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 all 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 Obj. 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 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 Obj. 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 hast thou 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 judgement 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 Utrum angeli doleant de damnatione hominum quos custodiunt Whether the angels grieve over the damnation of the men they guard Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod angeli doleant de damnatione hominum quos custodiunt. To the fifth we proceed as follows. It seems that the angels grieve over the damnation of the men they guard. Exterior enim luctus est signum interioris doloris. Sed Isa. 33:7, dicitur: angeli pacis amare flebunt. Ergo videtur quod doleant. Obj. 1: For outward mourning is a sign of interior pain. But in Isaiah 33:7 it is said, the angels of peace weep bitterly. Therefore, it seems that they grieve. Praeterea, amicorum est compati sibi in necessitatibus. Sed angeli ferventissima charitate nos diligunt. Ergo videtur quod contristentur, hominum damnationi compatiendo. Obj. 2: Furthermore, it belongs to friends to suffer with one another in their needs. But the angels love us with the most fervent charity. Therefore, it seems that they are saddened and suffer with compassion at the damnation of men. Praeterea, sapientis est dolere de his per quae suum gaudium minuunt. Sed per damnationem hominum minuitur gaudium angelorum quod esset de conversione eorum, de quo habetur Lucae 15:10: gaudium est angelis Dei super uno peccatore poenitentiam agente. Ergo de hominum damnatione dolent. Obj. 3: Furthermore, a wise man grieves over things that lessen his joy. But the damnation of men lessens the joy that the angels would have had over their conversion, concerning which it says in Luke 15:10, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents. Therefore, they grieve over the damnation of men. Praeterea, omne id quod est contrarium volito et repugnans fini est contristans. Sed damnatio est contraria saluti quam volunt et per officium custodiae procurant. Ergo damnatio hominum eos contristat. Obj. 4: Furthermore, everything that is contrary to what is willed and incompatible with the end is saddening. But damnation is contrary to the salvation that they will and procure through their office of guardianship. Therefore, the damnation of men saddens them. Sed contra, Apoc. 21 dicitur, quod in caelesti Hierusalem nec est luctus nec est dolor. Illius autem urbis cives sunt angeli. Ergo de nullo dolent. On the contrary, Revelation 21:4 says that in the heavenly Jerusalem there is neither weeping nor mourning. But the angels are citizens of this city. Therefore, they grieve over nothing. Praeterea, perfecta beatitudo non compatitur secum miseriam. Sed omnis tristitia ad miseriam pertinet, et fugienda est, ut in 7 Ethic., cap. 13, Philosophus dicit. Ergo angeli beati tristes esse non possunt. Furthermore, perfect beatitude is incompatible with misery. But all sadness pertains to misery and is to be avoided, as the Philosopher says in the Ethics 7. Therefore, the blessed angels cannot be sad. Respondeo dicendum, quod cum angeli beati sint in divinae voluntatis continua contemplatione, cui perfectissime conformantur, nihil potest esse contra voluntatem eorum, sicut nec contra voluntatem Dei; potest tamen esse aliquid praeter voluntatem eorum; sed hoc ipsum, inquantum est permissum a Deo, est volitum ab eis, sicut a Deo; et ideo nihil potest accidere de quo doleant angeli, sicut nec de quo doleat Deus. Et ideo simpliciter dicendum est quod neque de peccatis hominum tristantur, neque de damnatione; sed utrobique laetantur de justa permissione et punitione. I answer that, since the angels are blessed in the continuous contemplation of the divine will, to which they are most perfectly conformed, nothing can be contrary to their will, just as nothing can be contrary to God's will, though something can occur apart from their will. But even such a thing, inasmuch as it is permitted by God, is willed by them as it is willed by God. Thus, nothing can happen over which the angels grieve, just as nothing can happen over which God grieves. Thus, we must say simply that they are not saddened at the sins of men or at their damnation. Rather, in both cases they rejoice at God's just permission and punishment. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod illud secundum litteram intelligitur de nuntiis Ezechiae, quos misit ad pacem ab Assyriis quaerendam, qui audientes blasphemias Rapsacis, scissis vestibus, fleverunt. Allegorice vero exponitur de apostolis in Glossa. Si autem ad angelos referatur, intelligendus est dolor non proprie, sed metaphorice, per modum quo etiam frequenter in Scripturis Deo attribuitur. Reply Obj. 1: In the literal sense, this is understood of the messengers of Hezekiah, whom he sent to seek peace from the Assyrians and who, when they heard the blasphemies of Rabshakeh, wept with rent garments. But allegorically it is explained in a Gloss as referring to the apostles. But if it is referred to the angels, then we must understand their grief not properly, but rather metaphorically, in the same way that grief is frequently attributed to God in the Scriptures. Ad secundum dicendum, quod compati non potest qui passibilis non est; et ideo ex impassibilitate angelorum hoc accidit quod condolere non possunt, non ex charitatis defectu. Reply Obj. 2: One who is not passible cannot suffer with others. Thus, the reason that the angels cannot grieve with others is their impassibility, not a lack of charity. Ad tertium dicendum, quod angelorum gaudium non minuitur ex damnatione, quia electorum numerus minui non potest. Vel potest dici quod ipsi semper gaudent de suis bonis operibus quae custodiendo egerunt, licet ille qui custoditus est non salvetur. Reply Obj. 3: The joy of the angels is not lessened by the damnation of men, since the number of the elect cannot be lessened. Or it may be said that they always rejoice over their own good works that they performed as guardians, even when the one guarded is not saved. Ad quartum dicendum, quod angeli volunt salutem hominis voluntate antecedente sicut et Deus; sed voluntate consequente volunt hominem damnari, si meruerit; unde consequens est ut de ejus damnatione non doleant. Reply Obj. 4: The angels will the salvation of a man with antecedent will, just as God does. But with consequent will, they will a man to be damned, if he has so merited it. Hence, as a consequence, they do not grieve over his damnation. Expositio primae partis textus Exposition of the text Et unum malum ad exercitium habet. Videtur injuste agi cum homine: quia daemones multo potentiores sunt hominibus; non enim est potestas super terram quae ei comparetur ut dicitur Job 41. Ergo non justum est pugnam inter hominem et daemonem constitui. Et dicendum, quod cum liberum arbitrium non possit cogi ad peccandum, quantumcumque sit daemon fortis homo resistere potest. Unde dicitur, quod debilis est hostis, qui non potest vincere nisi volentem; et super hoc homini adest praesidium angeli, et auxilium divinum, si suscipere velit. And an evil one to train it [that is, the soul]. This seems to be an injustice in the case of man because demons are much stronger than men. For there is no power on earth to compare with theirs, as is said in Job 41. Therefore, it is not just to establish a conflict between a man and a demon. We must say that, since a free will cannot be compelled to sin, a man can resist no matter how strong a demon is. Hence it is said that an enemy is weak who can only conquer the willing. In addition to this, a man has on his side an angel's protection and God's assistance if he is willing to receive them.