D. 10 - Angelic acts that follow on the distinct orders

Division of the text

Having laid out the distinctions between orders, here the Master considers some acts that follow on the distinct orders. This is divided into two parts.

In the first, he considers some acts that follow on all the orders, namely, to attend and to minister.

In the second, he examines the act of guardianship, which belongs in particular to a single order, at it is also to be known that the good angels are assigned to watch over men. (Sent. II, 11.1(56).1.)

The first is divided into three parts, following on the three opinions set out in the text.

The second begins at to these is objected what Isaias says. (Sent. II, 10.1(54).2.)

The third begins at but some say that the three highest orders . . . stand beside the Creator in such a way that they never go out to external service. (Sent. II, 10.2(55).3.)

Concerning the second, he does three things.

First, he lays out what pertains to the confirmation of the second position against the first.

Second, he rules out a certain question, at here the question arises: if all are sent . . . why does only one of the nine orders go by the name of angels? (Sent. II, 10.1(54).3.)

Third, he responds to the proofs of the first opinion, at but those who assert that all angels are sent determine the above authorities . . . in the following way. (Sent. II, 10.2(55).2.)

Now, the question he rules out is based on the name “angel.”

So he first rules it out.

Second, he explains some of the names of the angels, showing how they are fitting, at and they hold that Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael were from a superior order. (Sent. II, 10.2(55).1.)

Question 1

Angelic acts that follow on the distinct orders

Here four questions arise:

first, whether all the angels attend;

second, whether they all minister;

third, if not, which attend and which minister;

fourth, whether those who minister are held back from contemplation by their ministry.

Article 1

Whether all the angels attend

To the first we proceed as follows. (Parallel texts: ST I.112.3; Commentary on Hebrews, ch. 1, lect. 6; Commentary on Job, ch. 1, lect. 2.) It seems that all the angels attend.

Obj. 1: For they are said to attend the king, who, being present, behold his countenance. But it is said of the angels deputed for guardianship that they always behold the face of my Father (Matt 18:10), yet these are of a lower order. Therefore, it seems that they all attend God.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, according to Gregory, (Gregory the Great, Homilies on the Gospels, bk. 2, homily 34, para. 12 (CCSL 141; PL 76:1254).) they are said to attend who enjoy intimate contemplation. But all the angels contemplate in an intimate manner, since neither the weight of the body nor fault holds them back from keenness of contemplation. Therefore, it seems that they all attend.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, if what is greater befits someone, it seems that what is less befits him too, if both are dignified. But among all the acts of our homeland, enjoyment is the noblest. Therefore, since all the angels enjoy, it seems that far more do they all attend.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, the wicked angels are more distant from the vision of God than the good. But even the wicked angels are said to attend God, as is related in Job 1:6: the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. Therefore, it seems that all the angels attend.

On the contrary, it is said that a thousand thousands served him (Dan 7:10). On this passage Gregory says (Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, bk. 17, ch. 13 (CCSL 143A; PL 76:20).) that some attend and others minister. Therefore, not all attend.

Furthermore, those are said to attend kings who dwell in their palaces. But, according to Dionysius, to be in the forecourts of divinity is proper to the first hierarchy. Therefore, it seems that they alone attend.

I answer that the angels are said to attend by a comparison to those who attend kings. But they are said to attend the king who surround him. Hence since Dionysius assigns surrounding God as being proper to the first hierarchy, to attend befits them alone. Now, they are said to surround God inasmuch as they can perceive illuminations immediately in the very simplicity of the divine light, and this because of the perspicacity of their intelligence. For the more perspicacious the intellect, the more conclusions and the more knowable things it can arrive at from its knowledge of a universal principle. Those who possess a less perspicacious intellect cannot see the truth of questions except by principles limited and adapted to the matter at hand. Thus, those supreme intellects of the first hierarchy perceive the accounts of every illumination in the first principle of illuminations itself, and for this reason they are said to surround God and to attend him. But the lower angels receive knowledge from the light as divided and multiplied in the highest angels with respect to the divine simplicity. For this reason they are not said to surround God and to attend him.

Reply Obj. 1: Although they all immediately contemplate the divine essence, they cannot all perceive in it what pertains to their order, that is, their hierarchy. Thus, not all attend, properly speaking.

Reply Obj. 2: Someone can be said to contemplate in an intimate manner in three ways. Either this is insofar as his consideration is not drawn away to external sensible things, and in this way, all the angels, good and wicked, contemplate intimately, since they do not receive knowledge from the senses; or this is by the fact that they do not need an external likeness in which to contemplate God, that is, something outside of his essence, but rather see him in his essence. In this way, all the blessed contemplate intimately, though not in the state of creation, and not the wicked angels. Or this is by the fact that they not only see the essence of God but, penetrating into it, perceive in it its effects, which are reflected in it by way of likeness. To contemplate in an intimate manner in this way is properly “to attend.” This belongs only to the angels of the first hierarchy, whereas in the other ways to attend is spoken of in a qualified sense.

Reply Obj. 3: Enjoyment is the noblest act of our homeland; yet, although it is common to all, still it does not belong to all of them equally. Rather, there are different degrees of enjoyment and the highest enjoyment is in attending. Hence it does not follow that all those who enjoy also attend.

Reply Obj. 4: The demons are described as among those who attend inasmuch as they have the first mode of intimate contemplation in common with them.

Article 2

Whether all the angels are sent for ministry

To the second we proceed as follows. (Parallel texts: ST I.112.2; Commentary on Hebrews, ch. 1, lect. 6.) It seems that all the angels are sent for ministry.

Obj. 1: For no one doubts that the divine persons infinitely surpass all the angels. But divine persons, namely, the Son and the Holy Spirit, are sent, as has been said in Book I. (In I Sent., d. 15, q. 1, a. 2.) Therefore, all the more are all the angels sent.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, among all the orders the first order is that of the seraphim. But we read that seraphim are sent: then flew one of the seraphim to me (Isa 6:6). Therefore, it seems that all the more are the others sent.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, in the Letter to the Hebrews, the Apostle intends to use the fact of the angels’ ministry to prove that Christ is greater than the angels, since he is in the house of God the Father not as a minister, but as the true heir. Hence he says that they are all ministering spirits, sent forth to serve (Heb 1:14). (RSV reads are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to serve, for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation?) But Christ is greater than all the angels simply. Therefore, it seems that, according to the Apostle’s intention, all the angels are sent for ministry.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, all the heavenly spirits are called “angels.” But “angel” is the same as “messenger.” Therefore, it seems that all are sent to make external announcements.

Obj. 5: Furthermore, the fact that angels minister to us is due to their abundant charity toward us. But the higher they are, the greater their fervor of charity. Therefore, it seems that it befits them even more to minister to us.

On the contrary, according to Dionysius, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 4 (PG 3:182). See also cc. 5, 7, and 8.) it is an inviolably established law of the divinity that first things perfect last things through intermediate things. But between us and the first angels stand the lower angels as intermediate. Therefore, the action of the first does not reach us immediately, but rather through secondary intermediates.

Furthermore, there ought to be a proportion between agent and receiver. But to receive divine illuminations proportionate to us, and consequently to our hierarchy, befits the lower angels. Therefore, it seems that they alone are immediately sent to us.

I answer that Gregory raises this question, (Gregory the Great, Homilies on the Gospels, bk. 2, homily 34, para. 13 (CCSL 141; PL 76:1254).) but he gives no definitive answer on either side. However, some say that some angels are deputed for ministry by virtue of their office, as lower angels, but that when a special case outside the usual arrangement arises, then even the higher angels are sent for ministry. But this does not seem necessary, since the lower orders are sufficient to announce or carry out matters of whatever greatness. Besides, although great things of this sort occur apart from the usual course of nature, they do not occur apart from the order of grace, which is the basis of the distinction between orders.

Thus, according to Dionysius, (This claim seems to be gathered from The Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 13 (PG 3:299), where Pseudo-Dionysius ponders whether Isaiah was purified by seraphim; the same doctrine is also referenced below.) we must say that the higher angels never have a ministry immediately concerning us. The reason for this can be gathered from three things.

The first is from the ordinance of the divine wisdom, by whose ordering or law it has been established that actions coming from the higher reach the last through what is intermediate. This is so that there might be an ordered connection among all the parts of the universe, and so that no one might suffer any loss of the nobility he has that consists in his existing in some way as a cause for what is lower in some respect.

The second is on the part of the illuminations. For just as bodily actions require a proportion between the agent and the receiver—as is especially clear in the senses, since they are corrupted by an overwhelming sensible object—so also do intellectual actions. Hence a dull intellect does not attain to the more subtle truths. Therefore, since the highest angels’ intellectual light is the most simple and universal, it is not proportionate to our intellect, which is in the last rank of intellectual substances, unless it is first limited and determined in the lower angels, who are less simple.

The third is on the part of the actions themselves that they carry out concerning us. For since the actions of ministry are particular and concern particulars, they must be carried out through forms more limited and particular than those in the higher angels. But these are the forms that are in the angels of the lower orders. Thus, the carrying out of the divine mysteries pertains to the lower angels. This is the reason why philosophers have posited two kinds of movers of the spheres: some joined to the spheres, which they called the “souls of the spheres,” whose concepts are determinate and particularized—and Avicenna even calls these “ministering angels”; (Avicenna, Metaphysics, tract. 11, ch. 2.) and others who are separate, whom they call intelligences, in whom there are simple and universal forms. And he calls these the angels who attend.

Hence it is clear that this position is more reasonable. This is both because it is Dionysius who hands it down, who was a disciple of Paul and is said to have written down his visions, for which reason he frequently cites him as an authority, especially in the division of hierarchies. As well, as the Celestial Hierarchy 13 implies, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 13 (PG 3:299).) this position was common at the time of the primitive Church. It is also because this position agrees more with the statements of philosophers, allowing us to receive from them those things that are not contrary to the faith, discarding the rest.

Reply Obj. 1: To be sent is said of the divine persons and angels equivocally. For the divine persons are not sent by changing place, but rather through a new effect of sanctifying grace in holy souls. But the angels are sent by changing place and working in us, not as the primary agent, but rather as secondary agents determinate and proportionate with respect to their proper recipients. Thus, the argument proceeds on the basis of an equivocation.

Reply Obj. 2: Dionysius (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 13 (PG 3:299).) resolves this objection in two ways. The first is by saying that he who was sent to purge the lips of Isaiah belonged to a lower order and was said to be of the seraphim equivocally, since he had come to purge by means of fire. The second is by saying that he did indeed belong to the order of seraphim, yet the angel who revealed the vision did not belong to a higher order but instead a lower one. But since the hierarchical power that is in the lower angels is first of all from God and subsequently descends from the higher angels, the angel forming the vision brought the prophet to knowledge not only of the power of the immediate agent but also of the divine power, for which reason he shows the Lord seated upon his throne. Consequently, he brought the prophet to knowledge of the power of the highest among the angels, for which reason he shows the seraphim standing around the throne. He shows that the purgative power comes from them, through the lower angels, down to men by the fact that the seraphim was seen to arrive at him by flying. And he puts forth the example of a priest, who absolves by power coming from the bishop, as if to say, “the bishop, who passed on to me the power of absolving you, absolves you.” So also the angel shows the seraphim as purging, since it purged by his power.

Reply Obj. 3: In this way, the reply to the third objection is also clear. For they are all said to minister inasmuch as the lower carry out their ministry by the power of the higher.

Or we can say the Apostle intends to prove (in Heb 1) the preeminence of the New Law with respect to the Old based on the preeminence of Christ, who gave the New Law, over the angels, through whom the Old Law was given. Hence he speaks with regard to the angels of the last order through whom the Law was given so that the New Law, of which Christ is the author, might take pride of place in this way before the Old Law.

Reply Obj. 4: According to Dionysius, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 13 (PG 3:299) and On the Divine Names, ch. 4 (PG 3:694).) all the heavenly spirits are called “angels.” This is not because they are sent to announce anything to us, but rather because the divine light—which is compared to gloom and darkness due to the simplicity and the overwhelming intensity of its brightness at its source—is received in them with less simplicity, and thus it is more proportionate to the intellects that follow. For this reason they are said to announce or manifest the divine light. Thus, each lower angel manifests the one above it, just as clouds announce the light of the sun, which cannot be gazed upon at its source. However, if they are called “angels” on account of external announcement, as Gregory seems to say, (Gregory the Great, Homilies on the Gospels, bk. 2, homily 34 (CCSL 141; PL 76:1251).) then this befits even the higher angels inasmuch as they illuminate the lower concerning the matters to be announced.

Reply Obj. 5: The higher angels, on account of the charity they bear toward us, move the lower and direct them to work for our salvation. Nothing is taken away from perfect charity if they do not immediately carry out a ministry.

Article 3

Whether all the angels of the second hierarchy are sent

To the third we proceed as follows. (Parallel texts: ST I.112.4; Commentary on Hebrews, ch. 1, lect. 6.) It seems that all the angels of the second hierarchy are sent.

Obj. 1: For all angels either attend or minister. But to attend is proper to the first hierarchy, to which it belongs to surround God, according to Dionysius. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 7 (PG 3:206).) Therefore, all the others are sent for ministry.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, according to Gregory, (Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, bk. 17, ch. 13 (CCSL 143A; PL 76:20).) there are more who are sent than there are who attend. But if the angels of the second hierarchy are not sent, then more would attend, since there would be six orders attending and only three ministering. Therefore, those who belong to the middle hierarchy are sent.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, since no angel is equal to another, any given angel besides the first and the last is in the middle between two others. Therefore, if it pertains to the account of a middle hierarchy not to be sent for ministry, then for an equal reason no angel would be sent for ministry, except the last alone—which disagrees both with the text of Scripture and the statements of the saints. Therefore, it seems that those who belong to the middle hierarchy are sent.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, every power is ordered to the carrying out of a work. But the names of the orders of the second hierarchy are taken from degrees of power. Therefore, it seems proper for them to be sent to carry out ministry.

On the contrary, the orders of a single hierarchy seem to be equal in power as regards their mode of receiving divine illuminations. But it does not befit the dominations, who are in the middle hierarchy, to be sent for ministry, since to minister is contrary to the account of dominion. Therefore, it seems that neither are the other orders of the middle hierarchy sent.

Furthermore, it is a law of divinity that those who are higher guide the last through those in the middle. But between the middle hierarchy of angels and ours, there is the last angelic hierarchy. Therefore, it seems that illuminations do not reach us immediately from the middle hierarchy. Thus, the angels of this hierarchy are not sent.

I answer that some say that the angels of the first hierarchy are in no way sent but rather attend, that the angels of the third hierarchy are sent to us, and that the angels of the middle hierarchy are sent to those of the third. This is the opinion that is touched on in the text. (Sent. II, 10.2(55).3.) But this does not seem fitting. First, this is because according to this there would be no difference between the first and middle hierarchy. For the sending of an angel to an angel can only mean that one illuminates another, and just as the second hierarchy illuminates the third, so also the first illuminates the second. Second, this is because it does not agree with the statements of the saints, who attribute to the orders of the second hierarchy acts accomplished in the carrying out of external ministry, such as to work miracles, to constrain demons, and the like.

Thus, following the accounts of the names given to us in Sacred Scripture from which, according to the doctrine of Dionysius, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 7 (PG 3:206).) we must piece together the properties and offices of the orders, we say that the last two orders of the middle hierarchy, namely, virtues and powers, are sent externally for ministry. Yet dominations are not sent for ministry, but rather direct all the lower orders in their ministries. For it pertains to the dignity of a lord that his commandment directs the actions of his subjects, and that he himself is not mixed up with their actions. Hence Gregory says (Gregory the Great, Homilies on the Gospels, bk. 2, homily 34 (CCSL 141:1251).) that the order of dominations presides over principalities and powers, and Dionysius (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 15 (PG 3:238).) describes this order as above all subjection. Thus, it remains that the order of virtues is the highest of all the orders that are sent, as if reaching to the very limit in the divine ministries. This accords with its name, since virtue is called “last” in a thing with regard to its potency, as is related in the first book of On the Heavens. (Aristotle, On the Heavens 1.11, 281a15.)

Reply Obj. 1: Properly speaking, no order of the middle hierarchy has the disposition of those who attend. Rather, it pertains to the disposition of those who minister. In artificial things we find an artisan who only works with his hands, following another’s order and commanding nothing himself, like the one who prepares the matter. There is another who commands the one preparing the matter, and who himself also works to introduce the form. But there is still another who does no work, but rather commands, because he is the coordinator of the work and has the rationale behind the work based on the end. This one is called the “architect,” meaning the chief of the artisans, or the “user,” inasmuch as he makes use of the ministry of his subordinates for his end, as related in the Physics 2. (Aristotle, Physics 2.2, 194b1.) In the same way, as regards the divine ministries, the dominations are like artisans who direct and command, while the others are like those who carry out the work according to their rank and mode. Even so, they are all called “ministers,” just as those men are all called “artisans.”

Reply Obj. 2: This position confirms Gregory’s statement, (Gregory the Great, Homilies on the Gospels, bk. 2, homily 34 (CCSL 141:1251).) since there will be more orders of those who minister than those who attend, as is clear from what has been said. (Above: resp.; d. 3, q. 1, a. 3, ad 5.)

Reply Obj. 3: A middle, precisely as a middle, is not immediately operative, since action follows on contact or location in bodily things, or on order in spiritual things. But if something stands as a middle to something else and as last to yet another thing, it can act immediately. Now, this occurs when several who differ in degree of power have an activity on the same thing. For there will be an action concerning the thing that the higher can effect whereas a lower cannot perform it, and with regard to this action the highest is the last. On the other hand, there is another action that the lower could do, and in this action it is the highest worker but not the last. Rather, it is a middle between the first who directs and the last who works. Hence the middle agent will only perform this action by the mediation of the last, as is clear in the example previously given. For an artisan who introduces a form is the last in this activity, since no one lower than him can do this, such as, for example, fastening together planks of wood to complete the form of a ship. Thus, he does this immediately. But he accomplishes the preparation of the matter, the hewing of the planks, by the mediation of a lower artisan, inasmuch as he gives him the schematics for how the planks ought to be fitted for the construction of the ship.

It is the same way with the orders of the angels. For the powers possess an act concerning those things that pertain to the tranquility of the entire universe, inasmuch as they have unlimited power. And the order of powers does such things by itself. But there are other things that pertain to the state of a single province or kingdom, and the powers only do these by the mediation of the principalities, who carry them out by themselves. But there are some things pertaining specifically to a single person or thing, and the principalities only carry these out by the mediation of the angels. Among the angels, too, greater things are done immediately by the higher and lesser things immediately by the lower.

Reply Obj. 4: The fact that the orders of the second hierarchy are named from power indicates that they have a ministerial disposition. But it is not necessary that they all immediately carry out a ministry.

Reply Sed Contra: The reply to the last two objections is clear from what has been said.

Article 4

Whether the angels are impeded from contemplation by carrying out a ministry

To the fourth we proceed as follows. It seems that the angels are held back from contemplation by carrying out a ministry.

Obj. 1: For it is related that an angel in a state of ministry said: I am ascending to him who sent me (Tob 12:20). But he could only return through contemplation. Therefore, it seems that the angel ceased from the contemplation of God through ministry.

Obj. 2: Furthermore, a single finite power is not capable of more than one activity at the same time. But the power of an angel is finite. Therefore, it seems that it cannot at the same time contemplate and minister.

Obj. 3: Furthermore, a created intellect cannot understand more than one thing at the same time. But when the angels minister, they give consideration in their intellect to what they are doing. Therefore, it seems that at that time they are not able to contemplate divine things.

Obj. 4: Furthermore, the place of contemplation is the empyrean heaven. But when they are here, according to Damascene, (John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith (PG 94:870), bk. 2, ch. 3.) they are not in heaven. Therefore, it seems that they are held back from contemplation by carrying out a ministry concerning us.

On the contrary, Gregory says (Gregory the Great, Homilies on the Gospels, bk. 2, homily 34, para. 13 (CCSL 141; PL 76:1255); see also Morals on the Book of Job, bk. 2, ch. 3 (CCSL 143A; PL 75:556).) that they go forth to external things in such a way that they never depart from what is within. Therefore, it seems that they always contemplate or attend, if those who minister and those who attend are the same.

Furthermore, the beatitude of the angels is not diminished by their ministry. Rather, their whole beatitude consists in the contemplation of the divinity. Therefore, in no way is their contemplation held back through ministry.

I answer that the blessed angels have no activity that is not essential to beatitude, or in which they are not directed to it through blessed contemplation. Thus, their contemplation is related to the ministries they carry out, as the consideration of the rules of an art in the artisan is related to the carrying out of the work, by virtue of the fact that God himself is the end of all hierarchical works and the account for any work is taken from its end. Thus, the end is related to practical matters as the principle is to speculative ones, as is said in the Physics 2. (Aristotle, Physics 2.9, 200a1–b4.) Thus, just as an artisan at the same time considers the account of the art and carries out the work, so also an angel at the same time contemplates God and ministers to us.

Reply Obj. 1: An angel is said to depart from God not through the interruption of contemplation or by a change of place (because they have their course within God wheresoever they are sent, as the venerable Bede says, (Rather: Gregory the Great, Homilies on the Gospels, bk. 2, homily 34 (CCSL 141; PL 76:1255): angeli itaque et missi et ante ipsum sunt, quia quolibet missi veniant, intra ipsum currunt; “therefore angels are both sent and are also before him, since wherever those sent might go, they run within him.”) since God is everywhere), but rather by the fact that it appears as visible, receding from invisibility, just as the Son went forth from the Father and came into the world, having been made visible to men (John 16:5–7). They are likewise said to return to God when, having laid aside their visible appearance, they, like God, turn back to their original invisibility.

Reply Obj. 2: The contemplation of the angels is more a way of receiving than a way of acting. Thus, just as the moon at the same time receives light from the sun and illuminates lower bodies, so also an angel at the same time is illuminated by a higher angel and illuminates a lower one or exercises a ministry concerning us.

Reply Obj. 3: The intellect cannot simultaneously consider things that are known by different accounts, since it cannot be impressed with different likenesses at the same time, just as a body cannot be determined by different figures. But when things are known by a single account, or when one is the account of the other, nothing prevents their being understood at the same time.

Reply Obj. 4: The empyrean heaven is not the place of contemplation by necessity, but rather by appropriateness, just as a church is called “a house of prayer.” Thus, the argument does not follow.

Exposition of the text

Also, in the Hierarchy, Dionysius . . . speaks of the order of precedence among spirits. (Sent. II, 10.1(54).1. Silano translation slightly modified.) The words that follow are those of Gregory (Gregory the Great, Homilies on the Gospels, bk. 2, homily 34, para. 14 (CCSL 141:313; PL 76:1255).) citing the authority of Dionysius, not word-for-word, but giving the sense.

And they hold that Michael, Gabriel, Raphael were from a superior order. (Sent. II, 10.2(55).1.) This expressly contradicts Scripture, since Michael (Dan 10:13) is placed in the order of the “princes,” Gabriel is said to belong to the order of archangels, and Raphael could be placed in the order of angels based on the fact that he carried out things concerning individual persons.