Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum omnibus hominibus deputentur angeli ad custodiam Whether there are angels assigned to the guardianship of all men Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod non omnibus hominibus deputentur angeli ad custodiam. To the third we proceed as follows. It seems that there are not angels assigned to the guardianship of all men. Custodia enim angelorum valet hominibus ad evitandum pericula, et ad instruendam ignorantiam. Sed Adam in primo statu ab utroque liber fuit. Ergo angelum custodem non habuit. Obj. 1: For the guardianship of the angels helps men avoid dangers and enlighten their ignorance. But Adam was free from both of these in his original state. Therefore, he did not have a guardian angel. Praeterea, gratia confirmata in quibusdam hominibus hoc efficit ut mortaliter peccare non possint, ut patet in sanctificatis in utero. Sed contra impedimentum salutis per peccatum principaliter ordinata est custodia angelorum. Ergo videtur quod tales ea non indigeant. Obj. 2: Furthermore, in certain men confirmed grace makes it so that they cannot sin mortally, as is clear in the case of those sanctified in the womb. But the guardianship of the angels has principally been ordained against the impediment to salvation that arises from sin. Therefore, it seems that such men do not need it. Praeterea, ante nativitatem ex utero sacramenta salutis puero conferri non possunt. Sed hoc est quod angelus custos in homine promovere intendit, scilicet salutem. Ergo puerperio animato ante nativitatem angelorum custodia non debetur. Obj. 3: Furthermore, the sacraments of salvation cannot be conferred on a child before birth from the womb. But salvation is precisely what a guardian angel intends to foster in a man. Therefore, the guardianship of the angels is not due to an animated unborn child before birth. Praeterea, custodia angelorum est per hoc quod homines illuminando instruunt. Sed pueri ante perfectam aetatem non sunt capaces doctrinae. Ergo videtur quod careant angelorum custodia. Obj. 4: Furthermore, the way angels guard is that they instruct men by illuminating them. But children are not capable of being taught before the age of maturity. Therefore, it seems that they lack the guardianship of the angels. Praeterea, 2 Thessal. 2, dicitur, quod omnis actus Antichristi erit secundum operationem Satanae. Sed custodia angelorum ordinatur contra tentationes malignorum spirituum. Ergo videtur quod frustra ab angelo custodietur. Obj. 5: Furthermore, Scripture says (2 Thess 2:9) that every act of the Antichrist will be based on Satan’s working. But the angels’ guardianship is ordained against the temptations of evil spirits. Therefore, it seems that the Antichrist would be guarded by an angel to no purpose. Sed contra, videtur quod etiam Christus angelum custodem habuit. Primo per hoc quod dicit Dionysius, 4 cap. Cael. hier., quod subdebatur paternis dispositionibus mediantibus angelis. Sed, ut dictum est, per custodiam executio divinae dispositionis fit de hominibus per angelos. Ergo videtur quod Christus angelum custodem habuit. On the contrary (6), it seems that even Christ had a guardian angel. First, this is because Dionysius says that he was subject to the Father’s ordinances through the mediation of angels. But, as was said, guardianship is the carrying out of a divine ordinance for men through angels. Therefore, it seems that Christ had a guardian angel. Praeterea, Lucae 22:43, dicitur, quod apparuit angelus Domini, confortans eum. Ergo videtur, cum confortare sit unus actus custodiae, quod angelum custodem habuit. Furthermore (7), it is said: and there appeared to him an angel from heaven, comforting him (Luke 22:43). Therefore, since comforting is one act of guardianship, it seems that he had a guardian angel. Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut in 1 libro dictum est, providentia proprie est ad conferendum ea quae promovent in finem, et removendum ea quae impediunt. Ultimum autem in his adjutoriis est id quod conjungit fini, quod a solo Deo est; et ideo ea quae ab angelis custodibus per divinam providentiam circa singulares personas exequuntur, sunt quaedam praeparationes juvantes ad consequendum finem ultimum. Praeparans autem non habet operationem circa rem, nisi quae est ordinata ad finem, ante finis consecutionem; et ideo omnibus hominibus, ab infusione animae rationalis per quam ad finem salutis ordinantur, custodia debetur usque ad mortem, quando terminatur via proficiendi in finem vel per hoc quod fiunt impoenitibiles, ut damnati, vel per hoc quod finem gloriae consequuntur, ut beati. I answer that, as was said in Book I, providence is properly for conferring what leads to the end, and for removing what impedes it. But the last among these aids is that which joins to the end itself, and this is only from God. Thus, the guardian angels, who carry out divine providence concerning individual persons, provide certain preparatory aids to the attainment of the last end. Now, one who prepares will work on nothing but what is ordered to the end prior to the end being attained. Thus, guardianship is due to all men from the infusion of the rational soul, through which they are ordered to the end of salvation, up till death, when the path of progress to the goal is ended, either through their becoming incapable of penitence, as are the damned, or through their obtaining the end of glory, like the blessed. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod quamvis in Adam non esset periculum ex aliqua corruptione carnis instigante ad malum, erat tamen periculum ex potentia peccandi, et ex daemone oppugnante: et similiter erat debilioris cognitionis quam angelus; et ideo indigebat praesidio custodis angeli. Reply Obj. 1: Although Adam was in no danger of any corruption of the flesh inciting him to evil, there was still the danger arising from the potential to sin and from the demon’s assault. Likewise, he had weaker knowledge than an angel. Thus, he needed the protection of a guardian angel. Ad secundum dicendum, quod etiam si confirmati peccare non possint, possunt tamen proficere, et eorum profectus potest impediri; et propter hoc indigent custodia angelorum ad promovendum in bonum, et removendum impedimentum. Reply Obj. 2: Even if those confirmed in grace cannot sin, they can still make progress and their progress can be impeded. For this reason they need the angels’ guardianship to advance them in the good and to remove impediments. Ad tertium dicendum, quod pueri in materno utero non recipiunt sacramenta Ecclesiae, quia non subduntur actibus ministrorum: sed operationibus divinis et angelorum subduntur; et ideo eis ab infusione animae rationalis, custos angelus assignatur, per quem prohibetur virtus daemonis ab ejus nocumento, et propter multa impedimenta, quibus potest ejus complexio deteriorari, ut efficiatur pronior ad peccandum, vel etiam ipsa vita extingui: et in hoc etiam prosunt parvulis natis, quamvis eos non illuminent. Reply Obj. 3: Children in their mother’s womb do not receive the sacraments of the Church because they are not subject to the acts of her ministers. But they are subject to the activities of God and of the angels. Thus, from the time of the infusion of the rational soul a guardian angel is assigned to them to prevent demonic power from harming them and to ward off the many impediments by which a child’s constitution can be worsened such that it becomes more prone to sinning, or even that its very life is lost. In this regard angels also help infants who have been born, though they do not illuminate them. Unde patet responsio ad quartum. Reply Obj. 4: Hence the reply to the fourth objection is clear. Ad quintum dicendum, quod Antichristus etiam habebit angelum custodem: quia lex communis propter unum mutari non debet: et in hoc ejus poena justior apparebit, quia beneficia toti naturae humanae provisa, sibi non subtrahuntur. Nec tamen est omnino frustra custodia; quia etsi ad bonum non convertatur, a multis tamen malis cessabit, retractus ab angelo custode: hunc enim effectum ad minus semper consequitur angelus per custodiam in quocumque obstinato. Reply Obj. 5: Even the Antichrist will have a guardian angel. For a universal law should not be changed on account of a single person. In this way, too, his punishment will also appear as more just, because he will not have been deprived of the benefits provided to the whole of human nature. Nor is such guardianship altogether in vain, since, even though he will not be converted to the good, he will desist from many evils, having been drawn away from them by his guardian angel. For an angel always obtains at least this effect through its guardianship of any obstinate person. Ad sextum dicendum, quod Christus non habuit angelum custodem: tum quia anima sua omnibus angelis superior fuit, immediate a Verbo sibi unito illuminata; tum quia erat verus comprehensor: unde ejus bonum nec impediri nec juvari poterat. Dicitur vero subdi Paternis dispositionibus per angelos quodammodo indirecte, inquantum angeli instruebant Joseph et matrem ejus de his quae circa ipsum puerum existentem agenda erant, ut habetur Matth. 2. Reply Sed Contra 6: Christ did not have a guardian angel both because his soul was superior to all angels, since it was illuminated immediately by the Word united to it, and also because he was a true comprehensor. Hence his good could neither be impeded nor assisted. But he is said to be subject to the ordinances of the Father through angels in a certain way indirectly, inasmuch as the angels instructed Joseph and his mother about what was to be done concerning the child, as Matthew 2 relates. Ad septimum dicendum, quod angelus dicitur confortasse eum, non aliquid in ipsum imprimendo, sed per modum ministerii, inquantum congratulabatur fortitudini ejus; sicut homo naturaliter in tribulatione confortatur ad praesentiam amicorum: et ita per modum quo fuerat vera tristitia, fuit confortatio vera, et non apparens tantum, ut quidam dicunt. Reply Sed Contra 7: An angel is said to have comforted him, not by impressing anything on him, but rather by way of ministry inasmuch as the angel congratulated him on his strength, just as a man suffering tribulation is naturally comforted by the presence of his friends. Thus, just as there had been true sadness, so there was a true comforting, and not only an apparent comforting, as some allege. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum angelus quandoque relinquat hominem cui deputatur Whether an angel ever leaves the man to whom it is deputed Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod angelus quandoque relinquat hominem cui deputatur custos. To the fourth we proceed as follows. It seems that an angel sometimes leaves the man to whom it is deputed as guardian. Primo per hoc quod habetur Hierem. 51:9: curavimus Babylonem, et non est sanata. Derelinquamus ergo eam. Sed hoc dicitur ex persona angelorum, ut dicit glossa. Ergo videtur quod relinquat, quando a peccato non corrigitur. Obj. 1: This is first from what is said in Jeremiah: we would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed. Let us forsake her (Jer 51:9). But this is said in the person of the angels, as a gloss states. Therefore, it seems that the angel leaves a man when he does not accept correction to avoid sin. Praeterea, Isa. 5:5, dicitur: auferam sepem ejus et erit in direptionem; glossa: id est custodiam angelorum. Ergo idem quod prius. Obj. 2: Furthermore, in Isaiah 5:5 it is said: I will remove its hedge, and it shall be devoured. A gloss explains that the hedge is the guardianship of the angels. Therefore, the same as before. Praeterea, efficacius custodit Deus hominem quam angelus. Sed Deus quandoque relinquit hominem, ut in Psal. 21:1, dicitur: quare me dereliquisti? Ergo multo fortius angelus. Obj. 3: Furthermore, God guards a man more efficaciously than an angel does. But God sometimes leaves a man, as Psalm 22:1 [21:2] says: why have you forsaken me? Therefore, all the more does an angel leave a man. Praeterea, Zachariae 4, dicitur, quod reversus est angelus qui loquebatur ad eum: et similiter etiam Danielis 10. Sed non revertitur nisi qui abscedit. Ergo videtur quod angelus quandoque hominem relinquat. Obj. 4: Furthermore, it says in Zachariah 4:1 that the angel who had been speaking to him returned. This likewise happens in Daniel 10. But no one returns unless he has departed. Therefore, it seems that an angel sometimes leaves a man. Praeterea, angeli quandoque sunt in caelo empyreo. Sed cum sunt ibi, non sunt circa nos, secundum Damascenum. Ergo videtur quod aliquando nos relinquant. Obj. 5: Furthermore, the angels are sometimes in the empyrean heaven. But according to Damascene, when they are there they are not around us. Therefore, it seems that at times they leave us. Praeterea, medicus sapiens infirmum desperatum relinquit. Sed angeli custodes possunt scire aliquem esse praescitum per revelationem, et videre aliquem obstinatum in peccatis. Talis autem est sicut infirmus desperatus. Ergo videtur quod etiam angelus, qui est quasi medicus spiritualis, talem relinquat. Obj. 6: Furthermore, a wise physician leaves a sick person who is without hope. But the guardian angels can know by revelation that someone is foreknown and can see that someone is obstinate in his sins. Now, such a person is like a sick person without hope. Therefore, it seems that an angel, too, who is like a spiritual physician, leaves such a person. Sed contra, boni angeli sunt magis proni ad juvandum quam mali ad infestandum. Sed mali nunquam cessant ab infestatione. Ergo nec boni a custodia. On the contrary, the good angels are more ready to help than the wicked are to harass. But the wicked angels never cease from harassing. Therefore, neither do the good cease guarding. Praeterea, de nemine est desperandum, quamdiu est in statu viae. Sed infirmus non relinquitur a medico nisi propter desperationem. Ergo videtur quod angelus non dimittat hominem, quantumcumque peccatorem. Furthermore, we must not despair of anyone as long as he is in the wayfaring state. But a sick person is only left by a physician because the physician has despaired. Therefore, it seems that an angel does not abandon a man, no matter how great a sinner he may be. Respondeo dicendum, quod cum custodia angelorum sit quaedam executio divinae providentiae, oportet esse idem judicium de utroque. Divina autem providentia nunquam relinquit hominem ex toto, quia omnino in nihilum redigeretur; sed verum est quod magis et minus providet diversis, secundum eorum conditionem: et ideo in Psal. 33:16: oculi Dei super justos dicuntur, et aures ejus ad preces eorum; quibus adeo perfecte providet ut omnia eis cooperentur in bonum, ut dicitur Rom. 8. Sed malos secundum aliquid derelinquit, inquantum permittit eos subjacere tribulationibus, et quod gravius est, etiam in peccata ruere, unde ad Rom. 1:28: propterea tradidit eos Deus in reprobum sensum, ut faciant ea quae non conveniunt. Similiter etiam angeli dicuntur aliquos derelinquere secundum quid, inquantum exponuntur tribulationibus, vel etiam justo Dei judicio ab aliquo peccato non retrahuntur; nunquam tamen ita relinquunt quin sit aliquis effectus custodiae, inquantum aliquod malum prohibent, et ad aliquod bonum promovent. I answer that, since the angels’ guardianship is a certain carrying out of divine providence, we must judge the same way for both. But divine providence never wholly leaves a man, since then he would altogether return to nothingness, although it is true that God provides more or less for different people in accord with their condition. Thus, it is written: the eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous, and his ears toward their cry (Ps 34:15 [33:16]). For the just are those for whom God so perfectly provides that he makes all things work together for their good, as it is said (Rom 8:28). But in a certain way he abandons the wicked, inasmuch as he permits them to be subjected to tribulations and—what is worse—even permits them to rush on into sins. Hence: God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct (Rom 1:28). Similarly, the angels are said to abandon some men in a qualified sense, namely, inasmuch as men are exposed to tribulations or even by God’s just judgment are not withdrawn from a sin. But they never so leave them that there is no longer any effect of their guardianship, inasmuch as they continue to restrain them from some evil and move them to some good. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod haec intelligitur esse vox angelorum discedentium ab homine peccatore in hora mortis; quia tunc primo desperatur de ejus salute. Vel potest dici quod derelinquunt secundum quid, ut dictum est, sicut etiam et Deus. Reply Obj. 1: This is understood to be the voice of the angels departing from a sinner in the hour of his death, since that is the first point at which his salvation can be despaired of. Or it may be said that they abandon him in a qualified sense, as has been said, as God also does. Unde patet responsio ad secundum et tertium. Reply Obj. 2–3: Hence the reply to the second and third objections is clear. Ad quartum dicendum, quod angelus ab eo recesserat quantum ad aliquem effectum, quia scilicet ipsum de futuris non illuminaverat, et non quantum ad omnem effectum custodiae. Reply Obj. 4: The angel had departed from him with regard to an effect of guardianship, that is, because it had not illuminated him concerning future things. But it had not departed with regard to every effect of guardianship. Ad quintum dicendum, quod quandocumque aliquod agens imprimit fortem impressionem, remanet illa impressio in patiente per aliquod tempus, etiam ad absentiam agentis, ut patet in motibus violentis: et ita dico, quod ad unam actionem angeli in hominem potest homo bonam dispositionem accipere, quae manet in eo ad aliquod tempus, ut patet quando aliquis semel devote orat, ad plures dies remanet inde devotior; et ita angelus, quamvis non semper sit praesens, potest semper custodire, inquantum effectus ejus manet post actionem suam. Reply Obj. 5: Whenever an agent makes a strong impression, the impression remains in the recipient for some time, even when the agent is absent, as is clear in the case of violent motions. Thus, I say that at a single action of an angel on a man, the man can receive a good disposition that remains in him for some time, as is clear when someone prays devoutly a single time and from then on remains more devout for several days. Thus, an angel, though not always present, can always guard inasmuch as its effect remains after its action. Ad sextum dicendum, quod nullus in statu viae est adeo obstinatus quin possit per poenitentiam converti; unde non est de eo desperandum; et si angelus sciret eum praescitum, posset tamen multa mala in eo impedire, sicut de Antichristo dictum est. Reply Obj. 6: No one in the wayfaring state is so obstinate that he cannot be converted through penitence. Hence we must not despair of him. And if an angel knew that he was foreknown, it could still impede many evils in him, as was said of the Antichrist in the preceding article. Articulus 5 Article 5