The following is largely an excerpt from Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics 10.15, pp. 210-211. Heppe’s work surveys the Reformed tradition on the major topics of Systematic Theology, giving excerpts from various theologians. I have broken the excerpt into paragraphs, replaced some of Heppe’s translations with those from editions currently available, expanded a few quotations for the sake of context, and lastly I have added the quotations from Richard Baxter and Francis Turretin.
The Particular Order & Hierarchy of Angels is Unknown
Although the endowment and appointment of all good angels is the same, it must still be assumed that there are among them certain gradations, about which Scripture meantime has not revealed anything adequate. In general it is recognised that in the realm of heavenly spirits there must be an order, in so far as everything must be done by the angels ordinate [in an orderly fashion]; by which nonetheless the Roman Catholic comparison of it with [their] Church hierarchy and similar subtleness is rejected.
John Calvin (1509-1564) says: “Those who presume to dogmatize on the ranks and numbers of angels, would do well to consider on what foundation they rest. As to their rank, I admit that Michael is described by David as a mighty Prince, and by Jude as an Archangel. Paul also tells us that an archangel will blow the trumpet which is to summon the world to Judgment. But how is it possible from such passages to ascertain the gradations of honour among the angels to determine the insignia, and assign the place and station of each?” (Institutes of the Christian Religion I.xiv.8).
Andreas Hyperius (1511–1564) agrees with Calvin. He recognises that according to Scripture certain orders of angels are distinguishable, but disputes the necessity for regarding them as permanent gradations of rank: “To distinguish perpetual rankings, according to which some angels are always pre-eminent, others always subordinate, in short to insist upon a fixed number of them and grades of dignity in particular cases is the mark of the inquisitive and rash fellows rather than of those who follow the authority of the Scriptures.” (Methodi Theologiae, p. 287).
Most of them, like William Bucanus (d. 1603), teach that “No one versed in the Scriptures can deny that there is some order among angels, because order and distinction in things is an outstanding and divine thing; for some of them are called Cherubim, others Seraphim, others angels, others archangels. But this order does not depend upon the dignity or excellence of the nature of the angels, as that some are by nature more worthy than others, but rather upon different kinds of functions. Hereupon Paul in Colossians 1:16 calls them thrones, seats, dominations, principalities, which is an Hebrew kind of putting the abstract for the concrete, the substantive for the adjective, because God uses their ministry in the administration of empires, kingdoms, and commonwealths. But that hierarchies and degrees of hierarchies among angels exist, as the Papists think, cannot be proved by any evidence of Scripture. For he is called the Archangel, not who is more excellent in nature, or superior by affectation of government, [1] because there, as Basil saith, ‘all ambition ceaseth:’ but he who is designed of God for the execution of some special, hard, and difficult service, or else he that is set apart of God for a time, with many other angels for the executing of God’s commandment. So those names thrones, dominations, powers, principalities, are borrowed by a similitude from men’s affairs, to signify the excellency of the angels and their offices, and how many and diverse, and great works God doth bring to pass by them.” (Institutions of Christian Religion VI.19).
Petrus Van Mastricht (1630-1706): “We willingly acknowledge a certain order among them [i.e. the angels], signified by various denominations—seraphim, cherubim, thrones, dominions, powers, authorities, principalities, archangels (Col. 2:15; Eph. 1:21), and especially archangels and angels; I need not add, the prince of demons (Matt. 9:34; 12:24), likewise, the devils and his angels (Matt. 25:41). But what and what kind of order it is, because Scripture is silent about it, and thus it does not pertain to us, we do not investigate, from the precept of the apostle (Col. 2:18). Although, I would not suppose it improbable that the difference implied in this order accords with a diversity of duties.” (Theoretical-Practical Theology 1.3.7.19, vol. 3, p. 185). Francis Turretin (1623-1687) likewise asks, “Is there any order among the angels and are there distinct hierarchies among them?” And answers, “The former we affirm; the latter we deny against the Jews and Romanists.” (IET VII.7, vol. 1, pp. 551-555).
Mastricht continues: “The Reformed do acknowledge that there is among angels a certain order, not only because God their creator is a God of order (1 Cor. 14:33, 40), but because the various names of angels seem to lead us to that idea (Col. 1:16; Eph. 3:10; cf. Ezek. 9:3; Isa. 6:2; 1 Thess. 4:16; Gen. 3:24; Jude 9), especially because the disjunctive particle “whether,” “whether thrones, whether dominions…,” in Colossians 1:16 seems to confirm some sort of order among the angels. I need not add that there is among the evil spirits a certain order as well (Matt. 12:24). But what the order among the angels is, the Reformed believe cannot be determined by men in this present imperfection, because:
(1) Neither can nature open up anything about this order, nor does Scripture open it to us, as is evident by an inspection of all the passages which are customarily adduced in favor of this order by [Pseudo-]Dionysius the Areopagite and others.
(2) Paul in Colossians 2:18 condemns such curiosity in more than one way: “Let no one seduce you, insisting on the worship of angels, things which he has not seen.”
(3) The foundation upon which the order is built—namely, those nine names—is exceedingly tenuous, because we read not only those nine names employed for the angels, but also several others, for they are called morning stars (Job 38:7), watchmen (Dan. 4:13, 17), the host of heaven (Luke 2:13), spirits (Heb. 1:7), Elohim (Ps. 8:5), men (Gen. 18:2), and so forth. Not to mention that the arguments from the observation of words are too weak for so many and such things to be able to be built upon them, nor in addition, that there is never any mention of plural archangels in the Scriptures, but only of one.
(4) The properties by which they attempt to distinguish those orders, drawn from the names, are recognized as common to all the angels, for they are all said to attend to God (Dan. 7:10), all to hear and execute his commands (Ps. 103:20), and all to be ministering spirits (Heb. 1:14; Ps. 91:11).” (Theoretical-Practical Theology 1.3.7.30, vol. 3, p. 200).
Lastly, Richard Baxter (1615-1691) exhorts Christians to “be satisfied in knowing so much of angels as God in nature and Scripture hath revealed; but presume not to inquire further, much less to determine unrevealed things. That there are angels, and that they are holy spirits, is past dispute; but what number they are, and of how many worlds, and of what orders and different dignities and degrees, and when they were created, and what locality belongeth to them, and how far they excel or differ from the souls of men, these and many other such unnecessary questions, neither nature or Scripture will teach us how infallibly to resolve. Almost all the heretics in the first ages of the church, did make their doctrines of angels the first and chief part of their heresies; arrogantly intruding into unrevealed things, and boasting of their acquaintance with the orders and inhabitants of the higher worlds. These being risen in the apostles’ days, occasioned Paul to say, ‘Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility, and worshiping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind’ (Colossians 2:18).” (A Christian Directory 3.11, Practical Works, vol. 1, p. 622).
[1] Many would disagree with Bucanus here, where he says that the Archangel is not “more excellent in nature, or superior by affectation of government.” Many Reformed Theologians have argued that the Archangel is not a created angel, but rather is a name for the pre-incarnate Son of God, no different than the Angel of the LORD.
Purely Presbyterian 