Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that all the angels belong to one hierarchy. For since the angels are supreme among creatures, it is evident that they are ordered for the best. But the best ordering of a multitude is for it to be governed by one authority, as the Philosopher shows (Metaph. xii, Did. xi, 10; Polit. iii, 4). Therefore as a hierarchy is nothing but a sacred principality, it seems that all the angels belong to one hierarchy.

Objection 2: Further, Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iii) that "hierarchy is order, knowledge, and action." But all the angels agree in one order towards God, Whom they know, and by Whom in their actions they are ruled. Therefore all the angels belong to one hierarchy.

Objection 3: Further, the sacred principality called hierarchy is to be found among men and angels. But all men are of one hierarchy. Therefore likewise all the angels are of one hierarchy.

On the contrary, Dionysius (Coel. Hier. vi) distinguishes three hierarchies of angels.

I answer that, Hierarchy means a "sacred" principality, as above explained. Now principality includes two things: the prince himself and the multitude ordered under the prince. Therefore because there is one God, the Prince not only of all the angels but also of men and all creatures; so there is one hierarchy, not only of all the angels, but also of all rational creatures, who can be participators of sacred things; according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei xii, 1): "There are two cities, that is, two societies, one of the good angels and men, the other of the wicked." But if we consider the principality on the part of the multitude ordered under the prince, then principality is said to be "one" accordingly as the multitude can be subject in "one" way to the government of the prince. And those that cannot be governed in the same way by a prince belong to different principalities: thus, under one king there are different cities, which are governed by different laws and administrators. Now it is evident that men do not receive the Divine enlightenments in the same way as do the angels; for the angels receive them in their intelligible purity, whereas men receive them under sensible signs, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i). Therefore there must needs be a distinction between the human and the angelic hierarchy. In the same manner we distinguish three angelic hierarchies. For it was shown above (Question 55, Article 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 (Article 6). In this way are the hierarchies distinguished on the part of the multitude of subjects.

Hence it is clear that those err and speak against the opinion of Dionysius who place a hierarchy in the Divine Persons, and call it the "supercelestial" hierarchy. For in the Divine Persons there exists, indeed, a natural order, but there is no hierarchical order, for as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iii): "The hierarchical order is so directed that some be cleansed, enlightened, and perfected; and that others cleanse, enlighten, and perfect"; which far be it from us to apply to the Divine Persons.

Reply to Objection 1: This objection considers principality on the part of the ruler, inasmuch as a multitude is best ruled by one ruler, as the Philosopher asserts in those passages.

Reply to Objection 2: As regards knowing God Himself, Whom all see in one way---that is, in His essence---there is no hierarchical distinction among the angels; but there is such a distinction as regards the types of created things, as above explained.

Reply to Objection 3: All men are of one species, and have one connatural mode of understanding; which is not the case in the angels: and hence the same argument does not apply to both.

Articulus 1

Argumentum 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.

Argumentum 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.

Argumentum 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.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dionysius, VI cap. Cael. Hier., distinguit tres hierarchias Angelorum.

Corpus

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.

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.

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.

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.