non sufficit ad rationem miraculi si aliquid fiat praeter ordinem naturae alicuius particularis, quia sic, cum aliquis proiicit lapidem sursum, miraculum faceret, cum hoc sit praeter ordinem naturae lapidis. Ex hoc ergo aliquid dicitur esse miraculum, quod fit praeter ordinem totius naturae creatae. Hoc autem non potest facere nisi Deus, quia quidquid facit Angelus, vel quaecumque alia creatura, propria virtute, hoc fit secundum ordinem naturae creatae; et sic non est miraculum. Unde relinquitur quod solus Deus miracula facere possit.	I answer that, A miracle properly so called is when something is done outside the order of nature. But it is not enough for a miracle if something is done outside the order of any particular nature; for otherwise anyone would perform a miracle by throwing a stone upwards, as such a thing is outside the order of the stone's nature. So for a miracle is required that it be against the order of the whole created nature. But God alone can do this, because, whatever an angel or any other creature does by its own power, is according to the order of created nature; and thus it is not a miracle. Hence God alone can work miracles.
IЄ q. 110 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Angeli aliqui dicuntur miracula facere, vel quia ad eorum desiderium Deus miracula facit, sicut et sancti homines dicuntur miracula facere. Vel quia aliquod ministerium exhibent in miraculis quae fiunt; sicut colligendo pulveres in resurrectione communi, vel huiusmodi aliquid agendo.	Reply to Objection 1. Some angels are said to work miracles; either because God works miracles at their request, in the same way as holy men are said to work miracles; or because they exercise a kind of ministry in the miracles which take place; as in collecting the dust in the general resurrection, or by doing something of that kind.
IЄ q. 110 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod miracula simpliciter loquendo, dicuntur, ut dictum est, cum aliqua fiunt praeter ordinem totius naturae creatae. Sed quia non omnis virtus naturae creatae est nota nobis, ideo cum aliquid fit praeter ordinem naturae creatae nobis notae, per virtutem creatam nobis ignotam, est miraculum quoad nos. Sic igitur cum Daemones aliquid faciunt sua virtute naturali, miracula dicuntur non simpliciter, sed quoad nos. Et hoc modo magi per Daemones miracula faciunt. Et dicuntur fieri per privatos contractus, quia quaelibet virtus creaturae in universo se habet ut virtus alicuius privatae personae in civitate; unde cum magus aliquid facit per pactum initum cum Daemone, hoc fit quasi per quendam privatum contractum. Sed iustitia divina est in toto universo sicut lex publica in civitate. Et ideo boni Christiani, inquantum per iustitiam divinam miracula faciunt, dicuntur facere miracula per publicam iustitiam. Mali autem Christiani per signa publicae iustitiae, sicut invocando nomen Christi, vel exhibendo aliqua sacramenta.	Reply to Objection 2. Properly speaking, as said above, miracles are those things which are done outside the order of the whole created nature. But as we do not know all the power of created nature, it follows that when anything is done outside the order of created nature by a power unknown to us, it is called a miracle as regards ourselves. So when the demons do anything of their own natural power, these things are called "miracles" not in an absolute sense, but in reference to ourselves. In this way the magicians work miracles through the demons; and these are said to be done by "private contracts," forasmuch as every power of the creature, in the universe, may be compared to the power of a private person in a city. Hence when a magician does anything by compact with the devil, this is done as it were by private contract. On the other hand, the Divine justice is in the whole universe as the public law is in the city. Therefore good Christians, so far as they work miracles by Divine justice, are said to work miracles by "public justice": but bad Christians by the "signs of public justice," as by invoking the name of Christ, or by making use of other sacred signs.
IЄ q. 110 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod spirituales potestates possunt facere ea quae visibiliter fiunt in hoc mundo, adhibendo corporalia semina per motum localem.	Reply to Objection 3. Spiritual powers are able to effect whatever happens in this visible world, by employing corporeal seeds by local movement.
IЄ q. 110 a. 4 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod, licet Angeli possint aliquid facere praeter ordinem naturae corporalis, non tamen possunt aliquid facere praeter ordinem totius creaturae, quod exigitur ad rationem miraculi, ut dictum est.	Reply to Objection 4. Although the angels can do something which is outside the order of corporeal nature, yet they cannot do anything outside the whole created order, which is essential to a miracle, as above explained.