Authors/Thomas Aquinas/Summa Theologiae/Part I/Q113

From The Logic Museum
Jump to navigationJump to search
←Q112 Q114→



Latin English
Iª q. 113 pr. Deinde considerandum est de custodia bonorum Angelorum, et de impugnatione malorum. Et circa primum quaeruntur octo. Primo, utrum homines ab Angelis custodiantur. Secundo, utrum singulis hominibus singuli Angeli ad custodiam deputentur. Tertio, utrum custodia pertineat solum ad ultimum ordinem Angelorum. Quarto, utrum omni homini conveniat habere Angelum custodem. Quinto, quando incipiat custodia Angeli circa hominem. Sexto, utrum Angelus semper custodiat hominem. Septimo, utrum doleat de perditione custoditi. Octavo, utrum inter Angelos sit pugna ratione custodiae. Question 113. The guardianship of the good angelsAre men guarded by the angels? Is each man assigned a single guardian angel? Does the guardianship belong only to the lowest order of angels? Is it fitting for each man to have an angel guardian? When does an angel's guardianship of a man begin? Do the angel guardians always watch over men? Does the angel grieve over the loss of the one guarded? Does rivalry exist among the angels as regards their guardianship?
Iª q. 113 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod homines non custodiantur ab Angelis. Custodes enim deputantur aliquibus vel quia nesciunt, vel quia non possunt custodire seipsos; sicut pueris et infirmis. Sed homo potest custodire seipsum per liberum arbitrium; et scit, per naturalem cognitionem legis naturalis. Ergo homo non custoditur ab Angelo. Objection 1. It would seem that men are not guarded by the angels. For guardians are deputed to some because they either know not how, or are not able, to guard themselves, as children and the sick. But man is able to guard himself by his free-will; and knows how by his natural knowledge of natural law. Therefore man is not guarded by an angel.
Iª q. 113 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, ubi adest fortior custodia, infirmior superfluere videtur. Sed homines custodiuntur a Deo; secundum illud Psalmi CXX, non dormitabit neque dormiet qui custodit Israel. Ergo non est necessarium quod homo custodiatur ab Angelo. Objection 2. Further, a strong guard makes a weaker one superfluous. But men are guarded by God, according to Psalm 120:4: "He shall neither slumber nor sleep, that keepeth Israel." Therefore man does not need to be guarded by an angel.
Iª q. 113 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, perditio custoditi redundat in negligentiam custodis, unde dicitur cuidam, III Reg. XX, custodi virum istum, qui si lapsus fuerit, erit anima tua pro anima eius. Sed multi homines quotidie pereunt, in peccatum cadentes, quibus Angeli subvenire possent vel visibiliter apparendo, vel miracula faciendo, vel aliquo simili modo. Essent ergo negligentes Angeli, si eorum custodiae homines essent commissi, quod patet esse falsum. Non igitur Angeli sunt hominum custodes. Objection 3. Further, the loss of the guarded redounds to the negligence of the guardian; hence it was said to a certain one: "Keep this man; and if he shall slip away, thy life shall be for his life" (1 Kings 20:39). Now many perish daily through falling into sin; whom the angels could help by visible appearance, or by miracles, or in some such-like way. The angels would therefore be negligent if men are given to their guardianship. But that is clearly false. Therefore the angels are not the guardians of men.
Iª q. 113 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalmo, Angelis suis mandavit de te, ut custodiant te in omnibus viis tuis. On the contrary, It is written (Psalm 90:11): "He hath given His angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways."
Iª q. 113 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum rationem divinae providentiae, hoc in rebus omnibus invenitur, quod mobilia et variabilia per immobilia et invariabilia moventur et regulantur; sicut omnia corporalia per substantias spirituales immobiles, et corpora inferiora per corpora superiora, quae sunt invariabilia secundum substantiam. Sed et nos ipsi regulamur circa conclusiones in quibus possumus diversimode opinari, per principia quae invariabiliter tenemus. Manifestum est autem quod in rebus agendis cognitio et affectus hominis multipliciter variari et deficere possunt a bono. Et ideo necessarium fuit quod hominibus Angeli ad custodiam deputarentur, per quos regularentur et moverentur ad bonum. I answer that, According to the plan of Divine Providence, we find that in all things the movable and variable are moved and regulated by the immovable and invariable; as all corporeal things by immovable spiritual substances, and the inferior bodies by the superior which are invariable in substance. We ourselves also are regulated as regards conclusions, about which we may have various opinions, by the principles which we hold in an invariable manner. It is moreover manifest that as regards things to be done human knowledge and affection can vary and fail from good in many ways; and so it was necessary that angels should be deputed for the guardianship of men, in order to regulate them and move them to good.
Iª q. 113 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod per liberum arbitrium potest homo aliqualiter malum vitare, sed non sufficienter, quia infirmatur circa affectum boni, propter multiplices animae passiones. Similiter etiam universalis cognitio naturalis legis, quae homini naturaliter adest, aliqualiter dirigit hominem ad bonum, sed non sufficienter, quia in applicando universalia principia iuris ad particularia opera, contingit hominem multipliciter deficere. Unde dicitur Sap. IX, cogitationes mortalium timidae, et incertae providentiae nostrae. Et ideo necessaria fuit homini custodia Angelorum. Reply to Objection 1. By free-will man can avoid evil to a certain degree, but not in any sufficient degree; forasmuch as he is weak in affection towards good on account of the manifold passions of the soul. Likewise universal natural knowledge of the law, which by nature belongs to man, to a certain degree directs man to good, but not in a sufficient degree; because in the application of the universal principles of law to particular actions man happens to be deficient in many ways. Hence it is written (Wisdom 9:14): "The thoughts of mortal men are fearful, and our counsels uncertain." Thus man needs to be guarded by the angels.
Iª q. 113 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ad bene operandum duo requiruntur. Primo quidem, quod affectus inclinetur ad bonum, quod quidem fit in nobis per habitum virtutis moralis. Secundo autem, quod ratio inveniat congruas vias ad perficiendum bonum virtutis, quod quidem philosophus attribuit prudentiae. Quantum ergo ad primum, Deus immediate custodit hominem, infundendo ei gratiam et virtutes. Quantum autem ad secundum, Deus custodit hominem sicut universalis instructor, cuius instructio ad hominem provenit mediantibus Angelis, ut supra habitum est. Reply to Objection 2. Two things are required for a good action; first, that the affection be inclined to good, which is effected in us by the habit of moral virtue. Secondly, that reason should discover the proper methods to make perfect the good of virtue; this the Philosopher (Ethic. vi) attributes to prudence. As regards the first, God guards man immediately by infusing into him grace and virtues; as regards the second, God guards man as his universal instructor, Whose precepts reach man by the medium of the angels, as above stated (111, 1).
Iª q. 113 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut homines a naturali instinctu boni discedunt propter passionem peccati; ita etiam discedunt ab instigatione bonorum Angelorum, quae fit invisibiliter per hoc quod homines illuminant ad bene agendum. Unde quod homines pereunt, non est imputandum negligentiae Angelorum, sed malitiae hominum. Quod autem aliquando, praeter legem communem, hominibus visibiliter apparent, ex speciali Dei gratia est, sicut etiam quod praeter ordinem naturae miracula fiunt. Reply to Objection 3. As men depart from the natural instinct of good by reason of a sinful passion, so also do they depart from the instigation of the good angels, which takes place invisibly when they enlighten man that he may do what is right. Hence that men perish is not to be imputed to the negligence of the angels but to the malice of men. That they sometimes appear to men visibly outside the ordinary course of nature comes from a special grace of God, as likewise that miracles occur outside the order of nature.
Iª q. 113 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non singuli homines a singulis Angelis custodiantur. Angelus enim est virtuosior quam homo. Sed unus homo sufficit ad custodiam multorum hominum. Ergo multo magis unus Angelus multos homines potest custodire. Objection 1. It would seem that each man is not guarded by an angel. For an angel is stronger than a man. But one man suffices to guard many men. Therefore much more can one angel guard many men.
Iª q. 113 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, inferiora reducuntur in Deum a superioribus per media, ut Dionysius dicit. Sed cum omnes Angeli sint inaequales, ut supra dictum est, solus unus Angelus est inter quem et homines non est aliquis medius. Ergo unus Angelus solus est qui immediate custodit homines. Objection 2. Further, the lower things are brought to God through the medium of the higher, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv, xiii). But as all the angels are unequal (50, 4), there is only one angel between whom and men there is no medium. Therefore there is only one angel who immediately keeps men.
Iª q. 113 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, maiores Angeli maioribus officiis deputantur. Sed non est maius officium custodire unum hominem quam alium, cum omnes homines natura sint pares. Cum ergo omnium Angelorum sit unus maior alio, secundum Dionysium, videtur quod diversi homines non custodiantur a diversis Angelis. Objection 3. Further, the greater angels are deputed to the greater offices. But it is not a greater office to keep one man more than another; since all men are naturally equal. Since therefore of all the angels one is greater than another, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. x), it seems that different men are not guarded by different angels.
Iª q. 113 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Hieronymus, exponens illud Matth. XVIII, Angeli eorum in caelis, dicit, magna est dignitas animarum, ut unaquaeque habeat, ab ortu nativitatis, in custodiam sui Angelum delegatum. On the contrary, On the text, "Their angels in heaven," etc. (Matthew 8:10), Jerome says: "Great is the dignity of souls, for each one to have an angel deputed to guard it from its birth."
Iª q. 113 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod singulis hominibus singuli Angeli ad custodiam deputantur. Cuius ratio est, quia Angelorum custodia est quaedam executio divinae providentiae circa homines. Providentia autem Dei aliter se habet ad homines, et ad alias corruptibiles creaturas, quia aliter se habent ad incorruptibilitatem. Homines enim non solum sunt incorruptibiles quantum ad communem speciem, sed etiam quantum ad proprias formas singulorum, quae sunt animae rationales, quod de aliis rebus corruptibilibus dici non potest. Manifestum est autem quod providentia Dei principaliter est circa illa quae perpetuo manent, circa ea vero quae transeunt, providentia Dei est inquantum ordinat ipsa ad res perpetuas. Sic igitur providentia Dei comparatur ad singulos homines, sicut comparatur ad singula genera vel species corruptibilium rerum. Sed secundum Gregorium, diversi ordines deputantur diversis rerum generibus; puta potestates ad arcendos Daemones, virtutes ad miracula facienda in rebus corporeis. Et probabile est quod diversis speciebus rerum diversi Angeli eiusdem ordinis praeficiantur. Unde etiam rationabile est ut diversis hominibus diversi Angeli ad custodiam deputentur. I answer that, Each man has an angel guardian appointed to him. This rests upon the fact that the guardianship of angels belongs to the execution of Divine providence concerning men. But God's providence acts differently as regards men and as regards other corruptible creatures, for they are related differently to incorruptibility. For men are not only incorruptible in the common species, but also in the proper forms of each individual, which are the rational souls, which cannot be said of other incorruptible things. Now it is manifest that the providence of God is chiefly exercised towards what remains for ever; whereas as regards things which pass away, the providence of God acts so as to order their existence to the things which are perpetual. Thus the providence of God is related to each man as it is to every genus or species of things corruptible. But, according to Gregory (Hom. xxxiv in Evang.), the different orders are deputed to the different "genera" of things, for instance, the "Powers" to coerce the demons, the "Virtues" to work miracles in things corporeal; while it is probable that the different species are presided over by different angels of the same order. Hence it is also reasonable to suppose that different angels are appointed to the guardianship of different men.
Iª q. 113 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod alicui homini adhibetur custos dupliciter. Uno modo, inquantum est homo singularis, et sic uni homini debetur unus custos, et interdum plures deputantur ad custodiam unius. Alio modo, inquantum est pars alicuius collegii, et sic toti collegio unus homo ad custodiam praeponitur, ad quem pertinet providere ea quae pertinent ad unum hominem in ordine ad totum collegium; sicut sunt ea quae exterius aguntur, de quibus alii aedificantur vel scandalizantur. Angelorum autem custodia deputatur hominibus etiam quantum ad invisibilia et occulta, quae pertinent ad singulorum salutem secundum seipsos. Unde singulis hominibus singuli Angeli deputantur ad custodiam. Reply to Objection 1. A guardian may be assigned to a man for two reasons: first, inasmuch as a man is an individual, and thus to one man one guardian is due; and sometimes several are appointed to guard one. Secondly, inasmuch as a man is part of a community, and thus one man is appointed as guardian of a whole community; to whom it belongs to provide what concerns one man in his relation to the whole community, such as external works, which are sources of strength or weakness to others. But angel guardians are given to men also as regards invisible and occult things, concerning the salvation of each one in his own regard. Hence individual angels are appointed to guard individual men.
Iª q. 113 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, Angeli primae hierarchiae omnes quantum ad aliqua illuminantur immediate a Deo, sed quaedam sunt de quibus illuminantur superiores tantum immediate a Deo, quae inferioribus revelant. Et idem etiam in inferioribus ordinibus considerandum est, nam aliquis infimus Angelus illuminatur quantum ad quaedam ab aliquo supremo, et quantum ad aliqua ab eo qui immediate sibi praefertur. Et sic etiam possibile est quod aliquis Angelus immediate illuminet hominem, qui tamen habet aliquos Angelos sub se, quos illuminat. Reply to Objection 2. As above stated (112, 3, ad 4), all the angels of the first hierarchy are, as to some things, enlightened by God directly; but as to other things, only the superior are directly enlightened by God, and these reveal them to the inferior. And the same also applies to the inferior orders: for a lower angel is enlightened in some respects by one of the highest, and in other respects by the one immediately above him. Thus it is possible that some one angel enlightens a man immediately, and yet has other angels beneath him whom he enlightens.
Iª q. 113 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, quamvis homines natura sint pares, tamen inaequalitas in eis invenitur, secundum quod ex divina providentia quidam ordinantur ad maius, et quidam ad minus; secundum illud quod dicitur Eccli. XXXIII, in multitudine disciplinae domini separavit eos, ex ipsis benedixit et exaltavit, ex ipsis maledixit et humiliavit. Et sic maius officium est custodire unum hominem quam alium. Reply to Objection 3. Although men are equal in nature, still inequality exists among them, according as Divine Providence orders some to the greater, and others to the lesser things, according to Sirach 33:11-12: "With much knowledge the Lord hath divided them, and diversified their ways: some of them hath He blessed and exalted, and some of them hath He cursed and brought low." Thus it is a greater office to guard one man than another.
Iª q. 113 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod custodire homines non pertineat solum ad infimum ordinem Angelorum. Dicit enim Chrysostomus quod hoc quod dicitur Matth. XVIII, Angeli eorum in caelo etc., intelligitur non de quibuscumque Angelis, sed de supereminentibus. Ergo supereminentes Angeli custodiunt homines. Objection 1. It would seem that the guardianship of men does not belong only to the lowest order of the angels. For Chrysostom says that the text (Matthew 18:10), "Their angels in heaven," etc. is to be understood not of any angels but of the highest. Therefore the superior angels guard men.
Iª q. 113 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, apostolus, ad Heb. I, dicit quod Angeli sunt in ministerium missi propter eos qui haereditatem capiunt salutis, et sic videtur quod missio Angelorum ad custodiam hominum ordinetur. Sed quinque ordines in exterius ministerium mittuntur, ut supra dictum est. Ergo omnes Angeli quinque ordinum custodiae hominum deputantur. Objection 2. Further, the Apostle says that angels "are sent to minister for them who shall receive the inheritance of salvation" (Hebrews 1:14); and thus it seems that the mission of the angels is directed to the guardianship of men. But five orders are sent in external ministry (112, 4). Therefore all the angels of the five orders are deputed to the guardianship of men.
Iª q. 113 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, ad custodiam hominum maxime videtur esse necessarium arcere Daemones, quod pertinet ad potestates, secundum Gregorium; et miracula facere, quod pertinet ad virtutes. Ergo illi etiam ordines deputantur ad custodiam, et non solum infimus. Objection 3. Further, for the guardianship of men it seems especially necessary to coerce the demons, which belongs most of all to the Powers, according to Gregory (Hom. xxxiv in Evang.); and to work miracles, which belongs to the Virtues. Therefore these orders are also deputed to the work of guardianship, and not only the lowest order.
Iª q. 113 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod in Psalmo custodia hominum attribuitur Angelis; quorum ordo est infimus, secundum Dionysium. On the contrary, In the Psalm (90) the guardianship of men is attributed to the angels; who belong to the lowest order, according to Dionysius (Coel. Hier. v, ix).
Iª q. 113 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, homini custodia dupliciter adhibetur. Uno modo custodia particularis, secundum quod singulis hominibus singuli Angeli ad custodiam deputantur. Et talis custodia pertinet ad infimum ordinem Angelorum, quorum, secundum Gregorium, est minima nuntiare; hoc autem videtur esse minimum in officiis Angelorum, procurare ea quae ad unius hominis tantum salutem pertinent. Alia vero est custodia universalis. Et haec multiplicatur secundum diversos ordines, nam quanto agens fuerit universalius, tanto est superius. Sic igitur custodia humanae multitudinis pertinet ad ordinem principatuum, vel forte ad Archangelos, qui dicuntur principes Angeli, unde et Michael, quem Archangelum dicimus, unus de principibus dicitur Dan. X. Ulterius autem super omnes naturas corporeas habent custodiam virtutes. Et ulterius etiam super Daemones habent custodiam potestates. Et ulterius etiam super bonos spiritus habent custodiam principatus, secundum Gregorium. I answer that, As above stated (2), man is guarded in two ways; in one way by particular guardianship, according as to each man an angel is appointed to guard him; and such guardianship belongs to the lowest order of the angels, whose place it is, according to Gregory, to announce the "lesser things"; for it seems to be the least of the angelic offices to procure what concerns the salvation of only one man. The other kind of guardianship is universal, multiplied according to the different orders. For the more universal an agent is, the higher it is. Thus the guardianship of the human race belongs to the order of "Principalities," or perhaps to the "Archangels," whom we call the angel princes. Hence, Michael, whom we call an archangel, is also styled "one of the princes" (Daniel 10:13). Moreover all corporeal creatures are guarded by the "Virtues"; and likewise the demons by the "Powers," and the good spirits by the "Principalities," according to Gregory's opinion (Hom. xxxiv in Ev.).
Iª q. 113 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod verbum Chrysostomi potest intelligi, ut loquatur de supremis in ordine infimo Angelorum, quia, ut Dionysius dicit, in quolibet ordine sunt primi, medii et ultimi. Est autem probabile quod maiores Angeli deputentur ad custodiam eorum qui sunt ad maiorem gradum gloriae a Deo electi. Reply to Objection 1. Chrysostom can be taken to mean the highest in the lowest order of angels; for, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. x) in each order there are first, middle, and last. It is, however, probable that the greater angels are deputed to keep those chosen by God for the higher degree of glory.
Iª q. 113 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod non omnes Angeli qui mittuntur, habent particularem custodiam super singulos homines; sed quidam ordines habent universalem custodiam, magis vel minus, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 2. Not all the angels who are sent have guardianship of individual men; but some orders have a universal guardianship, greater or less, as above explained.
Iª q. 113 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod etiam inferiores Angeli exercent officia superiorum, inquantum aliquid de dono eorum participant, et se habent ad superiores sicut executores virtutis eorum. Et per hunc modum etiam Angeli infimi ordinis possunt et arcere Daemones, et miracula facere. Reply to Objection 3. Even inferior angels exercise the office of the superior, as they share in their gifts, and they are executors of the superiors' power; and in this way all the angels of the lowest order can coerce the demons, and work miracles.
Iª q. 113 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non omnibus hominibus Angeli ad custodiam deputentur. Dicitur enim de Christo, Philipp. II, quod est in similitudinem hominum factus, et habitu inventus ut homo. Si igitur omnibus hominibus Angeli ad custodiam deputantur, etiam Christus Angelum custodem habuisset. Sed hoc videtur inconveniens, cum Christus sit maior omnibus Angelis. Non ergo omnibus hominibus Angeli ad custodiam deputantur. Objection 1. It would seem that angels are not appointed to the guardianship of all men. For it is written of Christ (Philippians 2:7) that "He was made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man." If therefore angels are appointed to the guardianship of all men, Christ also would have had an angel guardian. But this is unseemly, for Christ is greater than all the angels. Therefore angels are not appointed to the guardianship of all men.
Iª q. 113 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, omnium hominum primus fuit Adam. Sed sibi non competebat habere Angelum custodem, ad minus in statu innocentiae, quia tunc nullis periculis angustiabatur. Ergo Angeli non praeficiuntur ad custodiam omnibus hominibus. Objection 2. Further, Adam was the first of all men. But it was not fitting that he should have an angel guardian, at least in the state of innocence: for then he was not beset by any dangers. Therefore angels are not appointed to the guardianship of all men.
Iª q. 113 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, hominibus Angeli ad custodiam deputantur, ut per eos manuducantur ad vitam aeternam, et incitentur ad bene operandum, et muniantur contra insultus Daemonum. Sed homines praesciti ad damnationem, nunquam perveniunt ad vitam aeternam. Infideles etiam, etsi interdum bona opera faciant, non tamen bene faciunt, quia non recta intentione faciunt, fides enim intentionem dirigit, ut Augustinus dicit. Antichristi etiam adventus erit secundum operationem Satanae, ut dicitur II ad Thessal. II. Non ergo omnibus hominibus Angeli ad custodiam deputantur. Objection 3. Further, angels are appointed to the guardianship of men, that they may take them by the hand and guide them to eternal life, encourage them to good works, and protect them against the assaults of the demons. But men who are foreknown to damnation, never attain to eternal life. Infidels, also, though at times they perform good works, do not perform them well, for they have not a right intention: for "faith directs the intention" as Augustine says (Enarr. ii in Ps. 31). Moreover, the coming of Antichrist will be "according to the working of Satan," as it is written (2 Thessalonians 2:9). Therefore angels are not deputed to the guardianship of all men.
Iª q. 113 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est auctoritas Hieronymi supra inducta, qui dicit quod unaquaeque anima ad sui custodiam habet Angelum deputatum. On the contrary, is the authority of Jerome quoted above (2), for he says that "each soul has an angel appointed to guard it."
Iª q. 113 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod homo in statu vitae istius constitutus, est quasi in quadam via, qua debet tendere ad patriam. In qua quidem via multa pericula homini imminent, tum ab interiori, tum ab exteriori; secundum illud Psalmi CXLI, in via hac qua ambulabam, absconderunt laqueum mihi. Et ideo sicut hominibus per viam non tutam ambulantibus dantur custodes, ita et cuilibet homini, quandiu viator est, custos Angelus deputatur. Quando autem iam ad terminum viae pervenerit, iam non habebit Angelum custodem; sed habebit in regno Angelum conregnantem, in Inferno Daemonem punientem. I answer that, Man while in this state of life, is, as it were, on a road by which he should journey towards heaven. On this road man is threatened by many dangers both from within and from without, according to Psalm 159:4: "In this way wherein I walked, they have hidden a snare for me." And therefore as guardians are appointed for men who have to pass by an unsafe road, so an angel guardian is assigned to each man as long as he is a wayfarer. When, however, he arrives at the end of life he no longer has a guardian angel; but in the kingdom he will have an angel to reign with him, in hell a demon to punish him.
Iª q. 113 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christus, secundum quod homo, immediate regulabatur a verbo Dei, unde non indigebat custodia Angelorum. Et iterum secundum animam erat comprehensor; sed ratione passibilitatis corporis, erat viator. Et secundum hoc, non debebatur ei Angelus custos, tanquam superior; sed Angelus minister, tanquam inferior. Unde dicitur Matth. IV, quod accesserunt Angeli et ministrabant ei. Reply to Objection 1. Christ as man was guided immediately by the Word of God: wherefore He needed not be guarded by an angel. Again as regards His soul, He was a comprehensor, although in regard to His passible body, He was a wayfarer. In this latter respect it was right that He should have not a guardian angel as superior to Him, but a ministering angel as inferior to Him. Whence it is written (Matthew 4:11) that "angels came and ministered to Him."
Iª q. 113 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod homo in statu innocentiae non patiebatur aliquod periculum ab interiori, quia interius erant omnia ordinata, ut supra dictum est, sed imminebat ei periculum ab exteriori, propter insidias Daemonum; ut rei probavit eventus. Et ideo indigebat custodia Angelorum. Reply to Objection 2. In the state of innocence man was not threatened by any peril from within: because within him all was well ordered, as we have said above (95, 1,3). But peril threatened from without on account of the snares of the demons; as was proved by the event. For this reason he needed a guardian angel.
Iª q. 113 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut praesciti et infideles, et etiam Antichristus, non privantur interiori auxilio naturalis rationis; ita etiam non privantur exteriori auxilio toti naturae humanae divinitus concesso, scilicet custodia Angelorum. Per quam etsi non iuventur quantum ad hoc quod vitam aeternam bonis operibus mereantur, iuvantur tamen quantum ad hoc, quod ab aliquibus malis retrahuntur, quibus et sibi ipsis et aliis nocere possunt. Nam et ipsi Daemones arcentur per bonos Angelos, ne noceant quantum volunt. Et similiter Antichristus non tantum nocebit, quantum vellet. Reply to Objection 3. Just as the foreknown, the infidels, and even Anti-christ, are not deprived of the interior help of natural reason; so neither are they deprived of that exterior help granted by God to the whole human race--namely the guardianship of the angels. And although the help which they receive therefrom does not result in their deserving eternal life by good works, it does nevertheless conduce to their being protected from certain evils which would hurt both themselves and others. For even the demons are held off by the good angels, lest they hurt as much as they would. In like manner Antichrist will not do as much harm as he would wish.
Iª q. 113 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus non deputetur homini ad custodiam a sua nativitate. Angeli enim mittuntur in ministerium, propter eos qui haereditatem capiunt salutis, ut apostolus, ad Heb. dicit. Sed homines incipiunt haereditatem capere salutis, quando baptizantur. Ergo Angelus deputatur homini ad custodiam a tempore Baptismi, et non a tempore nativitatis. Objection 1. It would seem that an angel is not appointed to guard a man from his birth. For angels are "sent to minister for them who shall receive the inheritance of salvation," as the Apostle says (Hebrews 1:14). But men begin to receive the inheritance of salvation, when they are baptized. Therefore an angel is appointed to guard a man from the time of his baptism, not of his birth.
Iª q. 113 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, homines ab Angelis custodiuntur, inquantum ab eis illuminantur per modum doctrinae. Sed pueri mox nati non sunt capaces doctrinae, quia non habent usum rationis. Ergo pueris mox natis non deputantur Angeli custodes. Objection 2. Further, men are guarded by angels in as far as angels enlighten and instruct them. But children are not capable of instruction as soon as they are born, for they have not the use of reason. Therefore angels are not appointed to guard children as soon as they are born.
Iª q. 113 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, pueri in materno utero existentes habent animam rationalem aliquo tempore, sicut et post nativitatem ex utero. Sed cum sunt in materno utero, non deputantur eis Angeli ad custodiam, ut videtur, quia neque etiam ministri Ecclesiae eos sacramentis imbuunt. Non ergo statim a nativitate hominibus Angeli ad custodiam deputantur. Objection 3. Further, a child has a rational soul for some time before birth, just as well as after. But it does not appear that an angel is appointed to guard a child before its birth, for they are not then admitted to the sacraments of the Church. Therefore angels are not appointed to guard men from the moment of their birth.
Iª q. 113 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod Hieronymus dicit, quod unaquaeque anima, ab ortu nativitatis, habet in custodiam sui Angelum deputatum. On the contrary, Jerome says (vide A, 4) that "each soul has an angel appointed to guard it from its birth."
Iª q. 113 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Origenes dicit super Matthaeum, super hoc est duplex opinio. Quidam enim dixerunt quod Angelus ad custodiam homini deputatur a tempore Baptismi, alii vero quod a tempore nativitatis. Et hanc opinionem Hieronymus approbat; et rationabiliter. Beneficia enim quae dantur homini divinitus ex eo quod est Christianus, incipiunt a tempore Baptismi; sicut perceptio Eucharistiae, et alia huiusmodi. Sed ea quae providentur homini a Deo, inquantum habet naturam rationalem, ex tunc ei exhibentur, ex quo nascendo talem naturam accipit. Et tale beneficium est custodia Angelorum, ut ex praemissis patet. Unde statim a nativitate habet homo Angelum ad sui custodiam deputatum. I answer that, as Origen observes (Tract. v, super Matt.) there are two opinions on this matter. For some have held that the angel guardian is appointed at the time of baptism, others, that he is appointed at the time of birth. The latter opinion Jerome approves (vide A, 4), and with reason. For those benefits which are conferred by God on man as a Christian, begin with his baptism; such as receiving the Eucharist, and the like. But those which are conferred by God on man as a rational being, are bestowed on him at his birth, for then it is that he receives that nature. Among the latter benefits we must count the guardianship of angels, as we have said above (1,4). Wherefore from the very moment of his birth man has an angel guardian appointed to him.
Iª q. 113 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Angeli mittuntur in ministerium, efficaciter quidem propter eos solos qui haereditatem capiunt salutis, si consideretur ultimus effectus custodiae, qui est perceptio haereditatis. Nihilominus tamen et aliis ministerium Angelorum non subtrahitur, quamvis in eis hanc efficaciam non habeat, quod perducantur ad salutem. Efficax tamen est circa eos Angelorum ministerium, inquantum a multis malis retrahuntur. Reply to Objection 1. Angels are sent to minister, and that efficaciously indeed, for those who shall receive the inheritance of salvation, if we consider the ultimate effect of their guardianship, which is the realizing of that inheritance. But for all that, the angelic ministrations are not withdrawn for others although they are not so efficacious as to bring them to salvation: efficacious, nevertheless, they are, inasmuch as they ward off many evils.
Iª q. 113 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod officium custodiae ordinatur quidem ad illuminationem doctrinae, sicut ad ultimum et principalem effectum. Nihilominus tamen multos alios effectus habet, qui pueris competunt, scilicet arcere Daemones, et alia nocumenta tam corporalia quam spiritualia prohibere. Reply to Objection 2. Guardianship is ordained to enlightenment by instruction, as to its ultimate and principal effect. Nevertheless it has many other effects consistent with childhood; for instance to ward off the demons, and to prevent both bodily and spiritual harm.
Iª q. 113 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod puer quandiu est in materno utero, non totaliter est a matre separatus, sed per quandam colligationem est quodammodo adhuc aliquid eius, sicut et fructus pendens in arbore, est aliquid arboris. Et ideo probabiliter dici potest quod Angelus qui est in custodia matris, custodiat prolem in matris utero existentem. Sed in nativitate, quando separatur a matre, Angelus ei ad custodiam deputatur, ut Hieronymus dicit. Reply to Objection 3. As long as the child is in the mother's womb it is not entirely separate, but by reason of a certain intimate tie, is still part of her: just as the fruit while hanging on the tree is part of the tree. And therefore it can be said with some degree of probability, that the angel who guards the mother guards the child while in the womb. But at its birth, when it becomes separate from the mother, an angel guardian is appointed to it; as Jerome, above quoted, says.
Iª q. 113 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus custos quandoque deserat hominem cuius custodiae deputatur. Dicitur enim Ierem. li, ex persona Angelorum, curavimus Babylonem, et non est curata, derelinquamus ergo eam. Et Isaiae V, auferam sepem eius, et erit in conculcationem; Glossa, idest Angelorum custodiam. Objection 1. It would seem that the angel guardian sometimes forsakes the man whom he is appointed to guard. For it is said (Jeremiah 51:9) in the person of the angels: "We would have cured Babylon, but she is not healed: let us forsake her." And (Isaiah 5:5) it is written: "I will take away the hedge"--that is, "the guardianship of the angels" [gloss]--"and it shall be wasted."
Iª q. 113 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, principalius custodit Deus quam Angelus. Sed Deus aliquando hominem derelinquit; secundum illud Psalmi XXI, Deus, Deus meus, respice in me, quare me dereliquisti? Ergo multo magis Angelus custos hominem derelinquit. Objection 2. Further, God's guardianship excels that of the angels. But God forsakes man at times, according to Psalm 21:2: "O God, my God, look upon me: why hast Thou forsaken me?" Much rather therefore does an angel guardian forsake man.
Iª q. 113 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut dicit Damascenus, Angeli, cum sunt hic nobiscum, non sunt in caelo. Sed aliquando sunt in caelo. Ergo aliquando nos derelinquunt. Objection 3. Further, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 3), "When the angels are here with us, they are not in heaven." But sometimes they are in heaven. Therefore sometimes they forsake us.
Iª q. 113 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra, Daemones nos semper impugnant; secundum illud I Petri V, adversarius vester Diabolus tanquam leo rugiens circuit, quaerens quem devoret. Ergo multo magis boni Angeli semper nos custodiunt. On the contrary, The demons are ever assailing us, according to 1 Peter 5:8: "Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about, seeking whom he may devour." Much more therefore do the good angels ever guard us.
Iª q. 113 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod custodia Angelorum, ut ex supra dictis patet, est quaedam executio divinae providentiae circa homines facta. Manifestum est autem quod nec homo, nec res aliqua, totaliter divinae providentiae subtrahitur, inquantum enim aliquid participat de esse, intantum subditur universali providentiae entium. Sed intantum Deus, secundum ordinem suae providentiae, dicitur hominem derelinquere, inquantum permittit hominem pati aliquem defectum vel poenae vel culpae. Similiter etiam dicendum est quod Angelus custos nunquam totaliter dimittit hominem, sed ad aliquid interdum eum dimittit; prout scilicet non impedit quin subdatur alicui tribulationi, vel etiam quin cadat in peccatum, secundum ordinem divinorum iudiciorum. Et secundum hoc Babylon et domus Israel ab Angelis derelictae dicuntur, quia Angeli earum custodes non impediverunt quin tribulationibus subderentur. I answer that, As appears above (2), the guardianship of the angels is an effect of Divine providence in regard to man. Now it is evident that neither man, nor anything at all, is entirely withdrawn from the providence of God: for in as far as a thing participates being, so far is it subject to the providence that extends over all being. God indeed is said to forsake man, according to the ordering of His providence, but only in so far as He allows man to suffer some defect of punishment or of fault. In like manner it must be said that the angel guardian never forsakes a man entirely, but sometimes he leaves him in some particular, for instance by not preventing him from being subject to some trouble, or even from falling into sin, according to the ordering of Divine judgments. In this sense Babylon and the House of Israel are said to have been forsaken by the angels, because their angel guardians did not prevent them from being subject to tribulation.
Iª q. 113 a. 6 ad 1 Et per hoc patet solutio ad primum et secundum. From this the answers are clear to the first and second objections.
Iª q. 113 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Angelus, etsi interdum derelinquat hominem loco, non tamen derelinquit eum quantum ad effectum custodiae, quia etiam cum est in caelo, cognoscit quid circa hominem agatur; nec indiget mora temporis ad motum localem, sed statim potest adesse. Reply to Objection 3. Although an angel may forsake a man sometimes locally, he does not for that reason forsake him as to the effect of his guardianship: for even when he is in heaven he knows what is happening to man; nor does he need time for his local motion, for he can be with man in an instant.
Iª q. 113 a. 7 arg. 1 Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli doleant de malis eorum quos custodiunt. Dicitur enim Isaiae XXXIII, Angeli pacis amare flebunt. Sed fletus est signum doloris et tristitiae. Ergo Angeli tristantur de malis hominum quos custodiunt. Objection 1. It would seem that angels grieve for the ills of those whom they guard. For it is written (Isaiah 33:7): "The angels of peace shall weep bitterly." But weeping is a sign of grief and sorrow. Therefore angels grieve for the ills of those whom they guard.
Iª q. 113 a. 7 arg. 2 Praeterea, tristitia est, ut Augustinus dicit, de his quae nobis nolentibus accidunt. Sed perditio hominis custoditi est contra voluntatem Angeli custodis. Ergo tristantur Angeli de perditione hominum. Objection 2. Further, according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 15), "sorrow is for those things that happen against our will." But the loss of the man whom he has guarded is against the guardian angel's will. Therefore angels grieve for the loss of men.
Iª q. 113 a. 7 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut gaudio contrariatur tristitia, ita poenitentiae contrariatur peccatum. Sed Angeli gaudent de peccatore poenitentiam agente, ut habetur Lucae XV. Ergo tristantur de iusto in peccatum cadente. Objection 3. Further, as sorrow is contrary to joy, so penance is contrary to sin. But angels rejoice about one sinner doing penance, as we are told, Luke 15:7. Therefore they grieve for the just man who falls into sin.
Iª q. 113 a. 7 arg. 4 Praeterea, super illud Num. XVIII; quidquid offerunt primitiarum etc., dicit Glossa Origenis; trahuntur Angeli in iudicium, utrum ex ipsorum negligentia, an hominum ignavia lapsi sint. Sed quilibet rationabiliter dolet de malis propter quae in iudicium tractus est. Ergo Angeli dolent de peccatis hominum. Objection 4. Further, on Numbers 18:12: "Whatsoever first-fruits they offer," etc. the gloss of Origen says: "The angels are brought to judgment as to whether men have fallen through their negligence or through their own fault." But it is reasonable for anyone to grieve for the ills which have brought him to judgment. Therefore angels grieve for men's sins.
Iª q. 113 a. 7 s. c. Sed contra, ubi est tristitia et dolor, non est perfecta felicitas, unde dicitur Apoc. XXI, mors ultra non erit, neque luctus, neque clamor, neque ullus dolor. Sed Angeli sunt perfecte beati. Ergo de nullo dolent. On the contrary, Where there is grief and sorrow, there is not perfect happiness: wherefore it is written (Apocalypse 21:4): "Death shall be no more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow." But the angels are perfectly happy. Therefore they have no cause for grief.
Iª q. 113 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Angeli non dolent neque de peccatis, neque de poenis hominum. Tristitia enim et dolor, secundum Augustinum, non est nisi de his quae contrariantur voluntati. Nihil autem accidit in mundo quod sit contrarium voluntati Angelorum et aliorum beatorum, quia voluntas eorum totaliter inhaeret ordini divinae iustitiae; nihil autem fit in mundo, nisi quod per divinam iustitiam fit aut permittitur. Et ideo, simpliciter loquendo, nihil fit in mundo contra voluntatem beatorum. Ut enim philosophus dicit in III Ethic. illud dicitur simpliciter voluntarium, quod aliquis vult in particulari, secundum quod agitur, consideratis scilicet omnibus quae circumstant, quamvis in universali consideratum non esset voluntarium, sicut nauta non vult proiectionem mercium in mare, absolute et universaliter considerando, sed imminente periculo salutis hoc vult. Unde magis est hoc voluntarium quam involuntarium, ut ibidem dicitur. Sic igitur Angeli peccata et poenas hominum, universaliter et absolute loquendo, non volunt, volunt tamen quod circa hoc ordo divinae iustitiae servetur, secundum quem quidam poenis subduntur, et peccare permittuntur. I answer that, Angels do not grieve, either for sins or for the pains inflicted on men. For grief and sorrow, according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 15) are for those things which occur against our will. But nothing happens in the world contrary to the will of the angels and the other blessed, because they will cleaves entirely to the ordering of Divine justice; while nothing happens in the world save what is effected or permitted by Divine justice. Therefore simply speaking, nothing occurs in the world against the will of the blessed. For as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 1) that is called simply voluntary, which a man wills in a particular case, and at a particular time, having considered all the circumstances; although universally speaking, such a thing would not be voluntary: thus the sailor does not will the casting of his cargo into the sea, considered universally and absolutely, but on account of the threatened danger of his life, he wills it. Wherefore this is voluntary rather than involuntary, as stated in the same passage. Therefore universally and absolutely speaking the angels do not will sin and the pains inflicted on its account: but they do will the fulfilment of the ordering of Divine justice in this matter, in respect of which some are subjected to pains and are allowed to fall into sin.
Iª q. 113 a. 7 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod verbum illud Isaiae potest intelligi de Angelis, idest nuntiis, Ezechiae, qui fleverunt propter verba Rabsacis; de quibus habetur Isaiae XXXVII. Et hoc secundum litteralem sensum. Secundum vero allegoricum, Angeli pacis sunt apostoli et alii praedicatores, qui flent pro peccatis hominum. Si vero secundum sensum anagogicum exponatur de Angelis beatis, tunc metaphorica erit locutio, ad designandum quod Angeli volunt in universali hominum salutem. Sic enim Deo et Angelis huiusmodi passiones attribuuntur. Reply to Objection 1. These words of Isaias may be understood of the angels, i.e. the messengers, of Ezechias, who wept on account of the words of Rabsaces, as related Isaiah 37:2 seqq.: this would be the literal sense. According to the allegorical sense the "angels of peace" are the apostles and preachers who weep for men's sins. If according to the anagogical sense this passage be expounded of the blessed angels, then the expression is metaphorical, and signifies that universally speaking the angels will the salvation of mankind: for in this sense we attribute passions to God and the angels.
Iª q. 113 a. 7 ad 2 Ad secundum patet solutio per ea quae dicta sunt. The reply to the second objection appears from what has been said.
Iª q. 113 a. 7 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod tam in poenitentia hominum, quam in peccato, manet una ratio gaudii Angelis, scilicet impletio ordinis divinae providentiae. Reply to Objection 3. Both in man's repentance and in man's sin there is one reason for the angel's joy, namely the fulfilment of the ordering of the Divine Providence.
Iª q. 113 a. 7 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod Angeli ducuntur in iudicium pro peccatis hominum, non quasi rei, sed quasi testes, ad convincendum homines de eorum ignavia. Reply to Objection 4. The angels are brought into judgment for the sins of men, not as guilty, but as witnesses to convict man of weakness.
Iª q. 113 a. 8 arg. 1 Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inter Angelos non possit esse pugna seu discordia. Dicitur enim Iob XXV, qui facit concordiam in sublimibus. Sed pugna opponitur concordiae. Ergo in sublimibus Angelis non est pugna. Objection 1. It would seem that there cannot be strife or discord among the angels. For it is written (Job 25:2): "Who maketh peace in His high places." But strife is opposed to peace. Therefore among the high angels there is no strife.
Iª q. 113 a. 8 arg. 2 Praeterea, ubi est perfecta caritas et iusta praelatio, non potest esse pugna. Sed hoc totum est in Angelis. Ergo in Angelis non est pugna. Objection 2. Further, where there is perfect charity and just authority there can be no strife. But all this exists among the angels. Therefore there is no strife among the angels.
Iª q. 113 a. 8 arg. 3 Praeterea, si Angeli dicuntur pugnare pro eis quos custodiunt, necesse est quod unus Angelus foveat unam partem, et alius aliam. Sed si una pars habet iustitiam, e contra alia pars habet iniustitiam. Ergo sequitur quod Angelus bonus sit fautor iniustitiae, quod est inconveniens. Ergo inter bonos Angelos non est pugna. Objection 3. Further, if we say that angels strive for those whom they guard, one angel must needs take one side, and another angel the opposite side. But if one side is in the right the other side is in the wrong. It will follow therefore, that a good angel is a compounder of wrong; which is unseemly. Therefore there is no strife among good angels.
Iª q. 113 a. 8 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Dan. X, ex persona Gabrielis, princeps regni Persarum restitit mihi viginti et uno diebus. Hic autem princeps Persarum erat Angelus regno Persarum in custodiam deputatus. Ergo unus bonus Angelus resistit alii, et sic inter eos est pugna. On the contrary, It is written (Daniel 10:13): "The prince of the kingdom of the Persians resisted me one and twenty days." But this prince of the Persians was the angel deputed to the guardianship of the kingdom of the Persians. Therefore one good angel resists the others; and thus there is strife among them.
Iª q. 113 a. 8 co. Respondeo dicendum quod ista quaestio movetur occasione horum verborum Danielis. Quae quidem Hieronymus exponit, dicens principem regni Persarum esse Angelum qui se opposuit liberationi populi Israelitici, pro quo Daniel orabat, Gabriele preces eius Deo praesentante. Haec autem resistentia potuit fieri, quia princeps aliquis Daemonum Iudaeos in Persidem ductos ad peccatum induxerat, per quod impedimentum praestabatur orationi Danielis, pro eodem populo deprecantis. Sed secundum Gregorium, XVII Moral., princeps regni Persarum bonus Angelus fuit, custodiae regni illius deputatus. Ad videndum igitur qualiter unus Angelus alteri resistere dicitur, considerandum est quod divina iudicia circa diversa regna et diversos homines, per Angelos exercentur. In suis autem actionibus Angeli secundum divinam sententiam regulantur. Contingit autem quandoque quod in diversis regnis, vel in diversis hominibus, contraria merita vel demerita inveniuntur, ut unus alteri subdatur aut praesit. Quid autem super hoc ordo divinae sapientiae habeat, cognoscere non possunt nisi Deo revelante, unde necesse habent super his sapientiam Dei consulere. Sic igitur inquantum de contrariis meritis et sibi repugnantibus, divinam consulunt voluntatem, resistere sibi invicem dicuntur, non quia sint eorum contrariae voluntates, cum in hoc omnes concordent, quod Dei sententia impleatur; sed quia ea de quibus consulunt, sunt repugnantia. I answer that, The raising of this question is occasioned by this passage of Daniel. Jerome explains it by saying that the prince of the kingdom of the Persians is the angel who opposed the setting free of the people of Israel, for whom Daniel was praying, his prayers being offered to God by Gabriel. And this resistance of his may have been caused by some prince of the demons having led the Jewish captives in Persia into sin; which sin was an impediment to the efficacy of the prayer which Daniel put up for that same people. But according to Gregory (Moral. xvii), the prince of the kingdom of Persia was a good angel appointed to the guardianship of that kingdom. To see therefore how one angel can be said to resist another, we must note that the Divine judgments in regard to various kingdoms and various men are executed by the angels. Now in their actions, the angels are ruled by the Divine decree. But it happens at times in various kingdoms or various men there are contrary merits or demerits, so that one of them is subject to or placed over another. As to what is the ordering of Divine wisdom on such matters, the angels cannot know it unless God reveal it to them: and so they need to consult Divine wisdom thereupon. Wherefore forasmuch as they consult the Divine will concerning various contrary and opposing merits, they are said to resist one another: not that their wills are in opposition, since they are all of one mind as to the fulfilment of the Divine decree; but that the things about which they seek knowledge are in opposition.
Iª q. 113 a. 8 ad arg. Et per hoc patet solutio ad obiecta. From this the answers to the objections are clear.

Notes

Retrieved from ‘http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/index.php?title=Authors/Thomas_Aquinas/Summa_Theologiae/Part_I/Q113&oldid=10952’