title: Dist. 11, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 282 -->

### ARTICULUS II.

### *De eis quae angelicae custodiae sunt annexa.*

Consequenter quaeritur de secundo articulo, scilicet de annexis angelicae custodiae, et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur, utrum Angelus propter nostram obstinationem subtrahat custodiae beneficium. — Secundo quaeritur, utrum ex nostra beatificatione accrescat ei novum gaudium[^1]. — Tertio quaeritur, utrum Angelus custodiens ex damnatione custoditi incurrat aliquod detrimentum.

### QUAESTIO I.

### *Utrum Angelus subtrahat ab homine custodiae beneficium propter obstinationem.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod Angelus subtrahat ab homine custodiae beneficium propter obstinationem:

*Ad oppositum.* 1. Per illud Ieremiae quinquagesimo primo[^2]: *Curavimus Babylonem, et non est curata; derelinquamus eam* etc.; ibi Glossa: «Medici sunt Angeli, quos a nobis repellimus, dum eorum consilio non acquiescimus».

2. Item, per aliam Glossam ostenditur illud idem; ibidem Glossa: «Cave, ne quando relinquat te medicus; si enim te reliquerit, patet, quod abscessio medici damnatio tua sit»: ergo Angelus hominem, quem custodit, aliquando derelinquit; sed hoc non est, nisi quando obfirmat faciem suam per obstinationem[^3]: ergo etc.

3. Item, Damascenus[^4] dicit, quod antichristus carebit Angelorum praesidio; sed hoc non est, nisi quia ipse erit obstinatus in malo: ergo videtur, quod praesidium custodiae obstinatis subtrahatur ab Angelis.

4. Item, Angelus neminem invitum potest compellere ad bonum: sed obstinatus factus est invitus ad bonum: ergo frustra circa ipsum laborat Angelus: ergo si stultus est qui aliquid frustra facit, maxime qui hoc novit, videtur, quod propter obstinationem perdat homo angelicum praesidium.

5. Item, maioris benignitatis et misericordiae Deus est, quam sit Angelus; sed Deus propter peccati commissionem relinquit cordis humani habitaculum: ergo multo fortius videtur, quod propter obstinationem Angelus subtrahat ministerium.

6. Item, propter rebellionem et obstinationem excommunicatur quis et eiicitur extra coetum fidelium, et subtrahitur ei orationum ecclesiasticarum beneficium; ergo si tantus zelator iustitiae vel maior est Angelus, quam sit Ecclesiae praelatus; et praelatus rebelli et obstinato subtrahit beneficium communionis et orationis: videtur, quod multo fortius Angelus subtrahat praesidium[^5] custoditionis.

7. Item, gravius peccat ille cui suggeruntur bona, et facit mala, quam qui facit mala sine aliqua exhortatione bonorum, et hoc propter contemptum: ergo obstinatus in malo gravius peccat, quando, contempta exhortatione angelica, persistit

<!-- page 283 -->

in malitia, quam si esset omnino ab Angelo derelictus: ergo si Angelus bonus non debet aliquid facere, quod vergat in malum eius quem custodit, videtur, quod ex quo obstinatus est, non debeat eum amplius custodire.

**Contra:** *Fundamenta.* 1. Paratior est bonus Angelus ad conservandum in bono, quam sit malus angelus ad praecipitandum in malum; sed malus angelus, quantumcumque homo sit bonus, usque ad mortem non desinit ipsum infestare: ergo videtur, quod nec bonus quantumcumque malum usque ad mortem desinat custodire. *Maior* propositio manifesta est; *minor* probatur per illud quod dicitur in Glossa in sextum Tobiae[^6] super illud: *Apprehende branchiam eius;* Glossa: «Diabolus usque ad crucem secutus est Christum».

2. Item, quanto aliquis peior est, tanto pronior est ad malum; et quanto pronior ad malum, tanto magis indiget retrahente: ergo si Angelus, deputatus ad custodiam, ad hoc ordinatur, ut retrahat a malo, videtur, quod non debeat subtrahi obstinato.

3. Item, de nemine desperandum est, dum est in via: ergo quantumcumque aliquis sit obstinatus, non est de eo desperandum: ergo si medicus non relinquit aegrotum, nisi illum de quo desperat, videtur, quod Angelus nullum relinquat quantumcumque obstinatum.

4. Item, in aegritudine corporali sic est, quod quamvis aliqua aegritudo sit incurabilis, tamen, si potest intendi, perutile est habere consilium medici: si ergo nullus est adeo obstinatus in hac vita, quin possit in eo malitia intendi, videtur, quod cuilibet competat custodia Angeli. Si ergo Angelus non subtrahit custodiam ab eo qui est idoneus custodiri, videtur, quod nullus quantumcumque obstinatus beneficio angelicae custodiae, quamdiu est in via, debeat destitui.

### CONCLUSIO.

> *Angelus etiam obstinatos, quamdiu sunt viatores, non relinquit quoad actum custodiae, qui respicit malum, sed tantum quoad actum, qui respicit bonum.*

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod communiter tenetur a doctoribus sacrae Scripturae, quod Angelus non omnino relinquit obstinatos, quamdiu sunt viatores; nec tamen adeo diligenter custodit, sicut custodit bonos aut mediocriter malos. Ideo communiter dicitur, quod *Conclusio 1.* quodammodo deserit et quodammodo semper custodit. — Explicatio autem huius potest diversimode fieri.

Nam aliquem custodiri ab Angelo hoc potest *Modus 1, explicandi.* dupliciter intelligi: vel secundum *habitum*, vel secundum *actum*. Voluerunt ergo[^7] aliqui dicere, quod Angelus obstinatum secundum *actum* custodiendi relinquit, pro eo quod ipse custodienti Angelo non obedit, immo contra eius monita faciem obfirmavit; quantum vero ad *habitum* non deserit, quia semper promptus est ei subvenire, si quo modo ipsum ad viam veritatis videat inclinari. — *Non sufficit.* Et hic quidem modus dicendi non sufficit, quia nullus est adeo malus et perversus, quin Angelus bonus possit ei aliquod beneficium custodiendo largiri: ergo si semper ei est promptus facere bonum, videtur, quod nunquam subtrahat *omnem actum*.

Et ideo secundus modus dicendi est, quod du- *Modus 2.* plex est custodiae angelicae actus: unus respectu *corporis*, alter respectu *spiritus*; unus consistit in repulsione hostis, ne opprimat *corpora*, alter in arcendo ipsum, ne pervertat *animas*. Primi actus efficacia est in Angelo, secundi vero non solum est in Angelo, sed etiam in nobis. Quantum ad primum actum bonus Angelus hominem usque ad mortem non derelinquit, quia non patitur, ipsum a daemone opprimi vel occidi, nisi quando aliter exigit fieri sententia divini iudicii. Quantum vero ad secundum actum, quia actus illius efficacia non tantum est in Angelo, sed etiam in nobis, subtrahit custodiae beneficium ab his, circa quos videt se frustra exerceri, utpote ab excaecatis et obstinatis, qui nec recipiunt instructionem nec exhortationem. — *Non omnino probabilis.* Sed cum custodia magis respiciat animam quam corpus, adhuc videtur omnino probabile, quod Angelus *omnem* actum custodiae subtrahat respectu animae.

Et ideo est adhuc tertius modus dicendi pro- *Modus 3.* babilior praedictis, quod effectus angelicae custodiae et est respectu boni et respectu mali: respectu boni conservandi, vel acquirendi, vel augendi; respectu vero mali deserendi, vel evitandi, vel minuendi. Bonus igitur Angelus obstinatos non deserit quantum *Conclusio 2.* ad actum custodiae, qui respicit *malum*, quia semper retrahit hominem, ne labatur in peius. — Et hoc ostendunt rationes praedictae, secundo inductae, et concedendae sunt. — Quantum vero ad actum, *Conclusio 3.* qui respicit *bonum*, obstinatos deserit et antichristum non custodiet.

*Solutio oppositorum.* 1. 2. 3. 4. Et sic intelliguntur tres auctoritates ad illam partem inductae: una, quae dicit, quod Angeli nos relinquunt, et nos eos repellimus; alia, quae dicit, quod abscessio Angeli est damnatio infirmi; et tertia Damasceni, quae dicit, quod antichristus carebit Angelorum praesidio. In omnibus enim his intelligitur Angelus recedere vel abesse, non quia non defendat ab adversario vel non retrahat a malo, sed quia non conservat in bono nec perducit ad bo-

<!-- page 284 -->

num. — Et per hoc patet ratio sequens. Non enim probat, quod Angelus simpliciter derelinquat obstinatum, sed solum quantum ad effectum custodiae, qui est in exhortando et promovendo ad bonum.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Deus deserit habitaculum cordis propter peccatum; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia peccatum privat gratiae habitum, per quem disponitur anima, ut homo sit Dei habitaculum; et ideo efficit cor hominis ineptum ad hoc, quod in ipso habitet Deus. Habitatio enim Dei in eo, in quo habitat, requirit dignitatem. Custoditio vero Angeli in custodito non exigit dignitatem, sed potius respicit indigentiam et necessitatem.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Ecclesia subtrahit orationis beneficium ab eis quos excommunicat; dicendum, quod hoc facit ad ipsorum *Finis excommunicationis.* confusionem et correctionem, sicut infra[^8] patet, cum agitur de excommunicatione; nunquam tamen subtrahit omnino orationum beneficium. Sic et in proposito intelligendum est, quod Angelus aliquando iusto iudicio Dei non compescit hominem, quin ambulet in *inviis* et *abominationibus* et *ignominiae passionibus* secundum impetum cordis sui; nunquam tamen sic deserit, quin aliquo modo a malo retardet, licet non omnino impediat.

7. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod ex hoc peccatum hominis aggravatur; dicendum, quod sicut peccator ex Dei misericordia et patientia *thesaurizat sibi iram*[^9] et convertit misericordiam Dei ad cumulum reatus sui, et hoc non est a Deo, sed ab ipso peccatore, Dei tamen iudicio permittente; sic et in proposito intelligendum est se habere. — *Alia solutio.* Potest etiam dici, quod nunquam sic convertitur peccator in malum, quin melius sit sibi custodiri quam deseri; quia, etsi contemptus aggravet peccantis reatum, tamen frequentatio peccatorum, quam homo incurreret, si Angelus desereret, aggravaret multo fortius quam contemptus. — *Notandum.* Credendum est enim, quod multis modis Angeli, qui nos custodiunt, et studeant promovere ad bonum et studeant retrahere a malo, quamvis hoc non percipiat hebetudo spiritus nostri; propter quod multi superbiunt, multi sunt ingrati et frequenter sibi attribuunt quod est ex beneficio angelico, et ex hoc minus efficiuntur digni, ut ab Angelis adiuventur. Et propter hoc perutile est effectus angelicae custodiae nosse et intelligere.

### DOCTRINA SACRAE SCRIPTURAE DE EFFECTIBUS CUSTODIAE ANGELICAE[^10]

Consueverunt autem a magistris duodecim effectus assignari, qui eliciuntur ex Scripturis.

Primus est pro delictis increpare, Iudicum secundo[^11]: *Ascendit Angelus Domini de Galgala ad locum flentium et ait: Eduxi vos de terra Aegypti.* Et post: *Et non audistis vocem meam.*

Secundus est a vinculis peccatorum absolvere, Actuum duodecimo[^12]: *Angelus astitit.* Et post: *Ceciderunt catenae de manibus eius;* hoc tamen intelligendum est dispositive.

Tertius est impedientia ad bonum auferre, quod signatur Exodi duodecimo[^13], ubi *Angelus percussit primogenita Aegypti.*

Quartus est daemones arcere, Tobiae ultimo[^14]: *Daemonium ab uxore mea compescuit,* dicit Tobias de Raphaele.

Quintus est docere, Danielis nono[^15]: *Nunc egressus sum, ut docerem te, et intelligeres.*

Sextus est secreta revelare, Genesis decimo octavo[^16], tres Angeli mysterium Trinitatis et Unitatis expresserunt, et ibidem sequitur: *Num celare possum Abraham* etc.

Septimus est consolari, Tobiae quinto[^17]: *Forti animo esto, in proximo est, ut a Deo cureris* etc.

Octavus est in via Dei confortare, tertii Regum decimo nono[^18]: *Surge et comede, grandis enim tibi restat via.*

Nonus est in via deducere et conducere, Tobiae quinto[^19]: *Ego ducam, et reducam eum* etc.

Decimus est hostes deiicere, Isaiae trigesimo septimo[^20]: *Egressus Angelus Domini percussit in castris Assyriorum* etc.

Undecimus, tentationes mitigare; et hoc signatur Genesis trigesimo secundo[^21], ubi *Iacob luctatus est cum Angelo, ubi benedictione accepta confortatus est post luctam, et emarcuit nervus femoris eius.*

Duodecimus est orare et orationes deferre, Tobiae ultimo[^22]: *Quando orabas cum lacrymis... ego obtuli* etc.

Hi omnes sunt effectus custodiae Angeli, ex quibus omnibus tam Deo quam Angelis debemus esse obnoxii et grati.

<!-- page 285 -->

### SCHOLION.

**I.** Contra quosdam antiquiores magistros Scholastici principales tenent, Angelum custodem nunquam *totaliter* relinquere hominem sibi deputatum, ita ut ipsi subtrahat omnem effectum suae custodiae. — In fine recensentur duodecim effectus angelicae custodiae, ex sacra Scriptura mutuati (cfr. etiam infra q. 3. in fine). Etiam B. Albert. (S. p. II. tr. 9. q. 36. m. 2.) duodecim fructus eiusdem recenset, mutato ordine eorum; insuper tres primos effectus paulo aliter exponit.

**II.** Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 41. m. 5. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 4; S. l. q. 113. a. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 3. 4; Sum. loc. cit. m. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 4. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

---

english:
<!-- page 282 -->

### Article II.

### *On those things which are annexed to angelic custody.*

There follows the second article, namely on the things annexed to angelic custody, and concerning this three questions are asked. First, it is asked whether the Angel withdraws the benefit of custody on account of our obstinacy. — Second, it is asked whether on account of our beatification a new joy accrues to him[^1]. — Third, it is asked whether the guardian Angel incurs any harm from the damnation of the one in his custody.

### Question I.

### *Whether the Angel withdraws the benefit of custody from man on account of obstinacy.*

Concerning the first, one proceeds thus, and it is shown that the Angel does withdraw from man the benefit of custody on account of obstinacy:

*To the opposite.* 1. By that text of Jeremiah, chapter fifty-one[^2]: *We have healed Babylon, and she is not healed; let us forsake her* etc.; the Gloss on it: «The physicians are the Angels, whom we repel from us when we do not acquiesce in their counsel».

2. Likewise, by another Gloss the same thing is shown; ibid. the Gloss: «Beware lest at some time the physician forsake you; for if he forsake you, it is clear that the physician's departure is your damnation»: therefore the Angel sometimes forsakes the man whom he guards; but this is not, except when he hardens his face through obstinacy[^3]: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, Damascene[^4] says that the Antichrist will lack the protection of the Angels; but this is not, except because he will be obstinate in evil: therefore it seems that the protection of custody is withdrawn from the obstinate by the Angels.

4. Likewise, the Angel can compel no one unwilling to the good: but the obstinate person has been made unwilling to the good: therefore the Angel labors about him in vain: therefore if he is a fool who does anything in vain, especially one who knows this, it seems that on account of obstinacy a man loses angelic protection.

5. Likewise, God is of greater benignity and mercy than the Angel; but God on account of the commission of sin forsakes the dwelling-place of the human heart: therefore much more, it seems, the Angel withdraws his ministry on account of obstinacy.

6. Likewise, on account of rebellion and obstinacy someone is excommunicated and cast out from the assembly of the faithful, and the benefit of the prayers of the Church is withdrawn from him; therefore if the Angel is as great a zealot for justice as, or greater than, the prelate of the Church; and the prelate withdraws the benefit of communion and prayer from the rebellious and obstinate: it seems that much more the Angel withdraws the protection[^5] of guardianship.

7. Likewise, he sins more grievously to whom good things are suggested and who does evil, than he who does evil without any exhortation to good things, and this on account of contempt: therefore the obstinate in evil sins more grievously when, having scorned the angelic exhortation, he persists

<!-- page 283 -->

in malice, than if he were entirely forsaken by the Angel: therefore if the good Angel ought not to do anything which tends to the harm of the one whom he guards, it seems that from the moment he is obstinate, he ought no longer to guard him.

**On the contrary:** *Fundamental [arguments].* 1. The good Angel is more ready to preserve in good than the evil angel is to cast headlong into evil; but the evil angel, however good a man may be, does not cease to harass him until death: therefore it seems that neither does the good Angel, however evil a man may be, cease to guard him until death. The *major* proposition is manifest; the *minor* is proved by that which is said in the Gloss on the sixth chapter of Tobit[^6] on the text *Take hold of his gill;* the Gloss: «The devil followed Christ even to the cross».

2. Likewise, the worse anyone is, the more prone he is to evil; and the more prone to evil, the more he needs one to draw him back: therefore if the Angel, deputed to custody, is ordained to this, that he draw back from evil, it seems that he ought not to be withdrawn from the obstinate.

3. Likewise, no one is to be despaired of so long as he is on the way: therefore however obstinate someone may be, he is not to be despaired of: therefore if the physician does not leave the sick except him of whom he despairs, it seems that the Angel leaves no one however obstinate.

4. Likewise, in bodily sickness it is so that, although some sickness be incurable, nevertheless, if it can be made worse, it is most useful to have the counsel of a physician: if therefore no one is so obstinate in this life that malice cannot be intensified in him, it seems that the custody of an Angel befits everyone. If therefore the Angel does not withdraw custody from him who is fit to be guarded, it seems that no one however obstinate ought to be deprived of the benefit of angelic custody, so long as he is on the way.

### Conclusion.

> *The Angel does not abandon even the obstinate, so long as they are wayfarers, with respect to the act of custody which regards evil, but only with respect to the act which regards good.*

**I respond:** For the understanding of what has been said it must be noted that it is commonly held by the doctors of sacred Scripture that the Angel does not entirely abandon the obstinate, so long as they are wayfarers; yet he does not guard them as diligently as he guards the good or the moderately evil. Therefore it is commonly said that *Conclusion 1.* in one way he deserts and in one way always guards. — The explanation of this can be given in different modes.

For that someone is guarded by the Angel can be *First mode, of explaining.* understood in two ways: either according to *habit*, or according to *act*. Some, therefore, have wished[^7] to say that the Angel forsakes the obstinate as to the *act* of guarding, in that he himself does not obey the guarding Angel, but rather has hardened his face against his admonitions; but as to the *habit* he does not desert him, because he is always ready to come to his aid, if in any way he should see him inclining to the way of truth. — *Insufficient.* And this mode of speaking does not suffice, because no one is so evil and perverse but that the good Angel can bestow on him some benefit by guarding: therefore if he is always ready to do good to him, it seems that he never withdraws *every act*.

And therefore the second mode of speaking is that *Second mode.* the act of angelic custody is twofold: one with respect to the *body*, the other with respect to the *spirit*; the one consists in repelling the enemy, lest he oppress *bodies*, the other in keeping him off, lest he pervert *souls*. The efficacy of the first act is in the Angel, but that of the second is not only in the Angel but also in us. As to the first act the good Angel does not desert man until death, because he does not allow him to be oppressed or killed by the demon, except when the sentence of divine judgment demands that it be done otherwise. But as to the second act, because the efficacy of that act is not only in the Angel but also in us, he withdraws the benefit of custody from those about whom he sees himself laboring in vain, namely from the blinded and the obstinate, who receive neither instruction nor exhortation. — *Not entirely probable.* But since custody regards the soul more than the body, it still seems altogether probable that the Angel withdraws *every* act of custody with respect to the soul.

And therefore there is still a third mode of speaking, *Third mode.* more probable than the foregoing, namely that the effect of angelic custody is both with respect to good and with respect to evil: with respect to good, of preserving, or acquiring, or increasing; but with respect to evil, of forsaking, or avoiding, or diminishing. The good Angel therefore does not desert the obstinate as *Conclusion 2.* to the act of custody which regards *evil*, because he always draws man back, lest he fall into worse. — And this is shown by the foregoing reasons, advanced in the second place, and they are to be conceded. — But as to the act *Conclusion 3.* which regards *good*, he does desert the obstinate, and he will not guard the Antichrist.

*Solution of the opposing [arguments].* 1. 2. 3. 4. And thus are understood the three authorities adduced for that side: one which says that the Angels leave us, and we repel them; another which says that the departure of the Angel is the damnation of the sick man; and the third, of Damascene, which says that the Antichrist will lack the protection of the Angels. For in all these the Angel is understood to withdraw or to be absent, not because he does not defend from the adversary or does not draw back from evil, but because he does not preserve in good nor lead through to

<!-- page 284 -->

good. — And from this the following reason is clear. For it does not prove that the Angel simply forsakes the obstinate, but only as to the effect of custody which consists in exhorting and promoting to the good.

5. To that which is objected, that God deserts the dwelling-place of the heart on account of sin; it must be said that the case is not similar, because sin deprives [the soul] of the habit of grace, by which the soul is disposed that man be the dwelling-place of God; and so it makes the heart of man unfit for this, that God dwell in it. For the indwelling of God in him in whom he dwells requires dignity. But the guardianship of the Angel in the one guarded does not require dignity, but rather regards need and necessity.

6. To that which is objected, that the Church withdraws the benefit of prayer from those whom she excommunicates; it must be said that she does this for their *Aim of excommunication.* confusion and correction, as appears below[^8], when the matter of excommunication is treated; nevertheless she never altogether withdraws the benefit of prayers. So also in our case it is to be understood that the Angel sometimes, by the just judgment of God, does not restrain man from walking *in pathless ways* and *abominations* and *ignominious passions* according to the impulse of his heart; nevertheless he never so deserts him as not in some way to retard him from evil, although he does not entirely prevent it.

7. To that indeed which is objected, that from this the sin of man is aggravated; it must be said that just as the sinner from God's mercy and patience *stores up wrath for himself*[^9] and turns God's mercy into the heap of his own guilt, and this is not from God but from the sinner himself, with God's judgment nevertheless permitting; so also in the matter at hand it is to be understood. — *Another solution.* It can also be said that the sinner is never so turned to evil that it is not better for him to be guarded than to be deserted; because, although contempt aggravates the sinner's guilt, nevertheless the frequency of sins which man would incur, if the Angel were to desert him, would aggravate it much more than contempt. — *Note.* For it is to be believed that in many ways the Angels who guard us strive both to promote us to good and to draw us back from evil, although the dullness of our spirit does not perceive this; on which account many are proud, many are ungrateful and frequently attribute to themselves what comes from angelic benefit, and from this become less worthy to be helped by the Angels. And for this reason it is most useful to know and understand the effects of angelic custody.

### DOCTRINE OF SACRED SCRIPTURE ON THE EFFECTS OF ANGELIC CUSTODY[^10]

Twelve effects are accustomed to be assigned by the masters, which are drawn from the Scriptures.

The first is to rebuke for offenses, Judges chapter two[^11]: *The Angel of the Lord went up from Gilgal to the place of weepers, and said: I led you out of the land of Egypt.* And after: *And you did not hearken to my voice.*

The second is to loose from the bonds of sins, Acts chapter twelve[^12]: *The Angel stood by.* And after: *The chains fell from his hands;* this however is to be understood dispositively.

The third is to remove obstacles to the good, which is signified at Exodus chapter twelve[^13], where *the Angel struck the first-born of Egypt.*

The fourth is to ward off demons, Tobit the last chapter[^14]: *He has restrained the demon from my wife,* Tobias says of Raphael.

The fifth is to teach, Daniel chapter nine[^15]: *Now I have come forth to teach you, that you might understand.*

The sixth is to reveal secrets, Genesis chapter eighteen[^16], where the three Angels expressed the mystery of the Trinity and Unity, and there follows in the same place: *Can I hide it from Abraham?* etc.

The seventh is to console, Tobit chapter five[^17]: *Be of stout heart, it is near at hand that you should be healed by God* etc.

The eighth is to strengthen in the way of God, third [Book of] Kings chapter nineteen[^18]: *Arise and eat, for there remains a great journey for you.*

The ninth is to lead and bring back on the way, Tobit chapter five[^19]: *I will lead and bring him back* etc.

The tenth is to cast down enemies, Isaiah chapter thirty-seven[^20]: *The Angel of the Lord went forth and struck in the camp of the Assyrians* etc.

The eleventh, to mitigate temptations; and this is signified at Genesis chapter thirty-two[^21], where *Jacob wrestled with the Angel, where, the blessing being received, he was strengthened after the wrestling, and the sinew of his thigh withered.*

The twelfth is to pray and to convey prayers, Tobit the last chapter[^22]: *When you prayed with tears... I offered* etc.

All these are the effects of the custody of the Angel, for all of which we ought to be beholden and grateful both to God and to the Angels.

<!-- page 285 -->

### Scholion.

**I.** Against certain older masters, the principal Scholastics hold that the guardian Angel never *totally* leaves the man deputed to him, in such a way that he should withdraw from him every effect of his custody. — At the end the twelve effects of angelic custody are recounted, drawn from sacred Scripture (cf. also below, q. 3, at the end). B. Albert. (S. p. II. tr. 9. q. 36. m. 2.) also recounts twelve fruits of the same, with the order of them changed; in addition he expounds the first three effects somewhat differently.

**II.** Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 41. m. 5. — S. Thom., here q. 1. a. 4; S. I. q. 113. a. 6. — B. Albert., here a. 3. 4; Sum. at the place cited, m. 5. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 1. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., here a. 1. q. 2. — Aegid. R., here q. 1. a. 4. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 3.

---

la: Cod. 1 *Angelo custodi amplificetur gaudium,* sicut etiam infra in principio quaest. secundae ponitur.

en: Codex 1 reads *let joy be increased for the guardian Angel,* as is also set forth below at the beginning of the second question.

la: Vers. 9. — Glossa, quae in hoc et in seq. arg. allegatur, est ex Origene, hom. 21. in Ieremiam, n. 12.

en: Verse 9. — The Gloss cited in this and in the following argument is from Origen, *Homily 21 on Jeremiah*, n. 12.

la: Locutio *obfirmare faciem* legitur Lev. 17, 10; Ezech. 4, 3.

en: The expression *to harden the face* is read at Lev. 17, 10; Ezek. 4, 3.

la: Cfr. IV. *de Fide orthod.* c. 26, ubi docet, antichristum fore hominem, «qui omnem satanae vim (ἐνέργειαν) suscipiet; praesciens enim Deus iniquitatem suae futurae voluntatis, concedit, in eo habitare diabolum». Similis sententia habetur in Glossa interlineari (sumta ex Hieronymo) super Ier. 17, 6: *in terra salsuginis* i. e. infructuosa, quae nec habet hospitem Deum nec praesidia Angelorum etc.

en: Cf. *On the Orthodox Faith*, book IV, c. 26, where he teaches that the Antichrist will be a man «who will receive every power (ἐνέργειαν) of Satan; for God, foreseeing the iniquity of his future will, allows the devil to dwell in him». A similar sentiment is found in the interlinear Gloss (taken from Jerome) on Jer. 17, 6: *in a salt land,* that is, unfruitful, which has neither God as guest nor the protection of the Angels, etc.

la: Codd. Y aa *beneficium.*

en: Codices Y, aa: *beneficium* [benefit].

la: Vers. 4. — Glossa est ex Beda in hunc locum.

en: Verse 4. — The Gloss is from Bede on this passage.

la: Nonnulli codd. cum ed. 1 *enim.* Dein post *secundum actum* cod. 1 adiungit *vel effectum,* et post *habitum* addit «*vel affectum*»; paulo inferius cod. aa substituit *quoquo modo* pro *quo modo.*

en: Several codices, along with ed. 1, read *enim.* Then after *secundum actum* codex 1 adds *vel effectum,* and after *habitum* it adds «*vel affectum*»; a little further down codex aa substitutes *quoquo modo* for *quo modo.*

la: Libr. IV. Sent. d. 18. p. II. q. 1. seqq. — Cod. bb *patebit.* Paulo inferius multi codd. perperam *in viis;* codd. AHL O Y bb *in viis malis* pro *in inviis,* quod alludere videtur ad Iob 12, 24: *Ut frustra incedant per invium.* Dein non pauci codd. *ignorantiae passionibus* pro *ignominiae passionibus,* quibus verbis alluditur ad Rom. 1, 26: *Propterea tradidit illos Deus in passiones ignominiae.* Tandem multi codd. cum ed. 1 *desinit* pro *deserit.*

en: Book IV of the *Sentences*, dist. 18, part II, q. 1 and following. — Codex bb: *patebit.* A little further down many codices read incorrectly *in viis;* codices AHL, O, Y, bb read *in viis malis* for *in inviis,* which seems to allude to Job 12, 24: *That they wander in vain through a pathless place.* Then not a few codices read *ignorantiae passionibus* for *ignominiae passionibus,* by which words allusion is made to Rom. 1, 26: *Therefore God delivered them up to the passions of ignominy.* Finally many codices along with ed. 1 read *desinit* for *deserit.*

la: Rom. 2, 5: *Secundum autem duritiam tuam et impoenitens cor thesaurizas tibi iram in die irae* etc.

en: Rom. 2, 5: *But according to your hardness and impenitent heart you store up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath* etc.

la: In codd. et ed. 1 hic habetur nova rubrica, ad quam insinuandam haec verba adiecimus.

en: In the codices and ed. 1 a new rubric is found here; we have added these words to indicate it.

la: Vers. 1. — Sequens textus ibid. v. 2.

en: Verse 1. — The following text is from the same place, v. 2.

la: Vers. 7.

en: Verse 7.

la: Vers. 12.

en: Verse 12.

la: In Vulgata, 12, 3.

en: In the Vulgate, 12, 3.

la: Vers. 22.

en: Verse 22.

la: Vers. 17. — Cfr. Glossa interlinearis in hunc locum apud Lyranum. — Codd. aa cc *expresserant.*

en: Verse 17. — Cf. the interlinear Gloss on this passage in Lyra. — Codices aa, cc read *expresserant* [had expressed].

la: Vers. 13.

en: Verse 13.

la: Vers. 15.

en: Verse 15.

la: Vers. 36.

en: Verse 36.

la: Vers. 24. seqq.

en: Verses 24 and following.

la: In Vulgata, 12, 12.

en: In the Vulgate, 12, 12. ---

translators_notes:
**Cross-chunk page-282 footer split (per Vol II Override §4):** the bottom of printed p.282 carries Quaracchi footnotes 1–6. Footnote 1 (a *quia* / *ei* variant in cod. aa) anchors at *quaedam* in the closing reply of d11-a1-q3 and was retained in that chunk's apparatus as [^11]; footnotes 2–6 anchor in the body that opens d11-a2-q1 (the Article II opener and obj. 1, 2, 3, 6 respectively) and are carried forward here as [^1]–[^5]. Incoming boundary CLEAN.

**Outgoing boundary into d11-a2-q2 (p.285):** this chunk closes with SCHOLION I + II at the top of p.285 immediately after the QUAESTIO I body. The next chunk d11-a2-q2 opens with the QUAESTIO II header *Utrum Angelo custodienti amplificetur gaudium ex beatificatione custoditi* and its first objection — both wholly on p.285. No page-282/283/284 footers cross into a2-q2; p.285's body and footers (objections 1ff, *Sed contra*, etc.) are all reserved for a2-q2. Outgoing boundary CLEAN.

**Marginal labels preserved inline (italic), per Vol II convention:** *Ad oppositum.*, *Fundamenta.*, *Conclusio 1./2./3.*, *Modus 1, explicandi.*, *Non sufficit.*, *Modus 2.*, *Non omnino probabilis.*, *Modus 3.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Finis excommunicationis.*, *Alia solutio.*, *Notandum.* — none promoted to headings.

**DOCTRINA SACRAE SCRIPTURAE rubric (Quaracchi editorial):** per Quaracchi's own note (here [^10]), the heading is editorial — the codices and ed. 1 have a rubric at this point; the editors supplied the wording. Rendered as an h3 in both languages to match the section's typographic weight in the printed edition.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 11, Art. 2, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 285 -->

### QUAESTIO II.

### *Utrum Angelo custodienti amplificetur gaudium ex beatificatione custoditi.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum ex beatificatione custoditi Angelo custodienti amplificetur gaudium. Et quod sic, videtur:

*Argg. pro parte affirmativa.* 1. Lucae decimo quinto[^1]: *Gaudium est Angelis Dei super uno peccatore poenitentiam agente, quam supra nonaginta novem iustis.* Ex hoc textu patet, quod ex conversione peccatoris Angelis Dei accrescit gaudium: ergo multo fortius de beatificatione eiusdem.

2. Item, Angelus in ministrando homini aliquid meretur; sed non meretur illud quod *habet*, sicut probatum est supra[^2]: ergo meretur *habendum*. Sed quod retribuitur pro merito, hoc est gaudium: ergo meretur maius gaudium.

3. Item, Angelus habet perfectam caritatem, ergo diligit proximum sicut se ipsum[^3]; sed ubi est par dilectio de pari bono, est par gaudium: si ergo Angelus diligit illum quem custodit, sicut se ipsum, tantum gaudet de eius salvatione, quantum de sua: ergo videtur eius gaudium duplicari.

4. Item, ubicumque est desiderii completio, ibi est gaudium et delectatio: ergo ubi de novo completur aliquod desiderium, de novo accrescit gaudium; sed Angelus desiderat, illum quem custodit salvari: ergo cum salvatur, necesse est, ipsum gaudere de eius salute. Sed prius de hoc non gaudebat, quia non erat: ergo videtur, quod novum gaudium sibi accrescat.

5. Item, in Angelis custodientibus homines potest crescere cognitio, sicut probat Magister in littera[^4]; sed si potest crescere cognitio, qua ratione crescit cognitio, eadem ratione et dilectio: et si dilectio, ergo gaudium et delectatio.

6. Item, in eo qui ordinate gaudet, sicut crescit materia gaudendi, ita crescit et gaudium; sed in Ierusalem superna crevit et crescit materia gaudii ex Christo et eius membris, quibus ministrant Angeli beati: ergo videtur, quod in illis crescat gaudium. Quod autem materia gaudii creverit, patet tum propter Christi exaltationem, tum propter ruinae angelicae reparationem, tum propter hominis perditi reinventionem; quae omnia affectui ordinato sunt materia gaudii, maxime affectui angelico, cum sit maxime ordinatus.

**Sed contra:** *Pro parte negativa.* 1. «Beatitudo est status omnium bonorum congregatione perfectus[^5]»; sed ubi est status perfectus, ibi non est profectus: ergo si in Angelis beatis est perfectum et plenum gaudium, ergo non videtur, quod ex aliquo suscipiat incrementum.

2. Item, gaudium est de essentia beatitudinis, sicut et caritas: ergo si potest in eis crescere gaudium, potest et in eis crescere habitus caritatis; sed si caritas potest[^6] crescere, potest in eis alterari: ergo potest in eis amitti.

3. Item, bonum creatum, comparatum ad increatum, est sicut punctus ad lineam[^7]: ergo si Angelus beatus gaudet de unoquoque, sicut gaudendum est, improportionaliter plus gaudet de Deo, quam gaudeat de aliquo creato: ergo sicut punctus adveniens lineae non auget lineam, sic creatura cum Creatore non est maior gaudendi materia quam ipsa creatrix essentia per se ipsam: ergo cum Angelus gaudeat de ipsa veritate aeterna, propter aliquod[^8] creatum non videtur, quod gaudium in eo crescat.

4. Item, si crescit gaudium in Angelo propter beatitudinem eius quem custodit; sed ille qui custoditur potest impedire suam beatitudinem: ergo potest impedire gaudii angelici perfectionem; quodsi hoc est falsum, cum sit contra rationem verae beatitudinis, ergo et primum.

<!-- page 286 -->

### CONCLUSIO.

> *Angelorum gaudium essentiale nullo modo augeri potest; accidentale vero non tantum extensive, sed etiam intensive crescere, probabilius est.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *gaudium in Angelo* *Distinctio.* crescere potest intelligi dupliciter: vel *extensive*, vel *intensive*. *Extensive* dicitur crescere, quando quis de pluribus gaudet; *intensive* vero, quando affectus eius de aliquo copiosius gaudet. Si ergo *Conclusio 1.* intelligamus de incremento gaudii secundum primum modum, sic absque dubio verum est, et doctores communiter hoc sentiunt, quod ipsis beatis Angelis accrescit gaudium, quia de pluribus gaudent, secundum quod plures salvantur. — Si autem loquamur de cremento gaudii quantum ad modum secundum, *Subdistinctio.* scilicet quantum ad *intensionem*, sic distinguendum est; nam gaudium duplex est. Est enim gaudium, in quo consistit praemium *substantiale*; et hoc est gaudium de bono increato, quod habet Angelus de Deo et in Deo. Est iterum gaudium, in quo consistit praemium *accidentale*; et hoc est gaudium, quod habet Angelus de bono creato, sive proprio sive alieno.

Fuerunt igitur qui dixerunt, quod in Angelis *Opinio 1.* beatis accrescit utrumque gaudium *intensive*, quia nondum sunt perfecte beati, quamvis sint confirmati; de quorum opinione videtur fuisse Magister[^9]. Sed quia hoc non videtur probabile, sicut supra improbatum fuit distinctione quinta[^10], ubi agitur de conversione Angelorum; ideo fuerunt alii, qui *Opinio 2.* dixerunt, quod neutrum gaudium in eis crescit *intensive*, sed solum *extensive*, sed caritas eorum non est maior, quam fuit ab initio, quamvis plures nunc diligant quam tunc.

Sed quia istud non videtur adhuc multum probabile, quod Angelis accrescat gaudii materia, quin etiam aliquo modo intendatur et gaudium; ideo est *Opinio 3.* tertius modus dicendi, quod in Angelis nullo modo accrescit gaudium, in quo consistit praemium *essentiale*[^11], quia *Conclusio.* quantum ad illud perfecte beati sunt; sed gaudium, in quo consistit praemium *accidentale*, accrescere potest non solum *extensive*, verum *Conclusio.* etiam *intensive*, et ratione boni *proprii* et ratione boni *coniuncti*; quia ministrando aliis bona opera faciunt, in quibus praemium *accidentale* merentur; et etiam concives suos ad beatitudinem perducunt, super quibus absque dubio gaudent et congratulantur. — Et haec positio tertia videtur esse probabilior, et secundum hanc patet responsio ad partes oppositas. Nam rationes ostendentes, quod ex nostra *Ad argg. pro parte affirmativa.* beatificatione Angelis accrescat gaudium, concludunt solum de gaudio *accidentali*, quod est circa bonum, in quo tamen non consistit *essentialis* praemii augmentatio.

Rationes vero ad oppositum procedunt sive concludunt *Ad argg. pro parte negativa.* de gaudio *substantiali*, ratione cuius est Angelus perfecte beatus, et quod respondet quantitati habitus, et quod est circa bonum increatum; et hoc quidem non crescit in eo, sicut illae rationes ostendunt. — *Ad 4. arg.* Ultima tamen ratio non concludit, quod homo possit gaudium angelicum impedire; quia, sicut iam melius patebit, sic Angelus congratulatur de hominum salute, ut tamen non tristetur de damnatione; et ita nostrae salutis impedimentum nullum in angelico gaudio vel praemio ponit defectum. Nullum tamen inconveniens esse videtur, si concedatur, quod impediri possit ipsius Angeli aliquod accidentale gaudium; sed illud melius declarabitur per consequens problema.

### SCHOLION.

**I.** De hac 2. quaestione alii magistri antiqui vel silent, vel paucis verbis in solvenda sequente 3. quaestione rem absolvunt, quoad solutionem consentientes S. Bonaventurae. — Sed alii commentatores hoc loco alias plures quaestiones tractare solent, quae respiciunt in genere profectum bonorum Angelorum in cognitione tum Dei, tum aliarum rerum, ut S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1-4; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1-4; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. 2, qui docent, quod in cognitione rerum causatarum Angeli possint proficere, sed non in visione Dei.

**II.** De 3. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 41. m. 6. a. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 5; S. l. q. 113. a. 7. — B. Albert., S. p. II. tr. 9. q. 36. m. 6. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 5. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3. — Aegid. R., hic q. 2. a. 4. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 4.

---

english:
<!-- page 285 -->

### Question II.

### *Whether joy is increased for the guarding Angel from the beatification of the one in his custody.*

Second, it is asked whether from the beatification of the one in his custody joy is increased for the guarding Angel. And that it is, seems [so]:

*Arguments for the affirmative side.* 1. Luke chapter fifteen[^1]: *There is joy among the Angels of God over one sinner doing penance, more than over the ninety-nine just.* From this text it is clear that from the conversion of a sinner joy accrues to the Angels of God: therefore much more from his beatification.

2. Likewise, the Angel in ministering to a man merits something; but he does not merit what he *has*, as has been proved above[^2]: therefore he merits what *is to be had*. But what is recompensed for merit is joy: therefore he merits greater joy.

3. Likewise, the Angel has perfect charity, therefore he loves his neighbor as himself[^3]; but where there is equal love of an equal good, there is equal joy: if therefore the Angel loves the one whom he guards as himself, he rejoices over his salvation as much as over his own: therefore it seems that his joy is doubled.

4. Likewise, wherever there is the completion of a desire, there is joy and delight: therefore where some desire is newly completed, joy accrues anew; but the Angel desires that the one he guards be saved: therefore when he is saved, it is necessary that the Angel rejoice over his salvation. But previously he did not rejoice over this, because it did not exist: therefore it seems that a new joy accrues to him.

5. Likewise, in the Angels who guard men cognition can grow, as the Master proves in the text[^4]; but if cognition can grow, by the same reason by which cognition grows, by the same reason also love [grows]: and if love, therefore joy and delight.

6. Likewise, in one who rejoices in due order, as the matter for rejoicing grows, so also joy grows; but in the heavenly Jerusalem the matter of joy from Christ and his members, whom the blessed Angels minister to, has grown and is growing: therefore it seems that joy grows in them. That the matter of joy has grown is clear both on account of Christ's exaltation, and on account of the repair of the angelic ruin, and on account of the recovery of lost man; all of which are matter of joy for a well-ordered affection, especially for the angelic affection, since it is most ordered.

**On the contrary:** *For the negative side.* 1. «Beatitude is a state perfect by the gathering together of all goods[^5]»; but where the state is perfect, there is no advance: therefore if in the blessed Angels there is perfect and full joy, therefore it does not seem that it should receive any increment from anything.

2. Likewise, joy is of the essence of beatitude, just as charity also is: therefore if joy can grow in them, the habit of charity can also grow in them; but if charity can[^6] grow, it can be altered in them: therefore it can be lost in them.

3. Likewise, created good, compared to uncreated good, is as a point to a line[^7]: therefore if the blessed Angel rejoices in each thing as it ought to be rejoiced in, he rejoices disproportionately more in God than he rejoices in any created thing: therefore as a point added to a line does not increase the line, so the creature with the Creator is not a greater matter of rejoicing than the creating essence itself by itself: therefore since the Angel rejoices in the eternal truth itself, on account of some[^8] created thing it does not seem that joy grows in him.

4. Likewise, if joy grows in the Angel on account of the beatitude of the one whom he guards; but the one who is guarded can impede his own beatitude: therefore he can impede the perfection of angelic joy; if this is false, since it is against the account of true beatitude, then so also the first [claim].

<!-- page 286 -->

### Conclusion.

> *The essential joy of the Angels can in no way be augmented; but it is more probable that the accidental joy can grow not only extensively, but also intensively.*

**I respond:** It must be said that *joy in the Angel* growing *Distinction.* can be understood in two ways: either *extensively*, or *intensively*. It is said to grow *extensively* when one rejoices in many things; but *intensively* when one's affection rejoices more copiously in a single thing. If therefore *Conclusion 1.* we understand the increase of joy according to the first mode, in this way it is without doubt true, and the doctors commonly hold this, that joy accrues to the blessed Angels themselves, because they rejoice in many things, inasmuch as more are saved. — But if we speak of the growth of joy as to the second mode, *Subdistinction.* namely as to *intension*, then a distinction must be made; for joy is twofold. For there is joy in which the *substantial* reward consists; and this is joy in uncreated good, which the Angel has in God and concerning God. There is again joy in which the *accidental* reward consists; and this is the joy which the Angel has in created good, whether his own or another's.

There were therefore those who said that in the blessed *Opinion 1.* Angels both joys grow *intensively*, because they are not yet perfectly blessed, although they are confirmed; of whose opinion the Master seems to have been[^9]. But because this does not seem probable, as it was disproved above at the fifth distinction[^10], where the conversion of the Angels is treated; therefore there were others who said *Opinion 2.* that neither joy grows in them *intensively*, but only *extensively*, but their charity is not greater than it was from the beginning, although now more love than then.

But because this still does not seem very probable, that the matter of joy should accrue to the Angels without joy too being in some way intensified; therefore there is *Opinion 3.* a third mode of speaking, that in the Angels joy in no way grows, in which the *essential* reward[^11] consists, because *Conclusion.* as to that they are perfectly blessed; but the joy in which the *accidental* reward consists can grow not only *extensively*, but *Conclusion.* also *intensively*, and by reason of *one's own* good and by reason of *conjoined* good; because by ministering to others they do good works in which they merit the *accidental* reward; and they also lead their fellow-citizens to beatitude, over whom without doubt they rejoice and congratulate. — And this third position seems to be more probable, and according to it the response to the opposing sides is clear. For the reasons showing that from our *To the arguments for the affirmative side.* beatification joy accrues to the Angels, conclude only of *accidental* joy, which regards the good [in question], in which however the augmentation of *essential* reward does not consist.

But the reasons on the contrary proceed or *To the arguments for the negative side.* conclude of *substantial* joy, by reason of which the Angel is perfectly blessed, and which corresponds to the quantity of habit, and which regards uncreated good; and this indeed does not grow in him, as those reasons show. — *To the 4th argument.* The last reason, however, does not conclude that man can impede angelic joy; because, as will better appear soon, the Angel so congratulates over the salvation of men that he is nevertheless not saddened by their damnation; and so the impediment of our salvation places no defect in angelic joy or reward. Nevertheless it does not seem inconvenient if it be granted that some accidental joy of the Angel himself can be impeded; but that will be better explained through the next problem.

### Scholion.

**I.** On this second question other older masters either are silent or in a few words settle the matter in solving the following third question, consenting in their solution with St. Bonaventure. — But other commentators are accustomed to treat in this place various other questions, which regard in general the advance of the good Angels in the cognition both of God and of other things, as S. Thom., here q. 2. a. 1-4; Petr. a Tar., here q. 2. a. 1-4; Richard. a Med., here a. 2. q. 1. 2, who teach that the Angels can advance in the cognition of caused things, but not in the vision of God.

**II.** On the third question: Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 41. m. 6. a. 2. — S. Thom., here q. 1. a. 5; S. I. q. 113. a. 7. — B. Albert., S. p. II. tr. 9. q. 36. m. 6. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 2. a. 5. — Richard. a Med., here a. 2. q. 3. — Aegid. R., here q. 2. a. 4. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 4.

---

la: Dist. 5. a. 3. q. 2. — De *maiori* cfr. d. 7. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. in corp.

en: Dist. 5, a. 3, q. 2. — On the *major* premise cf. d. 7, p. I, a. 1, q. 2, in the corpus.

la: Hic c. 2. — Mox Vat. omittit *si potest crescere cognitio.*

en: Here, c. 2. — Soon afterward the Vatican edition omits *si potest crescere cognitio* [if cognition can grow].

la: Boeth., III. *de Consol.* prosa 2. — Plures codd. cum ed. 1 et Vat., contradicentibus aliis codd. et textu originali, *aggregatione* pro *congregatione.*

en: Boethius, *On the Consolation* III, prose 2. — Many codices along with ed. 1 and the Vatican edition, against other codices and the original text, read *aggregatione* for *congregatione.*

la: In codd. T W subiungitur *in eis.*

en: In codices T, W is added *in eis* [in them].

la: Inter quae secundum Aristot., IV. *Phys.* text. 71. (c. 8.) non est proportio, quia secus linea componeretur ex punctis, quod est impossibile.

en: Between which, according to Aristotle, *Physics* IV, text 71 (c. 8), there is no proportion, because otherwise the line would be composed of points, which is impossible.

la: Multi codd. *aliquid.*

en: Many codices read *aliquid.*

la: Hic c. 2. — Paulo superius post *quamvis sint* plures codd. adiiciunt *beati.*

en: Here, c. 2. — A little above, after *quamvis sint,* several codices add *beati* [blessed].

la: Art. 3. q. 2. — Cod. T *ubi actum fuit* pro *ubi agitur.*

en: Art. 3, q. 2. — Codex T reads *ubi actum fuit* for *ubi agitur.*

la: Cod. cc et ed. 1 *substantiale.*

en: Codex cc and ed. 1 read *substantiale.* ---

translators_notes:
**Incoming p.285 boundary CLEAN.** The preceding chunk d11-a2-q1 closed at the end of SCHOLION II on p.285; the QUAESTIO II body opens immediately afterward on the same page, and none of its numbered footers were carried back into a2-q1 (the scholion blocks carry no numbered Quaracchi notes). All of p.285's numbered footers (nn. 1–8) are anchored in a2-q2's objections 1–6 and *Sed contra* 1–3 here.

**Outgoing p.286 boundary CLEAN.** This chunk closes with SCHOLION I + II at the bottom of p.286; the next chunk d11-a2-q3 opens with its own QUAESTIO III header (*Utrum Angelus ex damnatione custoditi incurrat aliquod detrimentum*) at the bottom-right of p.286 and runs onto p.287. The three p.286 footnotes (nn. 1–3) are anchored within this chunk's Respondeo (Magister citation, dist. 5 cross-reference, *essentiale* variant); the p.286 footnote sequence then restarts at n. 4 in the next chunk, which is reserved for a2-q3.

**Marginal labels preserved inline (italic), per Vol II convention:** *Argg. pro parte affirmativa.*, *Pro parte negativa.*, *Distinctio.*, *Conclusio 1.*, *Subdistinctio.*, *Opinio 1./2./3.*, *Conclusio.* (twice — Quaracchi prints two distinct *Conclusio* marginal labels in the Respondeo for the third opinion), *Ad argg. pro parte affirmativa.*, *Ad argg. pro parte negativa.*, *Ad 4. arg.* — none promoted to headings.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 11, Art. 2, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 286 -->

### QUAESTIO III.

### *Utrum Angelus ex damnatione custoditi incurrat aliquod detrimentum.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum ex damnatione custoditi incurrat Angelus aliquod detrimentum. Et quod sic, videtur:

*Ad oppositum.* 1. Tertii Regum vigesimo[^1]: *Custodi virum istum; qui si lapsus fuerit, erit anima tua pro anima illius;*[^4] ex quo colligitur, quod Dominus eo pacto committit ad custodiendum, quod, si custoditus amittitur, de manu custodis requiratur. Si ergo homo perditur, videtur, quod Angelus ipsum custodiens incurrat salutis suae[^2] periculum; et hoc[^3] vide-

<!-- page 287 -->

tur dicere Origenes super illud Numerorum vigesimo quinto[^5]: *Initiati sunt Beelphegor;* Glossa: «Praeest Angelus bonus, qui pro delictis culpatur et pro bene gestis laudatur».

2. Item, Isaiae trigesimo tertio[^6]: *Angeli pacis amare flebunt;* constat autem, quod non flebunt nisi propter miseriam et damnationem hominum: ergo si illis maxime compatiuntur, quos custodiunt, videtur, quod de damnatione illorum incurrant gemitum et planctum, et ita aliquod gaudii detrimentum.

3. Item, «si oppositum est causa oppositi, et propositum propositi[^7]»; sed salvatio hominum custoditorum generat in Angelis custodientibus gaudium et congratulationem: ergo damnatio generabit gemitum et compassionem.

4. Item, sicut completio desiderii delectat animam, ita frustratio contristat[^8]; sed Angelus, quia cupit, salvari eum quem custodit, gaudet, cum ille salvatur, quia desiderium eius impletur: ergo cum ex eius damnatione frustretur, videtur etc.

5. Item, poena Arii semper crescit propter multiplicationem eorum quos per errorem suum ad damnationem trahit[^9]: ergo per oppositum ex nostra salvatione crescit Angelorum praemium nos custodientium. Si ergo nos damnamur, cum ipsi gloriari debeant in nobis sive de nobis, videtur, quod patiantur gloriae detrimentum.

6. Item, angeli mali gaudent, dum possunt hominem pertrahere ad supplicia, et hoc est, quia homines odiunt, quos exercitant et tentant: ergo si boni Angeli diligunt illos quos custodiunt, videtur, quod per oppositum doleant.

**Contra:** *Fundamenta.* 1. Bonus Angelus est beatus; sed beatus est cui ad nutum cuncta succedunt[^10]; ei autem qui huiusmodi est, non potest aliquod accidere detrimentum: ergo videtur, quod ex damnatione eorum quos custodiunt, nullum detrimentum incurrant.

2. Item, Angelus bonus voluntatem suam divinae voluntati conformat: ergo si Deus non vult salvare nisi praedestinatos, videtur, quod nec Angelus bonus: ergo si nullus praedestinatus damnatur, nullus damnatur, quem Angelus bonus non velit damnari: ergo videtur, quod ex nullius damnatione tristetur.

3. Item, dolor et tristitia non est sine poena, et poena non est sine culpa praevia[^11]; sed in beatis Angelis nunquam fuit culpa: ergo nec fuit nec potest esse tristitia.

4. Item, Angelus non magis meretur in ministrando bono quam malo, cum ex voluntate aequaliter bona[^12] ministret utrique: ergo si remuneratio pensatur secundum meritum, non minus remuneratur Angelus, cum custodit praescitum, quam cum custodit praedestinatum: ergo videtur, quod ex illius damnatione nullum incurrat Angelus detrimentum.

*Quaestio incidens 1.* Iuxta hoc quaeritur, utrum Angelus *velit* illum quem custodit, salvari, cum revelatum est sibi, ipsum esse praescitum. Si non vult ipsum salvari, ergo videtur eum custodire invite; si vult, ergo videtur, quod voluntas eius voluntati divinae non conformetur nec quod etiam impleatur.

*Quaest. incidens 2.* Item, cum custodit praescitum, quaero: quod praemium ei ex hoc redditur? *Substantiale* non, constat; *accidentale* non, ut videtur, quia illud consistit circa salvationem eorum quos custodiunt, sicut patet in praemio aureolae, quod habent praedicantes[^13].

### CONCLUSIO.

> *Angeli ex damnatione eorum quos custodiunt, nec concipiunt gemitum nec incurrunt aliquod gloriae detrimentum.*

**Respondeo:** Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod circa hoc diversimode senserunt diversi.

*Opinio 1.* Quidam enim dicere voluerunt, quod Angeli beati ex damnatione eorum quos custodiunt, etsi non incurrant *detrimentum gloriae*, concipiunt tamen *gemitum misericordiae*. Quamvis enim sint ex sublimitate gloriae immortales et impassibiles, non sunt tamen incompassibiles. Et hoc accipiunt ex quodam verbo Bernardi[^14], qui videtur hoc dicere; et dicunt, verbum Isaiae superius dictum sic intelligendum esse. — *Improbatur.* Sed tamen illud non videtur intelligibile, quomodo aliquis possit *compati* et non *pati*. Nec illud videtur probabile, quod Angeli aliqua pietate et misericordia flectantur ad reprobos, cum ipsi maxime zelent iustitiam et divinam gloriam, utpote qui iam sunt constituti in perfecto

<!-- page 288 -->

statu iustitiae. Propter quod dicit Gregorius in quadam homilia[^15], quod ad reprobos non habent compassionem iustorum animae. Ait enim sic: «Iustorum animae, etsi naturae suae bonitate misericordiam habent, iam nunc, auctoris sui iustitiae coniunctae, tanta rectitudine constringuntur, ut nulla ad reprobos compassione moveantur»; loquitur de Beatis.

*Opinio 2. et conclusio.* Et propter hoc est alia positio, quod Angeli custodientes ex damnatione eorum quos custodiunt, nec concipiunt *gemitum* nec incurrunt aliquod *gloriae detrimentum*. *Gemitum* non concipiunt propter plenitudinem gaudii, quod adeo perfectum est, ut nullo modo suscipiat admixtionem contrarii. *Detrimentum* etiam non patiuntur propter stabilitatem boni adepti: nihil enim habent quod possint amittere, nec ex parte *meriti* nec ex parte *praemii*, cum sint in gloria et in iustitia confirmati. Et quoniam *detrimentum* dicit amissionem alicuius boni habiti, ideo ex nullo eventu detrimentum aliquod possunt pati. — Et concedendae sunt rationes, quae ad hoc inducuntur.

*Solutio oppositorum.* 1. 2. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod Deus requiret animam custoditi de manu custodientis; dicendum, quod verum est, cum perit propter custodis negligentiam. Et quia in beatis Angelis nulla cadit negligentia, ideo de manu ipsorum nullus damnatus requiritur. Et propterea verbum Origenis, quod sequitur, si simpliciter intelligatur, est falsum. Nullo enim modo Angeli boni culpabuntur nec in iudicium adducentur; nisi forte quis dicat, hoc debere intelligi, quod adducentur in iudicium non ad suam condemnationem, sed ad manifestandum, quod reprobi ex sua sunt damnati malitia, non ex suorum custodum negligentia; vel nisi quis intelligat verbum Origenis, ut *Angeli* dicantur ibi *praelati*. — Et per hunc modum verbum Isaiae, quod subsequitur, potest intelligi vel exponi, ut *Angeli pacis* dicantur ibi *boni praelati*. Si tamen quis intelligit de Angelis beatis secundum veritatem, amaritudo fletus non indicat veritatem doloris, sed aliquam conformitatem notat in signo vel effectu exteriori; et potest illud intelligi dictum per anthropopathon, sicut dicitur Deus *tactus fuisse dolore cordis intrinsecus*, Genesis sexto[^16].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si oppositum est causa oppositi etc.; dicendum, quod ista maxima habet instantiam, ubi alterum inest per naturam sive ad modum naturae, sicut et illa, quod *opposita nata sunt fieri circa idem*[^17]. Et quoniam Angelus beatus est susceptibilis gaudii, sed non tristitiae, ideo gaudere potest de salute, quamvis non tristetur ex damnatione.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod frustratio desiderii contristat; dicendum, quod tunc desiderium frustratur, quando quis aliquid appetit in *omnem eventum* sive *absolute*, et illud non evenit; quando vero appetit *sub conditione*, et illa conditio non stat, si illud quod appetit, non evenit, propter hoc non dicitur desiderium *frustrari*[^18]. Et sic est in proposito. Nam Angelus appetit, eum quem custodit, beatificari, si ipse voluerit fideliter adhaerere Christo; et hoc nunquam fallit, quin eveniat. Et quia ille qui damnatur, recedit ab apposita conditione, ideo in desiderio Angeli nullam ponit frustrationem, dum non ad id pervenit, quod sibi Angelus appetebat.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod ex nostra salvatione crescit Angelorum praemium; dicendum, quod verum est, quod crescit praemium *accidentale*; non tamen sequitur ex hoc, quod ex defectu salutis incurrant Angeli detrimentum vel damnum, quia *detrimentum* vel *damnum* est respectu rei iam *habitae*. Si autem sit respectu rei *habendae*, hoc solum est, quando ex impedimento aliqua remanet indigentia et imperfectio in eo qui impeditur. Hoc autem non est sic in proposito, quia, quantumcumque ille qui custoditur, damnetur, nihilominus tamen *Notandum.* Angelus habet suum praemium salvum et quantum ad gaudium, quod habet in *Deo*, et quantum ad gaudium, quod habet *in se ipso* sive de bono *proprio* — gaudebit enim de bonis operibus, quae circa illum fecit quem custodivit — et quantum etiam ad gaudium, quod habet in *alio*, quia cum unus cadit, alter *coronam suam accipit*, sicut fuit expositum in primo libro[^19]; et ideo, si ruina angelica non reparatur ex illo quem custodit, reparabitur ex alio. Quamvis ergo propter culpam illius, ne de eo gaudeat, patiatur *impedimentum*, et ex tali tropo fortassis dicat Origenes, ipsum esse culpandum; nullum tamen ex hoc incurrit *detrimentum*.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod angelus malus gaudet de damnatione: ergo etc.; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia, sicut non est reperire malum omnino impermixtum bono, est tamen reperire bonum omnino impermixtum malo; sic reprobatio angelorum aliquo modo admittit gaudium, licet impurum, sed perfecta beatificatio nullum patitur secum tormentum vel gemitum.

Ex praedictis patent illa duo, quae ultimo quaerebantur, scilicet de *voluntate* et *praemio* An-

<!-- page 289 -->

gelorum custodientium malos. — *Ad q. incid. 1.* Volunt enim, malos quos noverunt esse praescitos, voluntate *absoluta* damnari; quantum autem *in se* est, vellent salvari; et ideo non custodiunt inviti, quia, quamvis sciant, se *frustra* laborare ad perducendum eos ad salutem, tamen sciunt, se *fructuose* laborare in hoc, quod retrahunt, ne incurrant maiorem damnationem. — *Circa animas 4 effectus custodiae.* Quadruplex enim consuevit principalis effectus custodiae angelicae assignari circa animas. Unus est, ut proficiat anima in bonum gratiae; alius, ut non cadat in malum culpae; tertius est, si cadat, quod postmodum resurgat; quartus est, ne toties vel in tantum malum cadat, quoties vel ad quantum adversarius incitat. — *Alia solutio.* Posset tamen aliter dici, quod non est Angelis revelatum, qui ex eis quos custodiunt, salvari debeant, vel damnari; hoc tamen non est certum.

*Ad quaest. incid. 2.* De *praemio* vero dicendum, quod sicut duplex est finis artificis: unus *in se*, et alter *in alio*, sicut patet in rhetore[^20], cuius finis est loqui ornate, et hic est finis *in se*, et alter, alii persuadere, et hic est finis *in alio*; sic etiam duplex est praemium Angeli accidentale: unum, quo gaudet de *bonis operibus*, quae fecit; aliud, quo gaudet de *salute eius*, quem custodivit. Et quemadmodum artifex, si habeat finem primum et careat secundo, nihilominus perfecte dicitur habere methodum, si ex contingentibus nihil omiserit; sic Angelus, qui fideliter custodivit eum qui ex culpa sua damnatur, perfectum habet meritum et praemium, dum de bonis suis operibus gloriatur. Gaudium autem illud, quod est de multiplicatione bonorum operum, non est praemium *substantiale*, cum non sit de summo bono, sed *accidentale*; nec tamen est *aureola*, quia non omne praemium accidentale est aureola, sed illud solum, quod habet *praeexcellentiam*[^21].

---

english:
<!-- page 286 -->

### Question III.

### *Whether the Angel incurs any harm from the damnation of the one in his custody.*

Third, it is asked whether the Angel incurs any harm from the damnation of the one in his custody. And that he does, it seems:

*To the opposite.* 1. Third [Book of] Kings, chapter twenty[^1]: *Guard this man; if he should fall, your soul will be for his soul;*[^4] from which it is gathered that the Lord commits [the man] to be guarded on this pact, that, if the one guarded is lost, he shall be required from the hand of the guardian. If therefore a man is lost, it seems that the Angel guarding him incurs danger to his own salvation[^2]; and this[^3] seems

<!-- page 287 -->

to be what Origen says on that text of Numbers chapter twenty-five[^5]: *They were initiated to Baal-Peor;* the Gloss: «A good Angel is set over [him], who is blamed for offenses and praised for things well done».

2. Likewise, Isaiah chapter thirty-three[^6]: *The Angels of peace shall weep bitterly;* it is clear, however, that they weep only on account of the misery and damnation of men: therefore if they sympathize most with those whom they guard, it seems that from the damnation of those they incur groan and lamentation, and so some loss of joy.

3. Likewise, «if the opposite is the cause of the opposite, also the proposed of the proposed[^7]»; but the salvation of men in their custody generates joy and congratulation in the guarding Angels: therefore damnation will generate groan and compassion.

4. Likewise, just as the completion of desire delights the soul, so frustration saddens it[^8]; but the Angel, because he desires that the one he guards be saved, rejoices when he is saved, because his desire is fulfilled: therefore when from his damnation he is frustrated, it seems etc.

5. Likewise, the punishment of Arius always grows on account of the multiplication of those whom by his error he draws to damnation[^9]: therefore on the contrary, from our salvation grows the reward of the Angels guarding us. If therefore we are damned, since they themselves ought to glory in us or about us, it seems that they suffer loss of glory.

6. Likewise, the evil angels rejoice when they can drag a man to torments, and this is because they hate men, whom they harass and tempt: therefore if the good Angels love those whom they guard, it seems that on the contrary they grieve.

**On the contrary:** *Fundamental [arguments].* 1. The good Angel is blessed; but the blessed is he to whom all things succeed according to his nod[^10]; and to him who is of this sort, nothing harmful can befall: therefore it seems that from the damnation of those whom they guard, they incur no harm.

2. Likewise, the good Angel conforms his will to the divine will: therefore if God does not will to save except the predestinate, it seems that neither does the good Angel: therefore if no predestinate is damned, no one is damned whom the good Angel does not will to be damned: therefore it seems that from no one's damnation is he saddened.

3. Likewise, grief and sadness are not without punishment, and punishment is not without prior fault[^11]; but in the blessed Angels there was never fault: therefore neither was there nor can there be sadness.

4. Likewise, the Angel does not merit more in ministering to the good than to the evil, since out of equally good[^12] will he ministers to each: therefore if recompense is weighed according to merit, the Angel is not less recompensed when he guards a foreknown [reprobate] than when he guards a predestinate: therefore it seems that from the [reprobate's] damnation the Angel incurs no harm.

*Incident question 1.* Adjoining this it is asked whether the Angel *wills* him whom he guards to be saved, when it has been revealed to him that he is foreknown [as a reprobate]. If he does not will him to be saved, then it seems he guards him unwillingly; if he does will it, then it seems that his will is not conformed to the divine will nor even fulfilled.

*Incident question 2.* Likewise, when he guards a foreknown [reprobate], I ask: what reward is given to him from this? *Substantial* not, it is clear; *accidental* not, as it seems, because that consists in the salvation of those whom they guard, as is clear in the reward of the *aureola* which preachers have[^13].

### Conclusion.

> *The Angels from the damnation of those whom they guard neither conceive a groan nor incur any loss of glory.*

**I respond:** For the understanding of what has been said it must be noted that on this matter different [authors] have held differently.

*Opinion 1.* For some have wished to say that the blessed Angels, from the damnation of those whom they guard, although they incur no *loss of glory*, nevertheless conceive a *groan of mercy*. For although by the sublimity of glory they are immortal and impassible, they are nevertheless not incompassionate. And they take this from a certain word of Bernard[^14], who seems to say this; and they say that the text of Isaiah quoted above is to be so understood. — *It is disproved.* But this does not seem intelligible, how anyone can *suffer with* and not *suffer*. Nor does it seem probable that the Angels are moved by any piety and mercy toward the reprobate, since they themselves most greatly zealously pursue justice and the divine glory, as those who are now already established in the perfect

<!-- page 288 -->

state of justice. On account of which Gregory in a certain homily[^15] says that toward the reprobate the souls of the just have no compassion. For he speaks thus: «The souls of the just, although by the goodness of their nature they have mercy, even now, joined to the justice of their Author, are constrained by such rectitude that they are moved by no compassion toward the reprobate»; he is speaking of the Blessed.

*Opinion 2 and the conclusion.* And on account of this there is another position, that the guarding Angels, from the damnation of those whom they guard, neither conceive a *groan* nor incur any *loss of glory*. They do not conceive a *groan* on account of the plenitude of joy, which is so perfect that in no way does it admit the admixture of a contrary. They also do not suffer *loss* on account of the stability of the good they have attained: for they have nothing which they could lose, neither on the side of *merit* nor on the side of *reward*, since they are confirmed in glory and in justice. And since *loss* names the loss of some good [already] had, therefore from no event can they suffer any loss. — And the reasons advanced for this are to be conceded.

*Solution of the opposing [arguments].* 1. 2. To what is objected, that God will require the soul of the guarded from the hand of the guardian; it must be said that this is true when [the guarded] perishes through the guardian's negligence. And because in the blessed Angels no negligence falls, therefore from their hand no damned [soul] is required. And for this reason the word of Origen which follows, if taken simply, is false. For in no way will the good Angels be blamed nor brought to judgment; unless perhaps someone should say that this is to be understood thus: that they will be brought to judgment not for their own condemnation, but to make manifest that the reprobate are damned from their own malice, not from their guardians' negligence; or unless someone understands Origen's word in such a way that *Angels* are there called *prelates*. — And by this mode the text of Isaiah which follows can be understood or expounded, so that *Angels of peace* are there called *good prelates*. If, however, someone understands [it] of the blessed Angels according to the truth, the bitterness of weeping does not indicate true grief, but notes some conformity in outward sign or effect; and that can be understood as said by *anthropopathy*, just as God is said to *have been touched with grief of heart inwardly*, Genesis chapter six[^16].

3. To what is objected, that if the opposite is the cause of the opposite etc.; it must be said that this maxim has an exception where the other [opposite] is present by nature or in the manner of nature, just as also the maxim that *opposites are by nature [apt] to come about concerning the same [subject]*[^17]. And since the blessed Angel is susceptible of joy, but not of sadness, therefore he can rejoice over salvation, although he is not saddened by damnation.

4. To what is objected, that frustration of desire saddens; it must be said that a desire is then frustrated when someone wants something in *every event* or *absolutely*, and that does not come about; but when he wants it *under a condition*, and that condition does not stand, if what he wants does not come about, on this account the desire is not said to be *frustrated*[^18]. And so it is in the matter at hand. For the Angel desires the one he guards to be beatified, if he himself shall faithfully wish to cleave to Christ; and this never fails to come about. And because the one who is damned departs from the appended condition, therefore in the Angel's desire he places no frustration when he does not arrive at that which the Angel desired for him.

5. To what is objected, that from our salvation the reward of the Angels grows; it must be said that it is true that the *accidental* reward grows; nevertheless it does not follow from this that from the failure of salvation the Angels incur harm or damage, because *harm* or *damage* is with respect to a thing already *had*. But if it is with respect to a thing *to be had*, this is only when from some impediment some need and imperfection remains in him who is impeded. But this is not so in the matter at hand, because, however much the one who is guarded be damned, nevertheless the *Note.* Angel has his reward intact both as to the joy which he has in *God*, and as to the joy which he has *in himself* or from his own good — for he will rejoice over the good works which he did concerning the one whom he guarded — and as to the joy which he has in *another*, because when one falls, another *receives his crown*, as was expounded in the first book[^19]; and so, if the angelic ruin is not repaired by the one he guards, it will be repaired by another. Although therefore on account of the fault of that one, lest he rejoice over him, he suffers an *impediment*, and from such a figure of speech perhaps Origen says he is to be blamed; nevertheless from this he incurs no *loss*.

6. To what is objected, that the evil angel rejoices over damnation: therefore etc.; it must be said that the case is not similar, because, just as it is not [possible] to find evil entirely unmixed with good, but it is [possible] to find good entirely unmixed with evil; so the reprobation of the angels in some way admits joy, though impure, but perfect beatification suffers with it no torment or groan.

From what has been said there appear those two things which were last asked, namely concerning the *will* and *reward* of the Angels

<!-- page 289 -->

guarding the evil. — *To incident question 1.* For they will, by an *absolute* will, that the evil whom they know to be foreknown [as reprobate] be damned; but as far as *in themselves* lies, they would wish them saved; and therefore they do not guard them unwillingly, because, although they know they labor *in vain* to lead them to salvation, nevertheless they know that they labor *fruitfully* in this, that they hold them back lest they incur greater damnation. — *Four effects of custody concerning souls.* For a fourfold principal effect of angelic custody is wont to be assigned concerning souls. One is that the soul should advance in the good of grace; another, that it should not fall into the evil of fault; a third, that if it fall, it should afterward rise again; a fourth, that it should not fall into evil as often or as deeply as the adversary incites. — *Another solution.* It could also be said otherwise, that it is not revealed to the Angels which of those whom they guard ought to be saved or damned; this however is not certain.

*To incident question 2.* On the *reward*, however, it must be said that just as the end of the craftsman is twofold: one *in himself*, and another *in another*, as is clear in the rhetorician[^20], whose end is to speak ornately, and this is the end *in himself*, and another, to persuade another, and this is the end *in another*; so also the accidental reward of the Angel is twofold: one by which he rejoices over the *good works* which he did; another, by which he rejoices over the *salvation of him* whom he guarded. And just as a craftsman, if he have the first end and lack the second, is nevertheless said perfectly to have his *method*, if he has omitted nothing of the contingencies; so the Angel who has faithfully guarded one who is damned by his own fault, has perfect merit and reward, while he glories in his own good works. But that joy which is over the multiplication of good works is not the *substantial* reward, since it is not of the highest good, but the *accidental*; nor however is it the *aureola*, because not every accidental reward is the *aureola*, but only that which has *pre-excellence*[^21].

---

la: Codd. W X Y bb cc *et quia.*

en: Codices W, X, Y, bb, cc read *et quia.*

la: In cod. V additur *accidentale,* in Vat. *creatum.*

en: In codex V is added *accidentale*; in the Vatican edition, *creatum.*

la: In quaest. seq.

en: In the following question.

la: Vers. 39.

en: Verse 39.

la: Vers. 3. — Origenes, hom. 20. in Num. n. 4. et hom. 13. in Luc. Cfr. Lyranus in hunc locum.

en: Verse 3. — Origen, *Homily 20 on Numbers* n. 4 and *Homily 13 on Luke*. Cf. Lyra on this passage.

la: Vers. 7.

en: Verse 7.

la: Aristot., IV. *Topic.* c. 4: *Si oppositum in opposito, et propositum in proposito erit.*

en: Aristotle, *Topics* IV, c. 4: *If the opposite [is] in the opposite, then the proposed will be in the proposed.*

la: August., XXI. *de Civ. Dei,* c. 3 n. 2: *Frustrata quippe cupiditas, sive non perveniendo quo tendebat, sive amittendo quo pervenerat, vertitur in dolorem.*

en: Augustine, *On the City of God* XXI, c. 3, n. 2: *For frustrated desire, whether by not arriving where it was tending, or by losing what it had reached, turns into grief.*

la: Libr. IV. Sent. d. 46. a. 1. q. 1. arg. 2. ad opp. haec sententia attribuitur Augustino.

en: Book IV of the *Sentences*, dist. 46, a. 1, q. 1, in arg. 2 *ad opp.*, this opinion is attributed to Augustine.

la: Boeth., II. *de Consol.* prosa 4: Adde, quod felicissimi cuiusque delicatissimus sensus est, et nisi ad nutum cuncta suppetant, omnis adversitatis insolens, minimis quibusque prosternitur, adeo perexigua sunt quae fortunatissimis beatitudinis summam detrahunt. — Aliqui codd. *ad votum,* cod. A *optata ad votum* pro *ad nutum.*

en: Boethius, *On the Consolation* II, prose 4: «Add that the most fortunate has the most delicate sensibility, and unless all things meet his beck, intolerant of any adversity, he is laid low by the slightest things — so very slight are the things which detract from the sum of beatitude of the most fortunate». — Some codices read *ad votum,* codex A *optata ad votum* for *ad nutum.*

la: Cfr. August., III. *de Lib. Arb.* c. 18. n. 51.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On Free Choice* III, c. 18, n. 51.

la: Multi codd. cum edd. 1, 2 *dona.*

en: Many codices along with editions 1 and 2 read *dona.*

la: Cfr. infra d. 40. a. 2. q. 1. seqq. — Vat. *praedicatores.*

en: Cf. below, d. 40, a. 2, q. 1 and following. — The Vatican edition reads *praedicatores.*

la: Libr. V. *de Consid.* c. 4 n. 7: *Et primo quidem cives spiritus esse illic potentes... impassibiles... affectu benignos, religione pios* etc. — Verbum Isaiae habetur hic in arg. 2. ad opp.

en: Book V *On Consideration,* c. 4, n. 7: «And first indeed the citizens are spirits there, powerful... impassible... benign in affection, religious in piety» etc. — The text of Isaiah is found here in arg. 2 *ad opp.*

la: In *Evang.* hom. 40. n. 7: *Iustorum animae, quamvis in suae naturae bonitate misericordiam habeant, iam tunc auctoris sui* etc. — Codd. T aa *habeant* pro *habent* et cod. A *tunc* pro *nunc.*

en: On the *Gospel*, hom. 40, n. 7: *The souls of the just, although in the goodness of their nature they have mercy, even then [joined to] their Author* etc. — Codices T, aa read *habeant* for *habent* and codex A reads *tunc* for *nunc.*

la: Vers. 6. — Quid sibi velit dictio *per anthropopathon,* a Graecis verbis ἄνθρωπος i. e. *homo* et πάθος i. e. *passio,* explicatur per notulam in cod. W ad marginem scriptam: *quando passio humana attribuitur Deo.*

en: Verse 6. — What the expression *per anthropopathon* means — from the Greek words ἄνθρωπος i.e. *man* and πάθος i.e. *passion* — is explained by a small marginal note in codex W: *when human passion is attributed to God.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 7. p. I. a. 1. q. 3. ad 1. et I. Sent. d. 17. p. II. q. 3. ad 5, ut bene a secunda manu in cod. P notatur. — In fine solutionis plures codd. cum ed. 1 *de damnatione.*

en: Cf. above, d. 7, p. I, a. 1, q. 3, *ad* 1, and *I Sent.* d. 17, p. II, q. 3, *ad* 5, as is well noted by a second hand in codex P. — At the end of the solution several codices along with ed. 1 read *de damnatione.*

la: Vide I. Sent. d. 46. q. 1.

en: See *I Sent.* d. 46, q. 1.

la: Dist. 40. a. 2. q. 2. — Alluditur hic ad illud Apoc. 3, 11: *Tene quod habes, ut nemo accipiat coronam tuam.* — Mox plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 *etsi,* Vat. *ideo et si* pro *et ideo si,* quod habet cod. W.

en: Dist. 40, a. 2, q. 2. — Allusion is made here to Apoc. 3, 11: *Hold what you have, that no one take your crown.* — Soon afterward most codices along with ed. 1 read *etsi*; the Vatican edition reads *ideo et si* for *et ideo si,* which codex W has.

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. *de Arte rhetorica,* c. 1. seqq. — Cod. cc et ed. 1 *in rhetorica.*

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On the Art of Rhetoric* I, c. 1 and following. — Codex cc and ed. 1 read *in rhetorica.*

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Incoming p.286 boundary CLEAN.** The preceding chunk d11-a2-q2 closed at the end of SCHOLION II on p.286; QUAESTIO III opens immediately afterward (bottom-right of p.286) with the title *Utrum Angelus ex damnatione custoditi incurrat aliquod detrimentum* and obj. 1. P.286's footnotes nn. 1–3 (anchored in a2-q2's Respondeo) were retained in that chunk; nn. 4–7 anchor here in this chunk's obj. 1 and *Contra* and are carried forward as [^1]–[^4].

**Outgoing p.289 boundary CLEAN.** This chunk closes with the *De praemio* answer to incident-question 2 at top of p.289 R, ending at *praeexcellentiam[^21].* The next chunk d11-dubia opens with the header DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI and *Dub. I.* (also on p.289). P.289's footnotes nn. 1–2 (the Aristotle *Rhetoric* citation and the cross-reference to the preceding scholion) are anchored in this chunk; nn. 3–5 (the *capabilis* variant on *Dub. I.*, the *et minus* recovery, and the parallel-authors note) anchor in the body of d11-dubia and are reserved for that chunk.

**No SCHOLION block in this quaestio.** Per Vol II Override §5 convention: a quaestio with no scholion is normal here — the SCHOLION I+II on p.286 above already serves the third question (footnote [^3] of d11-a2-q2: «In quaest. seq.»), and Quaracchi's combined scholion for this article was placed under q.2 rather than under q.3. `has_scholion: false` reflects this.

**Two incident questions folded inline.** Quaracchi prints the two *Quaestio incidens / Quaest. incidens* questions (on whether the Angel wills the foreknown to be saved, and on what reward attaches to such custody) inside the main quaestio body, immediately after the *Contra* / *Fundamenta* arguments and before the *Conclusio*. Their answers (*Ad q. incid. 1.* and *Ad quaest. incid. 2.*) appear at the tail of the Respondeo on p.289. We render the incident questions and their answers inline as italic marginal labels per Vol II convention, not as separate sections.

**Marginal labels preserved inline (italic), per Vol II convention:** *Ad oppositum.*, *Fundamenta.*, *Quaestio incidens 1.*, *Quaest. incidens 2.*, *Opinio 1.*, *Improbatur.*, *Opinio 2. et conclusio.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Notandum.*, *Ad q. incid. 1.*, *Circa animas 4 effectus custodiae.*, *Alia solutio.*, *Ad quaest. incid. 2.* — none promoted to headings.