title: Dist. 11

title_alt: Littera Magistri: De Angelorum ministerio respectu hominum

title_alt: Lombard's text: On the ministry of the Angels in respect of men

source_text:
<!-- page 274 -->

### DISTINCTIO XI.

### Cap. I.

*Quod singulae animae habent Angelum bonum ad custodiam, malum ad exercitium.*

Illud quoque sciendum est, quod Angeli boni deputati sunt ad custodiam hominum, ita ut quisque electorum habeat Angelum, ad sui profectum atque custodiam specialiter delegatum. Unde in Evangelio[^1] Veritas, a pusillorum scandalo prohibens, ait: *Angeli eorum semper vident faciem Patris.* Angelos dicit eorum esse, quibus ad custodiam deputati sunt. Super quem locum *Hieronymus* tradit, unamquamque animam ab exordio nativitatis habere Angelum ad sui custodiam deputatum, inquiens ita: « Magna dignitas animarum est, ut unaquaeque habeat ab ortu nativitatis in custodiam sui Angelum delegatum ». *Gregorius* quoque dicit, quod « quisque bonum Angelum sibi ad custodiam deputatum, et unum malum ad exercitium habet »[^2]. Cum enim omnes Angeli boni nostrum bonum velint communiterque saluti omnium studeant, ille tamen, qui deputatus est alicui ad custodiam, eum specialiter hortatur ad bonum, sicut legitur de Angelo Tobiae[^3] et de Angelo Petri in Actibus Apostolorum; similiter et mali angeli, cum desiderent malum hominum, magis tamen hominem ad malum incitat et ad nocendum fortius instat ille qui ad exercitium eius deputatus est.

Solet autem quaeri, utrum singuli Angeli singulis hominibus, an unus pluribus ad custodiam vel exercitium deputatus sit. — Sed cum electi tot sint, quot et boni Angeli sunt, plures constat esse omnes simul bonos et malos homines, quam boni Angeli sint. Et cum tot sint electi, quot Angeli boni, et Angeli boni plures sint quam mali, pluresque sint homines mali quam boni, non est ambiguum, plures esse bonos homines, quam sint mali angeli, et plures esse malos homines, quam sint mali angeli vel boni Angeli. Ideoque dici oportet, unum eundemque Angelum, bonum vel malum, pluribus hominibus deputari ad custodiam vel exercitium, sive eodem tempore, sive diversis temporibus. — Ideo autem dicimus eodem tempore, vel diversis temporibus, quia videtur quibusdam, quod omnes homines, qui sunt simul in aliquo tempore, singuli singulos Angelos habere possint, bonos vel malos, quia, licet maior sit numerus hominum, computatis in unum omnibus, qui fuerunt et sunt et futuri sunt, quam Angelorum, tamen, quia homines decedentibus hominibus succedunt[^4], et ideo numquam simul sunt in hac vita, Angeli vero numquam decedunt, sed simul omnes sunt: ideo esse potest, ut singuli hominum, dum in hac vita sunt, singulos habeant Angelos bonos vel malos ad sui custodiam vel exercitium destinatos. Ceterum sive ita sit, sive non, non est dubitandum, unumquemque habere Angelum sibi deputatum, sive pluribus simul destinatus sit, sive uni singulariter. Nec est mirandum, unum Angelum pluribus hominibus ad custodiam deputari, cum uni homini plurium custodia deputetur, ita ut eorum quisque suum dicatur habere dominum vel episcopum vel abbatem.

<!-- page 275 -->

### Cap. II.

*Utrum Angeli proficiant in merito et praemio usque ad iudicium.*

Praeterea illud considerari oportet, utrum Angeli boni in praemio vel in merito proficiant usque ad iudicium. — Quod in meritis proficiant atque quotidie magis ac magis mereantur, quibusdam videtur ex eo, quia quotidie hominum utilitatibus inserviunt eorumque profectibus student. Quibus etiam nihilominus videtur, quod et in praemio proficiant, scilicet in cognitione et dilectione Dei. Licet enim, ut aiunt, in confirmatione beatitudinem acceperint aeternam atque perfectam, augetur tamen quotidie eorum beatitudo, quia magis ac magis diligunt atque cognoscunt; et est eorum caritas, qua Deum et nos diligunt, et *meritum* et *praemium: meritum,* quia per eam et per obsequia ex ea nobis impensa merentur et in beatitudine proficiunt; et ipsa eadem est *praemium,* quia ea beati sunt.

Et quod Angeli proficiant in cognitione, ac per hoc in beatitudine, testimoniis Sanctorum confirmant. Dicit enim Isaias[^5] ex persona Angelorum, Christi ascendentis magnificentiam admirantium: *Quis est iste qui venit de Edom, tinctis vestibus de Bosra?* Et in Psalmo: *Quis est iste rex gloriae?* Ex quibus apparet, quod mysterium Verbi incarnati plenius cognoverunt Angeli post impletionem quam ante. Et sicut in cognitione huius mysterii profecerunt, ita, dicunt, eos in Deitatis cognitione proficere. Quod autem in huius mysterii cognitione profecerint, evidenter docet *Apostolus*[^6] dicens: *Quae sit dispensatio sacramenti absconditi a saeculis in Deo, ut innotescat multiformis sapientia Dei per Ecclesiam Principibus et Potestatibus in caelestibus.* Super quem locum dicit *Hieronymus*[^7]: « Angelicas dignitates praefatum mysterium ad purum non intellexisse, donec completa est passio Christi, et Apostolorum praedicatio per gentes dilatata ».

His autem videtur contradicere Augustinus super eundem locum *Epistolae*[^8] dicens: « Non latuit Angelos mysterium regni caelorum, quod opportuno tempore revelatum est pro salute nostra. Illis ergo a saeculis innotuit supra memoratum mysterium, quia omnis creatura non ante saecula, sed a saeculis est ». — Attende, lector, quia videntur dissentire in hac sententia illustres Doctores. Ideoque ut omnis repugnantia de medio tollatur, praedicta verba, Haymonem[^9] sequentes, ita determinemus, « ut illis Angelis, qui maioris dignitatis sunt, et per quorum ministerium illa nuntiata sunt, ex parte cognita a saeculis fuisse, utpote familiaribus et nuntiis; illis vero, qui minoris dignitatis sunt, incognita exstitisse dicamus, usquequo impleta sunt et per Ecclesiam praedicata, et tunc ab omnibus Angelis perfecte fuerunt cognita ». Constat itaque, omnes Angelos in cognitione divinorum mysteriorum secundum processum temporis profecisse. Unde non incongruenter ipsi iidem dicunt, Angelorum scientiam ac beatitudinem augeri usque ad futuram consummationem, quando in scientia ac beatitudine perfectissimi erunt, ut nec augeatur amplius nec minuatur.

Alii autem dicunt, Angelos in confirmatione tanta *Deitatis* dilectione atque notitia fuisse praeditos, ut in his ulterius non profecerint nec profecturi sint. Profecerunt tamen in scientia *rerum exteriorum,* sicut in cognitione sacramenti Incarnationis et huiusmodi, sed non in contemplatione Deitatis, quia Trinitatem in Unitate atque Unitatem in Trinitate non plenius intelligunt sive intellecturi sunt, quam ab ipsa confirmatione perceperunt. Ita etiam dicunt, eos in caritate non profecisse post confirmationem, quia eorum caritas postea non est aucta; et sic dicunt, eos non profecisse in meritis, sed hoc quantum ad *vim merendi,* non quantum ad *numerum meritorum.* Plura enim bona fecerunt postea, quae tunc non fecerant; sed eorum caritas, ex qua illa processerunt, non est aucta, ex qua tantum meruerunt, antequam ista adderentur, quantum postea, his adiectis. — Illud vero, quod alii superius dicunt, probabilius videtur, scilicet quod Angeli usque ad iudicium in scientia et aliis proficiant[^10].

Quibus tamen videntur obviare quorundam auctoritatum verba. Ait enim Isidorus in libro de Summo Bono[^11]: « Angeli in Verbo Dei omnia sciunt, antequam fiant ». — Sed nec *omnes* nec *omnia perfecte* Angelos scire dixit, et ideo eos in scientia proficere non removit. Gregorius quoque in libro Dialogorum[^12] ait: « Quid est, quod ibi nesciant, ubi scientem omnia sciunt »? Ubi videtur dicere, quod omnia sciant Angeli, et nihil sit quod nesciant. — Sed accipiendum est hoc de his quorum cognitio beatum facit cognitorem, ut sunt ea quae ad mysterium Trinitatis et Unitatis pertinent.

---

english:
### DISTINCTION XI.

### Chapter I.

*That individual souls have a good Angel for custody, an evil one for exercise.*

It is also to be known that the good Angels have been deputed to the custody of men, in such a way that each one of the elect has an Angel specially delegated to his advancement and custody. Whence in the *Gospel*[^1] Truth, prohibiting [men] from scandalizing the little ones, says: *Their Angels always see the face of the Father.* He says the Angels are *theirs,* to whose custody they have been deputed. On which place *Jerome* delivers that each soul, from the beginning of nativity, has an Angel deputed to its custody, saying thus: « Great is the dignity of souls, that each one from the rising of nativity has an Angel delegated to its custody ». *Gregory* also says that « each [man] has a good Angel deputed to his custody, and one evil one for exercise »[^2]. For although all the good Angels will our good and study in common for the salvation of all, nevertheless he who has been deputed to someone's custody specially exhorts him to the good, just as is read of the Angel of Tobit[^3] and of the Angel of Peter in the *Acts of the Apostles*; likewise also the evil angels — though they desire the harm of men — yet that one more eagerly incites a man to evil and presses more strongly to harm him, who has been deputed for his exercise.

It is wont, however, to be asked, whether individual Angels are deputed to individual men, or one to several for custody or exercise. — But since the elect are as many as the good Angels are, it is clear that all the good and evil men together are more numerous than the good Angels. And since the elect are as many as the good Angels, and the good Angels are more than the evil, and the evil men are more than the good, it is not in doubt that the good men are more than the evil angels, and the evil men more than the evil angels or the good Angels. Therefore it must be said that one and the same Angel, good or evil, is deputed to several men for custody or exercise, whether at the same time or at diverse times. — But we say *at the same time, or at diverse times,* because it seems to some that all men who are together at any one time can each have their own individual Angels, good or evil; because, although the number of men is greater, counting in one all who have been, are, and shall be, than [the number] of the Angels, yet because men succeed[^4] men who pass away — and therefore are never together at the same time in this life, while the Angels never pass away but are all together — therefore it can be that the individual men, while they are in this life, have individual good or evil Angels destined for their custody or exercise. Yet whether it is so or not, there is no doubting that each one has an Angel deputed to him, whether destined to several at the same time, or singularly to one. Nor is it to be wondered at that one Angel is deputed to several men for custody, since the custody of several is deputed to one man — in such a way that each of them is said to have his lord or bishop or abbot.

### Chapter II.

*Whether the Angels advance in merit and reward up to the judgment.*

Furthermore that ought to be considered, whether the good Angels advance in reward or in merit up to the judgment. — That they advance in merits and daily more and more merit, seems [right] to some on this ground: that they daily serve the utilities of men and study their advancements. And to those same it seems no less that they advance also in reward, namely in the cognition and love of God. For though, as they say, in the confirmation they received eternal and perfect beatitude, nevertheless their beatitude is daily increased, because they more and more love and know; and their charity, by which they love God and us, is both *merit* and *reward: merit,* because through it and through the services rendered to us out of it, they merit and advance in beatitude; and that same is *reward,* because by it they are blessed.

And that the Angels advance in cognition, and through this in beatitude, they confirm by the testimonies of the Saints. For *Isaiah*[^5] says, in the person of the Angels marveling at the magnificence of the ascending Christ: *Who is this who comes from Edom, with dyed garments from Bosra?* And in the Psalm: *Who is this king of glory?* From which it appears that the Angels knew the mystery of the Incarnate Word more fully after the fulfillment than before. And just as they advanced in the cognition of this mystery, so, they say, do they advance in the cognition of the Godhead. That they have advanced in the cognition of this mystery the *Apostle*[^6] evidently teaches, saying: *That the dispensation of the sacrament hidden from the ages in God may be made known, that the manifold wisdom of God may, through the Church, be made known to the Principalities and Powers in the heavenly [places].* On which place *Jerome*[^7] says: « The angelic dignities did not perfectly understand the aforementioned mystery, until Christ's passion was completed and the preaching of the Apostles was spread among the nations ».

But to this Augustine seems to contradict, on the same place of the *Epistle*[^8], saying: « The mystery of the kingdom of heaven was not hidden from the Angels, which was revealed at the opportune time for our salvation. To them therefore the above-mentioned mystery was made known *from the ages,* because every creature is not *before* the ages, but *from* the ages ». — Attend, reader, because the illustrious Doctors seem to dissent in this opinion. Therefore, that all repugnance be removed from the midst, following Haimo[^9] let us determine the aforesaid words thus: « That to those Angels who are of greater dignity, and through whose ministry those things were announced — as to *familiars* and *messengers* — [the mystery] in part was known from the ages; but to those who are of lesser dignity, we say that it stood unknown, until it was fulfilled and preached by the Church, and then was perfectly known by all the Angels ». It stands, therefore, that all the Angels advanced in the cognition of divine mysteries according to the process of time. Whence not incongruously these same say that the knowledge and beatitude of the Angels increase up to the future consummation, when they will be most perfect in knowledge and beatitude, so that it neither increase further nor be diminished.

Others, however, say that the Angels in the confirmation were endowed with so great a love and notion of the *Godhead,* that in these they have not advanced further nor are to advance. Yet they advanced in the science of *exterior things,* as in the cognition of the sacrament of the Incarnation and the like, but not in the contemplation of the Godhead, because they do not understand the Trinity in Unity and the Unity in Trinity more fully (or shall they understand them) than they perceived from the confirmation itself. So also they say that they have not advanced in charity after the confirmation, because their charity has not afterward been increased; and so they say they have not advanced in merits — but this as to *the power of meriting,* not as to *the number of merits.* For they did many goods afterward, which they had not then done; but their charity, from which those proceeded, has not been increased, from which they merited only as much, before those things were added, as afterward, with these adjoined. — But what the others above say seems more probable: namely, that the Angels advance up to the judgment in knowledge and in other things[^10].

To these, however, the words of certain authorities seem to be opposed. For Isidore says in the book *On the Supreme Good*[^11]: « The Angels know all things in the Word of God before they come to be ». — But he did not say that *all* Angels know *all things perfectly*, and therefore he did not remove their advancing in knowledge. Gregory also in the book of the *Dialogues*[^12] says: « What is it that they do not know there, where they know the One knowing all things »? — where he seems to say that the Angels know all things, and there is nothing they do not know. — But this is to be taken of those things whose cognition makes the knower *beatus,* such as those things which pertain to the mystery of Trinity and Unity.

---

la: Matth. 18, 10. — Hoc primum cap. excerptum est ex Hugone, *Sum. Sent.* tr. 2. c. 6.

en: Matthew 18, 10. — This first chapter is excerpted from Hugh [of St. Victor], *Summa Sententiarum,* tr. 2, c. 6.

la: Vide apud Hugonem, *loc. cit.*

en: See in Hugh, *loc. cit.*

la: Cap. 5, 6. et 6, 4. et 8, 3. De Angelo Petri vide Act. 12, 7. 8.

en: Chapter 5, 6 and 6, 4 and 8, 3. On the Angel of Peter see Acts 12, 7–8.

en: Ecclesiastes 1, 4; Ecclesiasticus 14, 19.

la: Cap. 63, 1. Sequens textus est Ps. 23, 8.

en: [Isaiah] chapter 63, 1. The following text is Psalm 23, 8.

la: Eph. 3, 9. 10, verbis a Magistro paulisper transpositis, et pro *Principatibus* posita voce *Principibus.*

en: Ephesians 3, 9–10, the words slightly transposed by the Master, and *Principibus* (Princes) set in place of *Principatibus* (Principalities).

la: Sic ad verbum exhibetur in Glossa, paulo aliter in Commentario Hieronymi. — Haec sumta sunt ex Abaelardo, *Sic et non,* c. 48. circa finem.

en: Thus is it set forth word-for-word in the Gloss, somewhat otherwise in Jerome's Commentary. — These [words] are taken from Abelard, *Sic et non,* c. 48, near the end.

la: In Glossa ad Eph. 3, 9. 10, sed originaliter in V. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 19. n. 38. 39.

en: In the Gloss on Ephesians 3, 9–10, but originally in Book V *On Genesis according to the Letter,* c. 19, nn. 38–39.

la: Super *Epist. ad Eph.* (Patrolog. lat. tom. 117 col. 715 a.). — Immediate post pro *determineimus* codd. B C E *determinamus.*

en: On the *Epistle to the Ephesians* (Patrologia Latina, vol. 117, col. 715 a). — Immediately after, in place of *determineimus,* codices B, C, E read *determinamus.*

la: Cod. Erf. hic annotat: *Est opinio Hugonis, Sent. II. c. 6.* Paulo inferius idem cod. citat *Gandolphum, lib. II. c. 43.*

en: Codex Erf. here notes: *This is the opinion of Hugh, Sentences II, c. 6.* A little lower, the same codex cites *Gandulph, Book II, c. 43.*

la: Scil. *Sent. I.* c. 10. n. 17, nonnullis omissis.

en: Namely [Isidore's] *Sentences,* Book I, c. 10, n. 17, with some omissions.

la: *Dialog.* libr. IV. c. 33. Cfr. eiusdem II. *Moral.* c. 3. n. 3. Immediate post textum codd. omittunt *Ubi.*

en: *Dialogues,* Book IV, c. 33. Cf. the same author's *Moralia,* Book II, c. 3, n. 3. Immediately after the text, the codices omit *Ubi.* ---

translators_notes:
**Incoming p.274 boundary CLEAN.** Cap. I of d.11's Lombard text begins on p.274 immediately after the `DISTINCTIO XI.` header, which itself sits just below the tail of d.10's Bonaventure commentary (the answer-to-objection passage on *mittere* and the third dubium of d.10). The d.10 chunks end at the `DISTINCTIO XI.` header; this chunk opens at `Cap. I.` of Lombard's text.

**Outgoing p.275 boundary CLEAN.** Cap. II of Lombard's d.11 closes with *quae ad mysterium Trinitatis et Unitatis pertinent.* at the bottom of p.275 R. P.276 opens with the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XI.` header followed by the d.11 *DIVISIO TEXTUS* — that is the existing `d11-divisio` chunk. No body text is lost at the seam; the page-transition is clean.

**P.274 footers split.** P.274's left-column footer block (n.1 *Cod. aa potestatem,* n.2 *Cod. bb rationes…,* n.3 *De Coelest. Hierarch. c. 13. § 3.,* n.4 *Vide Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 36. m. 8…*) belongs to d.10's Bonaventure commentary on the same page (specifically d10-a3-q3 / dubia tail). The right-column `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` block — nn.1–4 — anchors in this chunk's Cap. I and is rendered here as [^1]–[^4].

**Only two capituli in d.11 Lombard.** Verified by walking the raw OCR (lines 19518–19612) plus the 450 dpi PDF column bands: Cap. I (custody / one-or-many) sits at the bottom of p.274 (below the d.10 commentary); Cap. II (advance in merit and reward) occupies the upper Lombard band of p.275; no Cap. III exists. The chunk's frontmatter `printed_pages: [274, 275]` reflects this.

**Twelve apparatus entries, continuously renumbered.** P.274 Lombard-side NOTAE = 4 entries (Cap. I anchors at *Evangelio,* *Gregorius,* *Tobiae,* *succedunt*); p.275 Lombard-side NOTAE = 8 entries (Cap. II anchors at *Isaias,* *Apostolus,* *Hieronymus,* *Epistolae,* *Haymonem,* *proficiant,* *Summo Bono,* *Dialogorum*). The audit script flagged this chunk as SKELETON-SUSPECT with `raw=12, chunk=0` prior to promotion; the present state matches `raw=12, chunk=12`.

**No scholion.** Lombard's text proper carries no scholia; the Quaracchi editors' own footnote-style annotations are the apparatus and are reproduced above.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book II: On the Creation of Things

title: Dist. 11, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem XI — Divisio textus.

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction 11 — Division of the text and treatment of the questions.

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 276 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM XI.

#### *De ministerio Angelorum respectu hominum.*

*Illud quoque sciendum est, quod Angeli boni* etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra determinavit Magister de Angelorum ministerio quantum ad ipsos Angelos ministrantes. In hac parte determinat de Angelorum ministerio per comparationem ad hominem, cui ministrant. Et quoniam omne officium sive ministerium laudabile et bonum debet habere praemium, ideo pars ista habet duas partes. In prima determinat, qualiter Angeli, hominibus ministrando, eos custodiunt. In secunda vero quaerit, utrum Angeli ex ipso actu ministrandi in merito vel in praemio proficiant, et incipit illa secunda pars ibi: *Praeterea illud considerari oportet* etc.

Prima pars habet duas. In prima ostendit, quod Angeli deputantur ad custodiam hominum[^1]. In secunda quaerit et determinat, utrum singuli deputentur ad custodiam singulorum, ibi: *Solet autem quaeri, utrum singuli* etc.

Similiter secunda pars principalis duas habet secundum duas opiniones, secundum quas dupliciter determinat quaestionem propositam. In prima parte ponit primam opinionem, quae incipit ibi: *Praeterea illud considerari oportet* etc. In secunda secundam, ibi: *Alii autem dicunt, Angelos in confirmatione* etc. Subdivisiones autem partium et intellectus Magistri patent in littera. Nam totalis intentio distinctionis versatur circa duo, videlicet circa custodiam et eius consequentia vel annexa.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis circa duo incidit hic dubitatio.

Primo circa Angelorum custodiam. Secundo circa eius annexa.

Quantum ad primum quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur, utrum Angeli deputari debuerint ad custodiam hominis lapsi. Secundo, utrum, si homo stetisset, deputati fuissent ad custodiam hominis instituti. Tertio, utrum aliquis Angelus deputatus sit ad custodiam Christi.

---

english:
### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION XI.

#### *On the ministry of the Angels with respect to men.*

*This too must be known, that the good Angels* etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above, the Master determined concerning the ministry of the Angels as regards the ministering Angels themselves. In this part he determines concerning the ministry of the Angels by comparison to the man to whom they minister. And since every office or ministry that is praiseworthy and good ought to have its reward, this part therefore has two [sections]. In the first he determines in what manner the Angels, by ministering to men, guard them. In the second he asks whether the Angels, by the very act of ministering, advance in merit or in reward; and that second part begins there: *Furthermore, this too must be considered* etc.

The first part has two [subsections]. In the first he shows that the Angels are deputed to the guardianship of men[^1]. In the second he asks and determines whether each individual [Angel] is deputed to the guardianship of each individual [man], there: *But it is wont to be asked, whether each individual* etc.

Likewise the second principal part has two [subsections] according to two opinions, according to which he determines the proposed question in two ways. In the first he sets down the first opinion, which begins there: *Furthermore, this too must be considered* etc. In the second [he sets down] the second [opinion], there: *But others say that the Angels in [their] confirmation* etc. The subdivisions of the parts and the meaning of the Master are evident in the text. For the whole intention of the distinction turns about two matters: namely, about guardianship and about the things consequent upon or annexed to it.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part a doubt arises here concerning two matters.

First, concerning the guardianship of the Angels. Secondly, concerning the things annexed to it.

As regards the first, three [questions] are asked. First it is asked whether the Angels ought to have been deputed to the guardianship of fallen man. Secondly, whether, if man had stood [in his integrity], they would have been deputed to the guardianship of man as instituted [in original justice]. Thirdly, whether any Angel was deputed to the guardianship of Christ.

---

la: Vat. cum aliquibus codd. *quod boni Angeli deputantur ad custodiam et mali ad exercitium hominum.*

en: The Vatican edition together with some codices [reads]: *that the good Angels are deputed to the guardianship and the evil [Angels] to the testing of men.* ---

translators_notes:
- Single printed page (p.276 = PDF 298). Two-column COMMENTARIUS + DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.
- Apparatus: p.276 left footer band holds notes ¹–² (¹ ending in `deputantur` continued atop the right footer band; ² *Cfr. infra d. 25. p. II. q. 4. seq. — Quod Deus nihil facit frustra, dicit Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 32. (c. 4.).*), right footer band holds the tail of ² and note ³ (*Luc. 22, 27.*). This divisio chunk carries only note ¹ (anchored at *custodiam hominum* in the DIVISIO TEXTUS); footer notes ²–³ anchor the opening of `d11-a1-q1` (at *violentari²* and *qui ministrat³*) and are reserved for that chunk.
- **Incoming boundary CLEAN** — the prior chunk (`d11-littera`, p.273–p.276 top) ends with its last apparatus block of the Lombard text on p.276; the COMMENTARIUS header opens immediately below the running rule on the same printed page. No shared body sentence and no apparatus splice at the seam.
- **Outgoing boundary CLEAN** — the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM closes p.276 mid-column at *custodiam Christi*; `ARTICULUS I. — Circa Angelorum custodiam. — QUAESTIO I. — Utrum Angeli debuerint deputari ad custodiam hominis lapsi.` and *Circa primum sic proceditur* open immediately below and belong to `bon-sent-II-d11-a1-q1` (locked Vol II convention — the short article opener folds into q1). Page-276 footer notes ²–³ are reserved for that chunk per the cross-chunk page-footer split discipline.
- OCR garbles cleaned silently: `delerminavit`→determinavit, `niinislrantes`→ministrantes, `honum debel haljere`→bonum debet habere, `quaiiter`→qualiter, `qnaerit`→quaerit, `proflciant`→proficiant, `Praelerea`→Praeterea, `oslendit`→ostendit, `liominum`→hominum, `ntrum`→utrum, `secimda`→secunda, `aiUem`→autem, `dislinctionis`→distinctionis, `honio`→homo, `ntrnm`→utrum, `cusloiliain Chrisli`→custodiam Christi, `quaeritnr`→quaeritur.
- No `[?]` flags.

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. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 276 -->

### ARTICULUS I.

#### *Circa Angelorum custodiam.*

### QUAESTIO I.

#### *Utrum Angeli debuerint deputari ad custodiam hominis lapsi.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod Angeli non debuerunt deputari ad custodiam hominis.

1. *Ad oppositum.* Et primo ostenditur ratione sumta ex parte hominis sic. Cui nulla potest fieri violentia, nulla indiget custodia; sed liberum arbitrium humanum ad peccatum non potest violentari[^1]: ergo non indiget ab Angelo custodiri: frustra ergo sunt Angeli ad eius custodiam deputati. Sed «Deus nihil facit frustra»: ergo etc.

2. Item, quanto aliquis paucioribus auxiliis extrinsecis triumphat de adversario, tanto gloriosior est victoria: ergo gloriosius esset homini vincere diabolum per se ipsum quam per angelicum suffragium: ergo carentia angelici praesidii auget gloriam. Igitur ab oppositis, custodia angelica minuit nostram gloriam; sed Deus nihil debet facere, quod sit nostrae gloriae detrimentum: ergo etc.

<!-- page 277 -->

3. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur rationibus sumtis a parte Angeli. *Maior est qui recumbit, quam qui ministrat*[^2]: ergo si Angelus, qui custodit hominem, ei ministrat, homo viator est maior Angelo beato; quodsi hoc falsum est: ergo Angelus non ministrat homini: ergo Angelus non custodit hominem, aut in custodia pervertitur ordo.

4. Item, si Angelus custodit hominem, aut hoc habet *a natura*, aut *a gratia*. Si *a natura*; cum eadem sit natura in bonis et in malis, videtur, quod mali sint custodes hominum. Si *a gratia*; ergo cum una anima excedat aliam in gratia, videtur, quod una anima debeat ad custodiam alterius deputari.

5. Item, hoc ostenditur *a parte ipsius Dei*. Deus enim custos perfectus est, secundum quod legitur in Psalmo[^3]: *Ecce non dormitabit neque dormiet* etc.: ergo si sufficiens est divina custodia, videtur, quod superfluat angelica; aut si angelica est necessaria, videtur divina custodia esse diminuta.

6. Item, custodia est ad conservandum in bonum[^4]; sed non minus est conservare in bono quam liberare a malo; nam «Non minor est virtus quam quaerere, parta tueri.» Si ergo non decuit, hominem liberari nec erui de potestate diaboli nisi per Deum, videtur, quod non debeat custodiri; aut honor divinus transfertur in Angelum.

**Sed contra:** 1. *Fundamenta.* Isaiae sexagesimo secundo[^5]: *Super muros tuos Ierusalem* etc., Glossa: «Muri sunt Apostoli, custodes sunt Angeli». — Item, Ecclesiastici decimo septimo[^6]: *In unamquamque gentem praeposuit rectorem*, Glossa: «Id est Angelos». — Item, Matthaei decimo octavo[^7]: *Angeli eorum semper vident faciem Patris mei*, Glossa: «Non sunt contemnendi, ad quorum custodiam mittuntur Angeli». — Ex his auctoritatibus colligitur, quod Angeli deputati sunt ad custodiam hominum.

2. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur ratione. Ordo universi hoc exigit, ut omne malum habeat bonum sibi oppositum; quod confirmatur per illud quod dicitur Ecclesiastici trigesimo tertio[^8]: *Contra malum bonum*. Si ergo tentamur per angelos malos, videtur, quod defendi debeamus per bonos.

3. Item, lex universitatis hoc exigit, ut media reducantur per prima, et postrema per media ad suum primum principium; et hoc confirmatur per illud quod dicit Dionysius in libro de Angelica Hierarchia[^9]: «Lex divinitatis est in nullo negligere ordinem, sed per prima media, et per media postrema reducere»: ergo si Angelus beatus superior est homine viatore, videtur, quod homo mediante auxilio Angeli ad beatitudinem debeat pervenire; auxilium autem illud maxime est in custodiendo: ergo etc.

4. Item, lex pietatis hoc exigit, ut sustentetur indigens a potente: si ergo homo viator fragilis est et indigens sustentante et custodiente, et Angelus beatus fortis est et potens, videtur, quod homo committi debeat angelicae custodiae.

### CONCLUSIO.

> Homini lapso deputari Angelum custodem, decet Dei potentiam, sapientiam et misericordiam.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod conveniens est, hominem lapsum deputari angelicae custodiae, et Angelum deputari ad custodiendum hominem, tum quia decet altitudinem divinae potentiae, tum quia decet ordinem sapientiae, tum etiam quia decet dulcedinem misericordiae.

*Altitudinem* namque decet divinae *potentiae*, *Ratio prima a parte potentiae.* duplici ex causa. Una est, quia Deus non solummodo vult honorari in se, sed etiam in suis servis. Unde non sufficit altitudini divinae *potentiae*, quod Angeli ministrent sibi, sed etiam ad ostensionem excellentis suae potentiae hoc ab eis exigit, ut ministrent etiam creaturae suae[^10]. — Alia est etiam ratio, quia cum Deus habeat diabolum et eius daemones adversarios, magis decens est, quod ipse eos vincat per suos ministros, ut per hoc ostendatur potentia manus Dei, qua non solum potens est in se, sed etiam in servis suis, et ut non indebite possit *Dominus exercituum* appellari[^11].

*Ordinem* vero *sapientiae* similiter decet. *Ratio secunda a parte sapientiae.* Nam hic est ordo, quem divina lex in suis operibus exsequitur et conservat, ut postrema per media deducat ad summa[^12]. Quoniam igitur Angelus tum ratione immortalis naturae, tum etiam ratione gratiae consummatae medium tenet inter Deum et hominem lapsum; decens fuit, ut Deus hominem adiuvaret et custodiret per Angelum.

*Dulcedinem* etiam decet divinae *misericordiae*, *Ratio a parte misericordiae.* quae aperuit sinum ad hominem lapsum nec in aliquo ei deficit, quod spectet ad salutis suae promotionem. Et ideo, cum homo lapsus esset venumdatus, ut faceret *malum*[^13], ei ministravit pretium sanguinis Filii sui, per quod est redemptus, ut faciat *bonum*[^14].

<!-- page 278 -->

Et quia habet adversarium impugnantem, dedit ei ministrum custodientem vel custodem auxiliantem, ut sic ex nulla parte miseria remaneret humana sine divinae misericordiae subsidio et beneficio.

Competebat igitur, homini lapso dari ex hac triplici ratione angelicam custodiam. Sunt et aliae rationes, quae in obiiciendo tactae sunt. Rationes igitur ad hanc partem inductae concedendae sunt.

1. *Solutio oppositorum.* Ad illud quod obiicitur primo, quod homini non potest fieri violentia; dicendum, quod etsi non possit fieri violentia, quantum est ex parte liberi arbitrii, posset tamen fieri, quantum est ex parte sui corporis[^15]. Et iterum, quamvis angelus non possit sufficienter liberum arbitrium violentare, tamen nisi haberet contrariam potestatem arcentem, adeo posset inducere et circumvenire, quod valde pauci essent, quos non deiiceret; et ideo pernecessaria est custodia angelica, quae comprimat potestatem diabolicam.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod carentia angelici praesidii auget gloriam et triumphum; dicendum, quod verum esset, si ita bene triumpharet homo absque Angelo, sicut cum adiutorio angelico. Nunc autem non est ita. Si enim ei deesset angelicum subsidium, multo frequentius vinceretur, quam vinceret; et multo melius est cum angelico praesidio vincere, quam sine praesidio perdere. Et iterum, praesidium Angeli non excludit libertatem arbitrii nec minuit dignitatem gratiae Dei, et ideo nihil minuit[^16] de substantia meriti vel praemii vel de nobilitate triumphi, quantum ad id quod est substantiale.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non convenit ex parte Angeli, quia *maior est qui recumbit, quam qui ministrat*; dicendum, quod verum est, quando minister recumbenti ministrat propter se ipsum, sicut servus regis ministrat regi propter eius dignitatem et imperium; sed non habet veritatem, quando aliquis ministrat alicui, habendo respectum ad alium, sicut aliquando aliquis magnus miles deservit non tantum regi, sed etiam toti familiae, nec aliquem abiicit nec despicit, ut ei non ministret propter vilitatem personae[^17]; non enim considerat, quis est, sed cuius servus est. Sic et in proposito intelligendum est se habere. Angelus enim homini non propter se ministrat, sed propter Deum, cuius gerit imaginem. — *Alia solutio.* Vel aliter dici potest, quod verbum illud intelligitur de ministerio subiectionis, non praesidentiae; custodire autem hominem, etsi ministerium dicat, magis tamen importat, Angelum praesidere homini quam esse subiectum.

4. Ad illud quod quaeritur, utrum habeat a gratia, vel a natura; dicendum, quod ab utroque habet. Quia enim de natura sua fortior est homine et potentior, et similiter in gratia est excellentior et stabilior, adeo ut plus excedat hominem, quam excedat paedagogus parvulum; ideo convenit Angelo et ex natura et gratia, ut homo committatur eius custodiae et tutelae[^18].

5. *Notandum.* Ad illud quod obiicitur ex parte Dei, quod Dominus est custos perfectus; dicendum, quod perfectio divinae custodiae non excludit utilitatem angelicae. Sicut enim Deus operatur in omnibus rebus, et tamen eius operatio operationes creaturarum non excludit, sed conservat et adiuvat; nec tamen eius operatio est imperfecta, nec operatio creaturae superflua[^19]: sic intelligendum est de custodia. Sicut enim Deus propter suae bonitatis manifestationem et ordinis sapientiae ostensionem creaturis communicavit posse operari et in alias creaturas effectum suum imprimere, ipso tamen non deserente, sed cooperante; sic dedit Angelis posse hominem custodire, cum tamen a servorum suorum custodia ipse nunquam desistat, quia tale *posse* competebat angelicae naturae et gratiae. Et una istarum custodiarum alteri non praeiudicat, immo divina facit ad angelicae custodiae perfectionem, angelica vero ad perfectionis divinae custodiae manifestationem.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Deus per se ipsum debuit redimere, ergo per se ipsum debuit custodire; dicendum, quod non est simile. Redimere enim aeque magnum est sicut condere; et ideo sicut nullus debuit esse conditor nisi solus Deus, sic nullus alius debuit esse redemptor; custodire autem dicit aliquem effectum *beneficentiae*, qui magis est exterius quam interius, et ideo non est tantus. — Nec valet illud quod obiicitur[^20], quod non minor est virtus tueri bona quam acquirere; dicendum enim, quod illud tunc verum est, quando conservatio et acquisitio est in potestate eiusdem virtutis.

### SCHOLION

<!-- page 279 -->

**I.** Ex s. Scriptura (praesertim Hebr. 1, 14. et Matth. 18, 10.) et ex manifesto magisterio Ecclesiae constat, Angelos deputari in custodiam hominum. Haec autem custodia plura comprehendit quam tres actus hierarchicos, de quibus supra d. 10. a. 2. q. 1. 2. actum est (cfr. hic q. 2.). Quare Deus hanc custodiam Angelorum ordinaverit, optimis rationibus congruentiae hic explicatur. — Quando incipiat haec custodia, exponitur hic dub. 1, scil. a nativitate in utero sive ab instante infusionis animae. Consentiunt Alex. Hal. (loc. cit. m. 4. a. 3.), Petr. a Tar. (hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2.) et S. Thom. (hic q. 1. a. 3.), qui tamen in Summa (I. q. 113. a. 5. ad 3.) docet, probabiliter dici posse, Angelum matris custodire prolem in matris utero existentem.

**II.** De seq. huius articuli quaestione explicite agunt solummodo Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 41. m. 4. a. 1; B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. p. II. tr. 9. q. 36. m. 4.; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1., et Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 2. ad 1. — Quae ibi dicuntur de fine et effectibus angelicae custodiae magis determinantur infra a. 2. q. 1, ubi duodecim effectus ex s. Scriptura recensentur, quae ibid. q. 3. ad quatuor principales effectus reducuntur. — In solut. ad 2. docetur, talem custodiam non esse admittendam respectu unius Angeli ad alium, de quo explicite agit Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 3.

**III.** De 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 1. 2. — Scol., hic q. unica; Report. hic q. 1. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. et 3; S. I. q. 113. a. 1. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. 2; Sum. loc. cit. m. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 1. 2. — Durand., hic q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. — Biel, de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.

---

english:
### ARTICLE I.

#### *Concerning the guardianship of the Angels.*

### QUESTION I.

#### *Whether the Angels ought to have been deputed to the guardianship of fallen man.*

Concerning the first, the procedure runs thus, and it is shown that the Angels ought not to have been deputed to the guardianship of man.

1. *Ad oppositum.* And first it is shown by an argument taken from the side of man, thus. To whom no violence can be done, no one needs guardianship; but the free choice of the human will cannot be violently coerced[^1] into sin: therefore it does not need to be guarded by an Angel: in vain therefore are the Angels deputed to its guardianship. But «God does nothing in vain»: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the fewer the extrinsic helps by which one triumphs over an adversary, the more glorious the victory: therefore it would be more glorious for man to vanquish the devil by himself than by angelic support: therefore the absence of angelic guardianship augments glory. Therefore conversely, angelic guardianship diminishes our glory; but God ought to do nothing that is to the detriment of our glory: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the same is shown by reasons taken from the side of the Angel. *He is greater who reclines than he who serves*[^2]: therefore if the Angel who guards a man serves him, the wayfaring man is greater than the blessed Angel; and if this is false, then either the Angel does not serve man, and so does not guard him, or the order is inverted in the guardianship.

4. Likewise, if an Angel guards man, he has this either *from nature* or *from grace*. If *from nature*: since the nature is the same in the good and the evil [Angels], it seems that the evil [Angels] would be guardians of men. If *from grace*: then since one soul exceeds another in grace, it seems that one soul ought to be deputed to the guardianship of another.

5. Likewise, this is shown *from the side of God himself*. For God is a perfect guardian, according to what is read in the Psalm[^3]: *Behold, he shall not slumber nor sleep* etc.: therefore if the divine guardianship is sufficient, it seems that the angelic is superfluous; or if the angelic is necessary, the divine guardianship seems to be diminished.

6. Likewise, guardianship is for preserving in the good[^4]; but it is no less to preserve in the good than to deliver from evil; for «No less is the virtue to keep what is won, than to seek it.» If therefore it was not fitting that man should be delivered, nor be drawn out of the power of the devil, except by God, it seems that he ought not to be guarded; otherwise divine honour is transferred to an Angel.

**On the contrary:** 1. *Fundamenta.* Isaiah sixty-two[^5]: *Upon thy walls, O Jerusalem* etc., the Gloss: «The walls are the Apostles, the guardians are the Angels». — Likewise, Ecclesiasticus seventeen[^6]: *Over every nation he set a ruler*, the Gloss: «That is, the Angels». — Likewise, Matthew eighteen[^7]: *Their Angels always see the face of my Father*, the Gloss: «They are not to be despised, to whose guardianship Angels are sent». — From these authorities it is gathered that the Angels have been deputed to the guardianship of men.

2. Likewise, the same is shown by reason. The order of the universe requires that every evil have a good opposed to it; which is confirmed by what is said in Ecclesiasticus thirty-three[^8]: *Against evil, good*. If therefore we are tempted by evil angels, it seems that we ought to be defended by good [angels].

3. Likewise, the law of the universe requires that the middle things be brought back through the first, and the last through the middle to their first principle; and this is confirmed by what Dionysius says in the book on the Angelic Hierarchy[^9]: «The law of divinity is to neglect order in nothing, but to bring back the middle through the first, and the last through the middle»: therefore if a blessed Angel is superior to the wayfaring man, it seems that man ought to arrive at beatitude with the mediating help of an Angel; and that help is greatest in [the work of] guarding: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the law of piety requires that the needy be supported by the powerful: if therefore wayfaring man is fragile and needs one to sustain and guard him, and the blessed Angel is strong and powerful, it seems that man ought to be committed to angelic guardianship.

### CONCLUSION.

> That a guardian Angel be deputed to fallen man befits God's power, wisdom, and mercy.

**I respond:** It must be said that it is fitting that fallen man be deputed to angelic guardianship, and that an Angel be deputed to guard man — first because it befits the loftiness of the divine *power*; secondly because it befits the order of *wisdom*; thirdly also because it befits the sweetness of *mercy*.

For it befits the *loftiness* of the divine *power*, *first reason from the side of power,* for a twofold cause. The one is that God wills to be honoured not only in himself but also in his servants. Hence it does not suffice to the loftiness of the divine *power* that Angels minister to him, but he requires of them also, for the manifestation of his surpassing power, that they minister also to his creature[^10]. — The other reason is that, since God has the devil and his demons as adversaries, it is more fitting that he conquer them through his ministers, so that through this the power of the hand of God may be shown — by which he is mighty not only in himself but also in his servants — and so that he may not undeservedly be called *Lord of hosts*[^11].

It befits the *order* of *wisdom* likewise. *Second reason from the side of wisdom.* For this is the order which the divine law in its works pursues and preserves, that it lead the lowest through the middle to the highest[^12]. Since therefore the Angel — both by reason of his immortal nature and by reason of consummate grace — holds the middle between God and fallen man, it was fitting that God should help and guard man through an Angel.

It also befits the *sweetness* of the divine *mercy*, *Reason from the side of mercy,* which has opened her bosom to fallen man and fails him in nothing that pertains to the advancement of his salvation. And therefore, since fallen man had been sold to do *evil*[^13], she ministered to him the price of the blood of her Son, by which he is redeemed, that he might do *good*[^14].

And because he has an adversary attacking him, she has given him a minister to guard him — or a guardian to help him — so that in no part should human misery remain without the assistance and benefit of divine mercy.

It was fitting therefore that angelic guardianship be given to fallen man from this threefold reason. There are also other reasons, which have been touched on in the objections. The reasons therefore brought forward on this side are to be granted.

1. *Solution of the objections.* To what is objected first, that no violence can be done to man; it must be said that, even though no violence can be done as regards free choice, it could still be done as regards his body[^15]. And again, although an angel cannot sufficiently coerce free choice, yet unless he had a contrary power to restrain [the devil], he could so induce and circumvent that very few would there be whom he would not cast down; and therefore angelic guardianship — which represses the diabolical power — is utterly necessary.

2. To what is objected, that the absence of angelic support augments glory and triumph; it must be said that this would be true if man triumphed as well without an Angel as with angelic help. But now it is not so. For if angelic assistance were lacking to him, he would be conquered far more often than he conquered; and it is much better to conquer with angelic guardianship than to perish without guardianship. And again, the guardianship of the Angel does not exclude the freedom of choice nor diminish the dignity of the grace of God, and therefore it diminishes nothing[^16] of the substance of merit or of reward or of the nobility of triumph, as regards what is substantial.

3. To what is objected, that it does not befit the side of the Angel, since *he is greater who reclines than he who serves*; it must be said that this is true when the minister serves the one reclining on the latter's own account — as a servant of the king serves the king for the sake of the king's own dignity and rule; but it does not hold when someone serves another with respect to a third, as when sometimes a great soldier renders service not only to the king but also to the whole household, nor does he reject or despise anyone, refusing to serve him on account of the lowliness of the person[^17]; for he considers not who the person is, but whose servant he is. So is it to be understood in the matter at hand. For the Angel does not serve man on man's own account, but on God's account, whose image man bears. — *Another solution.* Or it may be put otherwise: that the word is to be understood of the ministry of subjection, not of presidency; and to guard a man, although it is spoken of as a ministry, more truly implies that the Angel presides over the man than that he is subject to him.

4. To what is asked, whether he has it from grace or from nature; it must be said that he has it from both. For since from his nature he is stronger than man and more powerful, and likewise in grace he is more excellent and more stable — to such a degree that he exceeds man more than a tutor exceeds a small child — therefore it belongs to the Angel both from nature and from grace that man be committed to his guardianship and tutelage[^18].

5. *Note.* To what is objected from the side of God, that the Lord is a perfect guardian; it must be said that the perfection of the divine guardianship does not exclude the usefulness of the angelic. For just as God works in all things, and yet his operation does not exclude the operations of creatures but preserves and aids them — yet neither is his operation imperfect, nor is the creature's operation superfluous[^19] — so is it to be understood of guardianship. For just as God, for the manifestation of his goodness and for the showing forth of the order of wisdom, communicated to creatures the power to operate and to imprint their own effect upon other creatures (yet he himself not abandoning [them] but cooperating with [them]), so he has given to the Angels the power to guard man — although he himself never desists from the guardianship of his servants — because such *power* belonged to the angelic nature and grace. And the one of these guardianships does not prejudice the other, but rather the divine [guardianship] contributes to the perfection of the angelic, and the angelic to the manifestation of the perfection of the divine guardianship.

6. To what is objected, that God ought to have redeemed by himself, therefore he ought to guard by himself; it must be said that the cases are not alike. For to redeem is as great a thing as to create; and therefore, just as none ought to have been creator save God alone, so no other ought to have been redeemer; but to guard speaks of some effect of *beneficence*, which is more outward than inward, and therefore is not so great. — Nor does the objection avail[^20] that no less is the virtue to safeguard goods than to acquire them; for it must be said that this is true only when preservation and acquisition are in the power of the same virtue.

### SCHOLION

**I.** From Sacred Scripture (especially Heb. 1:14 and Matt. 18:10) and from the manifest magisterium of the Church, it is clear that Angels are deputed to the guardianship of men. This guardianship comprehends more than the three hierarchical acts treated above at d. 10, a. 2, qq. 1–2 (cf. here, q. 2). Why God has ordained this guardianship of the Angels is here explained with optimal reasons of fittingness. — When this guardianship begins is set forth here in dub. 1: namely, from birth in the womb, or from the very instant of the infusion of the soul. So consent Alexander of Hales (loc. cit., m. 4, a. 3), Peter of Tarentaise (here, q. 1, a. 3, quaestiuncula 2), and St. Thomas (here, q. 1, a. 3) — who however in the *Summa* (I, q. 113, a. 5, ad 3) teaches that it can probably be said that the mother's Angel guards the offspring existing in the mother's womb.

**II.** Concerning the following question of this article, explicitly only the following treat: Alexander of Hales, *S.* p. II, q. 41, m. 4, a. 1; Bl. Albert, here a. 6; *S.* p. II, tr. 9, q. 36, m. 4; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 3, quaestiuncula 1; and Aegidius Romanus, here q. 1, a. 2, ad 1. — What is said there about the end and effects of angelic guardianship is more fully determined below at a. 2, q. 1, where twelve effects from Sacred Scripture are recounted, which there at q. 3 are reduced to four principal effects. — In the solution ad 2 it is taught that such guardianship is not to be admitted with respect to one Angel toward another — on which Alexander of Hales explicitly treats, loc. cit., m. 3.

**III.** On the first question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit., m. 1–2. — Scotus, here q. unica; *Reportatio* here q. 1. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, aa. 1 and 3; *Summa* I, q. 113, aa. 1–2. — Bl. Albert, here aa. 1–2; *Summa* loc. cit., m. 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, aa. 1–2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 1, aa. 1–2. — Durand, here q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1. — Biel, on this and the following questions, here q. unica.

---

la: Cfr. infra d. 25. p. II. q. 4. seq. — *Quod Deus nihil facit frustra*, dicit Aristot., I. *de Caelo et mundo*, text. 32. (c. 4.).

en: Cf. below d. 25, p. II, q. 4 and following. — That *God does nothing in vain*, Aristotle says, *On the Heavens and the World* I, text 32 (c. 4).

en: Psalm 120:4 (Vulgate).

la: Ita codd. et edd. Post versum in cod. T bene additur *Ovidius*, qui dicit; versum habet II. *Artis amatoriae*, v. 13. — Paulo inferius post *custodiri* in codd. A (Q a secunda manu) additur *nisi per Deum*, in Vat. *per Angelum.*

en: Thus the codices and editions. After the [Latin] verse codex T rightly adds *Ovidius, qui dicit* ("Ovid, who says"); the verse is found in *Ars amatoria* II, v. 13. — A little below, after *custodiri*, codices A (and Q by a second hand) add *nisi per Deum* ("save by God"); the Vatican edition has *per Angelum* ("by an Angel").

la: Vers. 6. — Glossa est secundum Hieronymum in hunc locum, quam vide apud Lyranum.

en: Verse 6. — The Gloss is according to Jerome on this passage; see it in Lyra.

la: Vers. 14. — Glossam refert Rabanus et Lyranus in hunc locum, quoad sensum.

en: Verse 14. — Rabanus and Lyra report the Gloss on this passage, as to the sense.

la: Vers. 10. — Glossa est secundum Hilarium super hunc locum.

en: Verse 10. — The Gloss is according to Hilary on this passage.

la: Vers. 15.

en: Verse 15.

la: Cap. 4. § 3: *Docet autem et hoc sapienter theologia, per Angelos eam* [legislationem] *in nos provenire, tanquam divino legali ordine illud legaliter ponente,* hoc est, *per prima secunda in divinum reduci.* Cfr. ibid. c. 8. § 2. — In principio arg. Vat. *Item lex divinitatis hoc.*

en: Cap. 4, § 3: «Theology wisely teaches also this, that this [legislation] comes to us through the Angels, as the divine legal order legally so ordaining — that is to say, that through the first, the second things are brought back to the divine.» Cf. ibid. c. 8, § 2. — At the beginning of the argument, the Vatican edition reads *Item lex divinitatis hoc.*

la: Cfr. August., V. *de Gen. ad lit.* c. 19. n. 37. seqq.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On the Literal Meaning of Genesis* V, c. 19, n. 37ff.

en: I *Reg.* (= I Samuel) 1:3 and 1:11; Isaiah 1:24; Jeremiah 2:19.

la: In cod. 1 additur *ut dicit Dionysius.*

en: In codex 1 there is added *ut dicit Dionysius* ("as Dionysius says").

la: Ita de Achab dicitur III. *Reg.* 21, 25.

en: Thus it is said of Ahab, III *Reg.* (= I Kings) 21:25.

la: Cod. A subiungit: *Primae Petri primo* (v. 18.): *Non corruptibilibus auro vel argento redempti estis de vana* etc. In fine arg. plures codd. *et beneficentia* pro *et beneficio*, et dein cod. cc cum ed. 1 *habere* pro *dari.*

en: Codex A subjoins: «I Peter, chapter 1 (v. 18): *Not with corruptible things, as gold or silver, are you redeemed from your vain* etc.» At the end of the argument, several codices read *et beneficentia* for *et beneficio*, and then codex cc with edition 1 reads *habere* for *dari.*

la: Ita codd. E K; in aliis omittitur *corporis*. Nostra lectio confirmatur infra q. 3. Paulo inferius post *violentare* in codd. et edd., excepta Vat., incongrue deest *tamen.*

en: Thus codices E and K; in others *corporis* is omitted. Our reading is confirmed below at q. 3. A little below, after *violentare*, *tamen* is incongruously absent in the codices and editions, except the Vatican.

la: Vat. omittit *dignitatem gratiae Dei, et ideo nihil minuit.*

en: The Vatican edition omits *dignitatem gratiae Dei, et ideo nihil minuit* («the dignity of the grace of God, and therefore diminishes nothing»).

la: Ita codd. F I cc ee et ed. 1; alii cum Vat. *utilitatem personae.*

en: Thus codices F, I, cc, ee and edition 1; others, with the Vatican, read *utilitatem personae* («the usefulness of the person») [for *vilitatem personae*].

la: Eodem modo hanc incidentem quaestionem resolvit Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 41. m. 2.

en: Alexander of Hales resolves this incidental question in the same way, *S.* p. II, q. 41, m. 2.

la: Non pauci codd. *ostendit*, cod. ee *ostenditur.*

en: Quite a few codices read *ostendit* («it is shown»); codex ee reads *ostenditur* («it is being shown»). ---

translators_notes:
- Four printed pages (pp.276–279 = PDF 298–301). Cascade-light four-page two-column quaestio; OCR base was largely readable, PDF crops used for footer apparatus verification (digit-mangle resolutions and column-band reflow of marker positions).
- **Incoming boundary CLEAN** — extended `line_start` from 19662 → 19658 to absorb `ARTICULUS I.` + *Circa Angelorum custodiam.* subtitle + `QUAESTIO I.` opener that the auto-chunker had left orphaned in the skeleton gap (lines 19658–19661 between `d11-divisio` line_end 19657 and the old a1-q1 line_start 19662). Same gesture as `d11-divisio`'s `line_start` raise (19633 → 19629) for the COMMENTARIUS opener.
- **Outgoing boundary CLEAN** — chunk ends mid-bibliographic-paragraph at *Biel, de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.* (raw line 19835); `bon-sent-II-d11-a1-q2` opens on the same printed page (p.279) at `QUAESTIO II. — Utrum competens fuerit, Angelum deputari ad custodiam hominis conditi.` (raw line 19836). Page-279 footer notes ¹–³ anchor a1-q2's opening body (*Vide infra d. XXIV. lit. Magistri, c. 2. et XXV. c. 6.* etc.) and are reserved for that chunk per the cross-chunk page-footer split discipline.
- **Apparatus crosswalk:** chunk `[^1]`–`[^2]` = p.276 footers ²–³; `[^3]`–`[^14]` = p.277 footers ¹–¹²; `[^15]`–`[^20]` = p.278 footers ¹–⁶. The p.276 footer ¹ (the *Vat. cum aliquibus codd. quod boni Angeli deputantur ad custodiam et mali ad exercitium hominum* gloss anchored at *custodiam hominum* in the DIVISIO TEXTUS) is carried by `d11-divisio`'s `[^1]`. The SCHOLION (I–III on pp.278 bottom / 279 top) carries no apparatus markers per Quaracchi convention for this chunk.
- **Marginal labels preserved inline in italics per Vol II convention:** *Ad oppositum.* (arg 1), *Fundamenta.* (Sed contra opener), *Ratio prima a parte potentiae.* / *Ratio secunda a parte sapientiae.* / *Ratio a parte misericordiae.* (within Respondeo, anchoring the three causa decentia), *Solutio oppositorum.* (Ad 1), *Alia solutio.* (Ad 3 second), *Notandum.* (Ad 5). None promoted to headings.
- **Footer-citation OCR resolution:** raw OCR rendered p.276 footer ² as *d. 23* (digit-mangle); 450 dpi PDF crop confirms *d. 25* (Cfr. infra d. **25**. p. II. q. 4. seq.). Adopted PDF reading. Likewise p.278 footer ⁵ raw *4. Sent. d. ib.* resolved against PDF to *I. Sent. d. 45.* — adopted PDF reading.
- OCR garbles cleaned silently (sample): `oslenditur`→ostenditur, `oslendit`→ostendit, `Ulrum`→Utrum, `nuUa`→nulla, `prinmm`→primum, `meliuni`→malum (cf. Achab variant in apparatus [^13]), `liberum arbitrium humanum`, `ininislrans`→ministrans, `creai-uras`→creaturas, `cusioiliam Chrisli` (already handled in divisio).
- No `[?]` flags.


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

source_text:
<!-- page 279 -->

### QUAESTIO II.

### *Utrum competens fuerit, Angelum deputari ad custodiam hominis conditi ante lapsum.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum competens fuerit, Angelum deputari ad custodiam hominis *conditi*. Et quod non, videtur.

*Ad oppositum.* 1. Angelus deputatur ad custodiam hominis propter supplendos eius defectus; sed in homine secundum statum naturae institutae nulli erant defectus[^1]: ergo ad eius custodiam non debebat deputari aliquis Angelus.

2. Item, homo secundum statum naturae institutae non erat magis pronus ad malum, quam unus Angelus in suis naturalibus constitutus: ergo si Angelus conditus nullius custodiae est commissus nisi soli divinae, videtur similiter, quod nec homo in statu innocentiae constitutus.

3. Item, custodia dicit quandam praesidentiam in custodiente respectu custoditi; sed anima humana solus Deus maior est, nisi depravetur per culpam[^2]: ergo si homo in statu innocentiae nulla culpa erat depravatus, non debuit ei per officium custodiae praesidere aliquis Angelus.

4. Item, si ad custodiam hominis instituti deputatur angelicus spiritus: ergo cum virtus hominis sit modo per peccatum multipliciter deiecta, videtur, quod uni homini non sufficiat unius Angeli custodia: ergo si nunc uni homini lapso sufficit unus, videtur, quod tunc non indigebat custodia alicuius.

**Contra:** *Fundamenta.* 1. Super illud Matthaei decimo octavo[^3]: *Angeli eorum* etc., Glossa Hieronymi: «Magna dignitas est animarum, ut unaquaeque ab ortu nativitatis suae habeat ad sui custodiam Angelum deputatum». Si ergo deputatio custodiae angelicae pertinet ad dignitatem animae, cum anima secundum statum naturae institutae dignior esset quam secundum statum naturae lapsae: videtur, quodsi nunc habet Angelum ad sui custodiam deputatum, quod multo magis tunc.

2. Item, pronior est Deus ad miserendum quam ad condemnandum: ergo si homo in statu naturae institutae habuit angelum malum tentantem[^4], multo fortius divina misericordia debuit sibi dare Angelum custodientem.

3. Item, Angeli deputati sunt nobis custodes, ut per eorum operationem retrahamur a malo; sed homo in statu innocentiae indigebat a malo retrahi, cum posset peccare: ergo debebat ab Angelo custodiri.

4. Item, homo viator committitur angelicae custodiae, ut per sustentationem et auxilium angelicum et per subsidium eius operationis possit de bono in melius ascendere; sed homo in statu innocentiae proficere poterat: ergo videtur, quod ad ipsius custodiam Angelus deputari debebat[^5].

### CONCLUSIO.

> Homini non modo in statu naturae lapsae, sed etiam institutae dari angelicam custodiam, conveniens erat.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod etsi Angelus deputatur ad custodiam hominis, ut in multis prosit ei et subveniat, specialiter tamen ad hoc deputatur, *Finis principalis custodiae angelicae.* ut ab invisibili adversario defendat. Quia enim homo non habet *colluctationem adversus carnem et sanguinem, sed adversus mundi rectores et adversus spiritualia nequitiae in caelestibus*[^6], qui sunt hostes invisibiles; debet per oppositum habere invisibiles adiutores ad sui ipsius defensionem. Et quia adversarius undique nos impugnat — nam *rationem* seducit per astutias, *voluntatem* allicit per blanditias, *virtutes* opprimit per violentiam — ideo bonus Angelus specialiter ad hoc nobis datur, ut hominem *defendat* ab oppressione contra violentiam, ut hominem *erudiat* et dirigat contra fallaciam, ut hominem *exhortetur* et incitet ad bonum contra blanditias. — Quia igitur adversarius noster diabolus etiam homine instituto erat fortior et astutior et in proposito malitiae pertinacior; ideo competebat, homini dari angelicam custodiam, quae comprimeret potestatem adversariam non solum secundum statum naturae lapsae, sed etiam institutae; licet magis nunc, quam tunc indigeret. Unde concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc inductae.

<!-- page 280 -->

*Solutio oppositorum.* 1. Ad illud vero quod primo obiicitur, quod Angelus datur homini ad custodiam propter supplendos defectus; dicendum, quod illa non est tota causa, nisi large vocetur *suppletio defectus*, sive quantum ad defectum, qui *inest*, sive etiam quantum ad defectum, qui *potest inesse*, ut non insit. Et licet in primo homine non esset *defectus actualis*, erat tamen in eo *defectibilitas*; et si ex se non haberet defectum, in defectum tamen praecipitari poterat per suum adversarium.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Angelus non deputatur ad custodiam alterius Angeli; dicendum, *Notandum.* quod etsi Angelus possit alteri Angelo *praesidere*, tamen proprie non dicitur ipsum *custodire*. Nam ille solus indiget *custodia*, qui potest impugnari et per custodiam superare vel absque custodia perdere[^7]; et ille solus debet *custodire*, qui nec potest expugnari nec perdere. Et hinc est, quod Angelus potest deputari ad custodiam hominis instituti, et non alterius Angeli: nam Angeli simul conditi sunt, et simul etiam, qui beatificantur beatificati sunt, et simul etiam, qui peccaverunt, irrecuperabiliter lapsi sunt. Et ideo Angelus non potest deputari ad custodiam alterius Angeli, quia bonus post confirmationem non indiget, malo post obstinationem nec prodest; ante vero confirmationem et obstinationem nec erat qui posset defendere, nec erat qui posset impugnare, cum omnes essent aequaliter vertibiles. In homine vero viatore secus est. Nam homine existente in statu vertibilitatis et pugnae, in qua poterat amittere vel lucrari, Angelus in statu beatitudinis erat, a quo non poterat commoveri[^8].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod menti humanae, quae non est per peccatum corrupta, solus Deus debet praefici; dicendum, quod verum est de ea praelatione, quae habet *oppositam servitutem*; *Quo praelatio soli Deo conveniat.* sic enim homo conditus soli Deo dicebatur esse *subiectus*, et solius Dei erat *servus*, non alterius. De praelatione vero, quae attenditur secundum *excellentiam status* et secundum praesidentiam respectu alicuius *actus*, non habet veritatem; sic enim Angelus praeest Angelo, in quibus nunquam fuit peccatum[^9].

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quodsi homo[^10] habuit Angelum ad custodiam deputatum, quod nunc unus homo debet habere multos; dicendum, quod illud argumentum non cogit; quia effectus angelicae custodiae dupliciter potest crescere: *Distinctio.* vel propter multiplicationem custodientium, vel propter maiorem succursum custodientis. Et ideo licet homo lapsus maiori indigeat officio custodiae quam institutus, tamen, quia idem Angelus secundum diversas opportunitates potest magis et magis succurrere et indigentias relevare; ideo non oportet pro augmentatione indigentiae in custodito numerum custodum multiplicare[^11].

---

english:
### Question II.

### *Whether it was fitting that an Angel be assigned to the custody of man as created before the fall.*

Second, it is asked whether it was fitting that an Angel be assigned to the custody of man *as created*. And that it was not, seems [the case].

*To the contrary [arguments].* 1. An Angel is assigned to the custody of man on account of supplying his defects; but in man according to the state of nature as instituted there were no defects[^1]: therefore no Angel ought to have been assigned to his custody.

2. Likewise, man according to the state of nature as instituted was not more prone to evil than a single Angel constituted in his natural powers: therefore if a created Angel was committed to no custody save the divine alone, it seems likewise that neither was man constituted in the state of innocence.

3. Likewise, custody implies a certain presidency in the custodian with respect to the one guarded; but only God is greater than the human soul, unless it be depraved by fault[^2]: therefore if man in the state of innocence was depraved by no fault, no Angel ought to have presided over him through the office of custody.

4. Likewise, if an angelic spirit is assigned to the custody of man as instituted: therefore since the strength of man is now in many ways cast down through sin, it seems that the custody of one Angel does not suffice for one man: therefore if now one Angel suffices for one fallen man, it seems that then he did not need anyone's custody.

**On the contrary:** *Foundations.* 1. On that text of Matthew chapter eighteen[^3]: *Their Angels* etc., the Gloss of Jerome: «It is a great dignity of souls, that each one from the rising of her nativity should have an Angel assigned to her custody». If, therefore, the assignment of angelic custody pertains to the dignity of the soul, since the soul according to the state of nature as instituted was more worthy than according to the state of nature as fallen: it seems that if she now has an Angel assigned to her custody, much more so then.

2. Likewise, God is more prone to having mercy than to condemning: therefore if man in the state of nature as instituted had an evil angel tempting [him][^4], much more strongly ought the divine mercy to have given him a guarding Angel.

3. Likewise, the Angels have been assigned to us as guardians, so that through their operation we might be drawn back from evil; but man in the state of innocence needed to be drawn back from evil, since he was able to sin: therefore he ought to have been guarded by an Angel.

4. Likewise, man as wayfarer is committed to angelic custody, so that through angelic sustenance and aid and through the support of [the Angel's] operation he might be able to ascend from good to better; but man in the state of innocence was able to make progress: therefore it seems that an Angel ought to have been assigned to his custody[^5].

### Conclusion.

> Not only in the state of fallen nature, but even in the instituted [state], it was fitting that angelic custody be given to man.

**I respond:** It must be said that although an Angel is assigned to the custody of man in order to profit him and come to his aid in many ways, yet he is assigned especially for this, *The principal end of angelic custody.* that he might defend [man] from the invisible adversary. For since man does not have *a wrestling against flesh and blood, but against the rulers of the world and against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places*[^6], who are invisible enemies; he ought, conversely, to have invisible helpers for his own defense. And because the adversary attacks us on every side — for he seduces *reason* by cunning, allures *the will* by flatteries, oppresses *the virtues* by violence — therefore the good Angel is especially given to us for this: that he may *defend* man from oppression against violence, that he may *instruct* and direct man against deception, that he may *exhort* and incite man to good against flatteries. — Since therefore our adversary the devil was, even in instituted man['s case], stronger and more cunning and more obstinate in his purpose of malice; therefore it was fitting that angelic custody be given to man, which would suppress the adversary's power not only according to the state of fallen nature, but even of the instituted; though he has greater need now than then. Whence the reasons adduced for this [position] are to be granted.

*Solution of the opposed [arguments].* 1. To that which is objected first, that an Angel is given to man for custody on account of supplying defects; it must be said that this is not the whole cause, unless *supplying of defect* be taken broadly, whether with respect to a defect that *is present*, or also with respect to a defect that *can be present*, so that it may not be present. And although in the first man there was no *actual defect*, yet there was in him *defectibility*; and although of himself he had no defect, nevertheless he could be cast down into defect by his adversary.

2. To that which is objected, that an Angel is not assigned to the custody of another Angel; it must be said, *To be noted.* that although an Angel can *preside over* another Angel, nevertheless he is not properly said to *guard* him. For only he needs *custody* who can be attacked and through custody overcome [his attacker] or without custody be lost[^7]; and only he ought to *guard* who can neither be vanquished nor lost. And hence it is that an Angel can be assigned to the custody of man as instituted, and not of another Angel: for the Angels were created at the same time, and likewise those who are beatified were beatified at the same time, and likewise those who sinned fell irrecoverably at the same time. And therefore an Angel cannot be assigned to the custody of another Angel, because the good [Angel] after confirmation does not need [custody], to the evil [Angel] after obstinacy [custody] is of no avail; and before confirmation and obstinacy there was neither one who could defend, nor one who could attack, since all were equally changeable. But it is otherwise with man as wayfarer. For while man exists in the state of changeability and combat, in which he was able to lose or to gain, the Angel was in the state of beatitude, from which he could not be moved[^8].

3. To that which is objected, that to the human mind, which is not corrupted by sin, God alone ought to be set in command; it must be said that this is true of that pre-eminence which has *opposed servitude* [as its correlate]; *In what way pre-eminence belongs to God alone.* for thus man as created was said to be *subject* to God alone, and to be *servant* of God alone, of no other. But of that pre-eminence which is regarded according to *excellence of status* and according to presidency with respect to some *act*, it does not hold; for thus Angel presides over Angel, in whom sin never was[^9].

4. To that which is objected, that if man[^10] had an Angel assigned to his custody, then now one man ought to have many; it must be said that the argument does not compel; for the effect of angelic custody can grow in two ways: *Distinction.* either by the multiplication of custodians, or by the greater succor of the custodian. And therefore although fallen man needs a greater office of custody than [man] as instituted, nevertheless, because the same Angel according to diverse opportunities can succor more and more and relieve the [man's] needs; therefore it is not necessary, in proportion to the increase of need in the one guarded, to multiply the number of guardians[^11].

---

la: Vide infra d. XXIV. lit. Magistri, c. 2. et XXV. c. 6.

en: See below d. XXIV, *Littera Magistri*, c. 2, and XXV, c. 6.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 45, nota 5. — Cod. cc et ed. 1 *per peccatum*.

en: Cf. above p. 45, note 5. — Codex cc and edition 1 read *per peccatum* [by sin].

la: Vers. 10. — Verba Hieronymi sunt etiam in lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: Verse 10. — The words of Jerome are also in the *Littera Magistri*, c. 1.

la: Gen. 3, 1. seqq.

en: Genesis 3, 1ff.

la: Plurimi codd. cum edd. 1, 2 *debeat*.

en: Most codices, with editions 1 and 2, read *debeat* [ought].

la: Eph. 6, 12, ubi Vulgata post *sed adversus* prosequitur *principes et potestates, adversus mundi rectores tenebrarum harum, contra spiritualia* etc.

en: Ephesians 6, 12, where the Vulgate, after *sed adversus*, continues *principes et potestates, adversus mundi rectores tenebrarum harum, contra spiritualia* etc. [the principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts] etc.

la: Cod. cc cum ed. 1 hic et paulo inferius *perdi*, et substituit «In testimonium meruerunt» pro *qui beatificantur*.

en: Codex cc with edition 1 reads *perdi* [to be lost, pass.] here and a little below, and substitutes «In testimonium meruerunt» for *qui beatificantur*.

la: Consentit Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 41. m. 3, ubi etiam quaestionem de custodia respectu animae separatae eodem modo resolvit. — Paulo superius Vat. legit *Nam homo erat in statu vertibilitatis et pugnae, in quo poterat* etc. Cod. T *pugna* pro *et pugnae*.

en: Alexander of Hales agrees, *Summa* p. II, q. 41, m. 3, where he also resolves in the same way the question concerning the custody [of an Angel] with respect to the separated soul. — A little above the Vatican [edition] reads *Nam homo erat in statu vertibilitatis et pugnae, in quo poterat* etc. Codex T [reads] *pugna* for *et pugnae*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 9. q. 2. et 6.

en: Cf. above d. 9, q. 2, and 6.

la: Cod. Q *primus homo*; Vat. *homo tunc*, quae etiam paulo inferius substituit *multitudinem* pro *multiplicatione*. Cfr. de hac solutione littera Magistri, c. 1.

en: Codex Q reads *primus homo* [the first man]; the Vatican [edition reads] *homo tunc* [man then], which also a little below substitutes *multitudinem* [multitude] for *multiplicatione* [multiplication]. Cf. on this solution the *Littera Magistri*, c. 1.

la: Vide scholion ad quaest. praecedentem.

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

translators_notes:
- Tier-2 promoted 2026-05-23 from 450 dpi Vol II column-band PDF crops at `/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p{279,280}-{L,R}-{0..2}.png`. IA djvu OCR for this q is heavily cascade-fragmented (two-column bleed, "Ad opposi-tum.", "Solutio op-positorum.", "Fundamenta.", marginal "Notandum.", "Distinctio." labels split across lines) — the PDF read is authoritative throughout, per Vol II Override.
- **Incoming boundary (d11-a1-q1 → this chunk): CLEAN.** Per d11-a1-q1's promotion-note disposition, page 279 footers 1–3 were reserved for this chunk (anchors land in this q2's body, not q1's). All three are present: `[^1]` at *defectus*, `[^2]` at *culpam*, `[^3]` at *octavo* (before the *Angeli eorum* quotation).
- **Outgoing boundary (this chunk → d11-a1-q3): CLEAN.** d11-a1-q2 ends at the last sentence on p.280 left column (`…numerum custodum multiplicare`); d11-a1-q3 opens with "QUAESTIO III. *Utrum Christus habuerit Angelum custodem*" beginning mid-p.280 right column. The p.280 footer block (footers 1–5) is fully captured by this chunk because all anchors `perdere`, `commoveri`, `peccatum`, `homo`, `multiplicare` sit in q2's body. q3 opens at *Tertio quaeritur* and carries forward only any footers anchored beyond its opening.
- Marginal labels preserved inline as italic per Vol II convention: *Ad oppositum.*, *Fundamenta.*, *Finis principalis custodiae angelicae.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Notandum.*, *Quo praelatio soli Deo conveniat.*, *Distinctio.*
- No `[?]` flags from this pass; q-content fully resolved against the 450 dpi crops.


title: Dist. 11, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 280 -->

### QUAESTIO III.

### *Utrum Christus habuerit Angelum custodem.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum aliquis Angelus deputatus fuerit ad custodiam Christi. Et quod sic, videtur:

*Ad oppositum.* 1. Per illud Psalmi[^1]: *Angelis suis Deus mandavit de te, ut custodiant te in omnibus viis tuis*: ergo si hoc intelligitur de capite, sicut Glossa exponit ibidem, patet etc.

2. Item, super illud Lucae vigesimo secundo[^2]: *Ecce apparuit ei Angelus Domini confortans eum*, Beda: «In testimonium utriusque naturae et Angelus eum confortasse et Angelus ei ministrasse describitur»: si ergo actus confortandi pertinet ad officium Angeli custodientis, videtur etc.

3. Item, hoc videtur *ratione*. Quia Christus secundum humanam naturam, maxime secundum statum passibilitatis, *minoratus est paulo minus ab Angelis*[^3]: ergo si erat mortalis et passibilis et etiam minoratus ab Angelis, et indigebat et competebat, ut videtur, ab Angelis praesidentibus et immortalibus custodiri.

4. Item, *ordo universitatis* hoc exigit, ut *contra malum sit bonum*[^4]. Cum igitur Christus habuerit malum angelum ad exercitium et pugnam, sicut legitur Matthaei quarto, quod tentatus est a diabolo: ergo debuit habere bonum Angelum ad custodiam.

<!-- page 281 -->

5. Item, ad dignitatem spectat animae humanae, quod committatur tam nobili custodiae, sicut angelicae[^5]: ergo si anima Christi fuit nobilissima omnium, videtur, quod sibi maxime competat custodia Angelorum.

6. Item, sapiens dominus illud quod habet carius, facit custodiri diligentius; sed Deus cariorem habebat Christum quam aliquem alium: ergo videtur, quodsi aliis non deest Angelorum custodia, quod nec animae Christi, quae inter omnes et super omnia erat Deo carissima.

**Contra:** *Fundamenta.* 1. Christus ab instanti suae conceptionis fuit beatus et perfectissime beatus: si ergo beati potius est *custodire* quam *custodiri*, videtur, quod Christo nullo modo competat custodia angelica.

2. Item, Christus ab instanti suae conceptionis et secundum animam et secundum corpus fuit divinitati unitus tanta unione, qua maior nequit intelligi[^6]: ergo si divina virtus, quae omnipotentissima est, per omnia ad nutum suae voluntatis prompta erat, ergo videtur, quod nulla indigeret aliena custodia.

3. Item, qui custoditur ab alio, ex hoc quod custoditur, est quodammodo illi obnoxius: ergo si Christus nulli debuit esse obnoxius, a nullo Angelo debuit custodiri.

4. Item, esto quod Christus non habeat Angelum ad sui custodiam; quaero, utrum ex hoc incurrat aliquod damnum, vel incommodum, vel peccatum, vel omittat aliquod bonum; et cum nullum horum sit, nihil tollit a Christo absentia angelicae custodiae: ergo nihil adiicit praesidentia: ergo si ponitur Christus ab Angelo custodiri, videtur, quod aliquid circa ipsum fiat frustra; quod est inconveniens.

### CONCLUSIO.

> Nullus Angelus debuit deputari ad custodiendum Christum, sed multitudo Angelorum debuit deputari ad eius ministerium.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Christo non est datus Angelus ad custodiam, tum quia Christus non *indigebat*, *Conclusio 1.* tum etiam quia non *competebat*. Non *egebat*, *Ratio 1.* quia adversarius eius nec poterat *opprimere* per violentiam corpus divinitati unitum, nec poterat *seducere* per astutias intellectum a Verbo plenarie illustratum, nec poterat *allicere* per blanditias affectum, plenitudine gratiae confirmatum[^7]. Ideo Christus non indigebat Angelo bono nec quantum ad *defensionem* corporis nec quantum ad *eruditionem* rationis nec quantum ad *incitationem* affectionis. — Non solum autem non indigebat angelica custodia, sed nec etiam ei *competebat*. *Ratio 2.* Custodia enim in custodiente respectu custoditi dicit quandam praesidentiam; et quia Angeli Christo Domino suberant, non praeerant: ideo nec aliquod officium praesidentiae ipsis Angelis respectu Christi committi debebat. — Et propterea nullus Angelus debuit deputari ad custodiendum Christum, sed Angelorum multitudo debuit deputari ad eius ministerium[^8]. *Conclusio 2.*

*Solutio oppositorum.* 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium de Psalmo: *Angelis suis Deus mandavit de te* etc.; dicendum, quod illud intelligitur de capite ratione *membrorum*. Unde, sicut dicit Augustinus[^9], diabolus male exposuit sive intellexit, dum capiti attribuit ratione sui, quod Scriptura attribuit ei ratione *membrorum*.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Angelus eum *confortabat*; dicendum, quod Angelus non confortabat eum confortatione *potestativa*, sicut confortat illos quos custodit, sed solum *ministeriali*, sicut confortat armiger strenuum militem.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Christus est ab Angelis *minoratus*; dicendum, quod etsi minoratus dicatur ratione passibilitatis, nunquam tamen sic minoratus est, ut aliquis Angelus auderet ei praesidere; cum ita bene sit adorandus Christus in cruce et in sua infirmitate, sicut etiam cum in sua apparebit virtute.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod habuit malum angelum ad exercitium; dicendum, quod illud exercitium solum fuit exterius, non interius, nec fuit ad ipsius probationem, sed potius ad nostram instructionem et adversarii confutationem; ex quo Christi dignitas non minuebatur, sed manifestabatur. Sed non sic est in officio custodiendi; nam si Angelus ad eius custodiam deputaretur, potius esset defectibilitatis ostensio quam virtutis et dignitatis manifestatio, vel etiam alicuius instructio.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod *dignitatis* est habere custodiam angelicam; dicendum, quod quaedam sunt *dignitatis simpliciter*, quaedam vero sic sunt dignitatis, ut etiam annexum habeant aliquid *indignitatis* sive *infirmitatis*. Custodiri autem ab Angelo ita dicit *dignitatem* in anima respectu aliarum creaturarum[^10], quae non committuntur angelicae custodiae, ut tamen dicat *imperfectionem* respectu Beatorum, qui aliena custodia nunquam egent. Et quia animae Christi non est attribuendum aliquid, quod deroget eius beatitudini; ideo, etsi ab Angelo custodiri aliquo modo dicat dignitatem, non tamen Christo debet attribui, quia simul cum hoc in custodito quandam importat defectibilitatem.

<!-- page 282 -->

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod id quod carius est, melius custoditur; dicendum, quod verum est, quando illud quod magis carum est, ita indiget custodiri, sicut illud quod minus. Sic autem non est in proposito; nam Christi anima non sic indigebat custodiri, quae[^11] peccare non poterat. — *Aliter.* Vel aliter potest dici, quod Deus diligentius custodit animam Christi quam animam alicuius alterius hominis; plus enim facit ei per se ipsum, quam ulli animae faciat per se et per Angelum.

### SCHOLION.

**I.** Teste Dionysio Carth. (hic q. 2.), Antissiodorensis opinatus est, quod Christus, in quantum minor fuit Angelis, scil. secundum passibilem naturam ut talem, habuerit Angelum custodem. Hoc autem, si intelligitur in sensu proprio, improbant S. Bonav., Alex. Hal., S. Thom. aliique posteriores. Hi autem, excepto Alexandro, hanc quaestionem tantum breviter tangunt.

**II.** Alex. Hal., S. p. II. q. 41. m. 4. a. 2. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. ad 6; S. I. q. 113. a. 4. ad 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 5; S. p. II. tr. 9. q. 36. m. 4. q. incid. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 5. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. ad 1. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 2. ad ult. — Durand., hic q. 1. ad 3.

---

english:
### Question III.

### *Whether Christ had a guardian Angel.*

Third, it is asked whether any Angel was assigned to the custody of Christ. And that he was, seems [the case]:

*To the contrary [arguments].* 1. Through that text of the Psalm[^1]: *God has commanded his Angels concerning thee, to guard thee in all thy ways*: therefore if this is understood of the Head, as the Gloss expounds in the same place, [the conclusion] is evident etc.

2. Likewise, on that text of Luke chapter twenty-two[^2]: *Behold, there appeared to him an Angel of the Lord strengthening him*, Bede: «As a testimony of both natures it is described both that an Angel strengthened him and that an Angel ministered to him»: if therefore the act of strengthening pertains to the office of a guarding Angel, [the conclusion] is evident etc.

3. Likewise, this seems [to follow] *by reason*. For Christ according to human nature, especially according to the state of passibility, *was made a little less than the Angels*[^3]: therefore if he was mortal and passible and also lesser than the Angels, it both was needful and was fitting, as it seems, that he be guarded by Angels presiding and immortal.

4. Likewise, *the order of the universe* requires this, that *against an evil there be a good*[^4]. Since therefore Christ had an evil angel for exercise and combat, as is read in Matthew chapter four, that he was tempted by the devil: therefore he ought to have had a good Angel for custody.

5. Likewise, it pertains to the dignity of the human soul that she be committed to so noble a custody as the angelic[^5]: therefore if the soul of Christ was the noblest of all, it seems that the custody of Angels is most fitting to him.

6. Likewise, a wise lord causes that which he holds dearer to be guarded more carefully; but God held Christ dearer than any other: therefore it seems that if the custody of Angels does not fail others, neither [does it fail] the soul of Christ, which among all and above all was dearest to God.

**On the contrary:** *Foundations.* 1. Christ from the instant of his conception was blessed and most perfectly blessed: if therefore it pertains rather to the blessed *to guard* than *to be guarded*, it seems that angelic custody is in no way fitting to Christ.

2. Likewise, Christ from the instant of his conception, both according to soul and according to body, was united to divinity by so great a union, than which a greater cannot be understood[^6]: therefore if the divine power, which is most omnipotent, was ready in all things at the nod of his will, then it seems that he needed no foreign custody.

3. Likewise, he who is guarded by another, by the very fact that he is guarded, is in some way obliged to him: therefore if Christ ought to have been obliged to no one, he ought to have been guarded by no Angel.

4. Likewise, granted that Christ does not have an Angel for his custody; I ask whether through this he incurs any harm, or inconvenience, or sin, or omits any good; and since none of these is so, the absence of angelic custody takes nothing from Christ: therefore presidency [over him] adds nothing: therefore if Christ is held to be guarded by an Angel, it seems that something is done about him in vain; which is unfitting.

### Conclusion.

> No Angel ought to have been assigned to guard Christ, but a multitude of Angels ought to have been assigned to his ministry.

**I respond:** It must be said that no Angel was given to Christ for custody, both because Christ did not *need* [one], *First conclusion.* and also because [an Angel] was not *fitting*. *First reason.* He did not need [one], because his adversary could neither *oppress* by violence the body united to divinity, nor *seduce* by cunning the intellect fully illumined by the Word, nor *allure* by flatteries the affection confirmed by the fullness of grace[^7]. Therefore Christ did not need a good Angel either as regards the *defense* of the body, nor as regards the *instruction* of reason, nor as regards the *incitement* of affection. — And not only did he not need angelic custody, but neither was it *fitting* for him. *Second reason.* For custody in the custodian with respect to the one guarded implies a certain presidency; and because Angels were subject to Christ the Lord, [and] did not preside [over him]: therefore neither ought any office of presidency to be committed to the Angels themselves with respect to Christ. — And on this account no Angel ought to have been assigned to guard Christ, but a multitude of Angels ought to have been assigned to his ministry[^8]. *Second conclusion.*

*Solution of the opposed [arguments].* 1. To that which is objected on the contrary side from the Psalm: *God has commanded his Angels concerning thee* etc.; it must be said that this is understood of the Head by reason of the *members*. Whence, as Augustine says[^9], the devil expounded or understood [it] badly, when he attributed to the Head by reason of himself what Scripture attributes to him by reason of the *members*.

2. To that which is objected, that an Angel *was strengthening* him; it must be said that the Angel was not strengthening him with a *potestative* strengthening, as he strengthens those whom he guards, but only with a *ministerial* [strengthening], as the armor-bearer strengthens the valiant soldier.

3. To that which is objected, that Christ *was made less* than the Angels; it must be said that although he is called less by reason of passibility, never however was he so made less that any Angel would dare to preside over him; since Christ is just as much to be adored on the cross and in his infirmity as also when he shall appear in his power.

4. To that which is objected, that he had an evil angel for exercise; it must be said that that exercise was only outward, not inward, nor was it for his own testing, but rather for our instruction and the confutation of the adversary; from which Christ's dignity was not diminished, but manifested. But it is not so in the office of guarding; for if an Angel were assigned to his custody, it would be rather an indication of defectibility than a manifestation of power and dignity, or also any instruction.

5. To that which is objected, that it is of *dignity* to have angelic custody; it must be said that some things are of *dignity simply*, but certain things are of dignity in such a way that they also have annexed [to them] something of *indignity* or *infirmity*. Now to be guarded by an Angel implies *dignity* in the soul with respect to other creatures[^10], which are not committed to angelic custody, in such a way nevertheless that it implies *imperfection* with respect to the Blessed, who never need foreign custody. And because nothing ought to be attributed to the soul of Christ which derogates from his beatitude; therefore, even though to be guarded by an Angel implies dignity in some way, nevertheless it ought not to be attributed to Christ, because at the same time with this it imports a certain defectibility in the one guarded.

6. To that which is objected, that what is dearer is guarded better; it must be said that this is true when that which is more dear is in need of being guarded just as that which is less. But it is not so in the matter at hand; for the soul of Christ did not need to be guarded in this way, since she[^11] could not sin. — *Otherwise.* Or it can be said otherwise, that God guards the soul of Christ more carefully than the soul of any other man; for he does more for him through himself than he does for any [other] soul through himself and through an Angel.

### Scholion.

**I.** As Dionysius the Carthusian attests (here, q. 2), the Antissiodorensian [William of Auxerre] held that Christ, insofar as he was less than the Angels — viz., according to passible nature as such — had a guardian Angel. But this, if it is understood in the proper sense, is rejected by St. Bonaventure, Alexander of Hales, St. Thomas, and other later [doctors]. These [doctors], however, with the exception of Alexander, touch this question only briefly.

**II.** Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. II, q. 41, m. 4, a. 2. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3, ad 6; *Summa* I, q. 113, a. 4, ad 1. — B. Albert, here a. 5; *Summa* p. II, tr. 9, q. 36, m. 4, q. *incidens* 1. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 3, *quaestiuncula* 5. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1, q. 1, ad 1. — Aegidius Romanus, here q. 1, a. 2, ad *ultimum*. — Durandus, here q. 1, ad 3.

---

la: Psalm. 90, 11. — Glossam vide apud Augustinum in hunc locum, serm. 2.

en: Psalm 90, 11. — For the Gloss see Augustine on this passage, *sermon* 2.

la: Vers. 43. — Bedae verba sunt ex Comment. ipsius super hunc locum, et in textu originali legitur: *In documento ergo utriusque naturae ei Angeli ministrasse… describitur.*

en: Verse 43. — The words of Bede are from his *Commentary* on this passage, and in the original text the reading is: *In documento ergo utriusque naturae ei Angeli ministrasse… describitur* [As a testimony, therefore, of both natures, it is described that the Angels ministered to him].

la: Hebr. 2, 9: *Eum autem, qui modico quam Angeli minoratus est, videmus Iesum, propter passionem mortis* etc.

en: Hebrews 2, 9: *But we see Jesus, who was made a little less than the Angels, on account of the passion of death* etc.

la: Eccli. 33, 15. — Sequens textus est Matth. 4, 1.

en: Ecclesiasticus 33, 15. — The following text is Matthew 4, 1.

la: Secundum Hieronymum, cuius verba vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: According to Jerome, whose words see here in the *Littera Magistri*, c. 1.

la: Coloss. 2, 9: *Quia in ipso inhabitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter.*

en: Colossians 2, 9: *For in him dwells all the fullness of divinity bodily.*

la: Ioan. 1, 14: *Verbum caro factum est… plenum gratiae et veritatis.*

en: John 1, 14: *The Word was made flesh… full of grace and truth.*

la: Matth. 4, 11: *Et ecce Angeli accesserunt et ministrabant ei.*

en: Matthew 4, 11: *And behold, the Angels came and ministered to him.*

la: *Enarrat. in Ps. 90.* serm. 2. n. 1. 3. 8. sententialiter. Clarius dicitur ab Hieronymo et Beda (hom. in Dominic. 1. Quadrag.) super Matth. 4, 6.

en: *Enarration on Psalm 90,* serm. 2, nn. 1, 3, 8, *sententialiter*. It is said more clearly by Jerome and Bede (*homily on the first Sunday of Lent*) on Matthew 4, 6.

la: Vat. *respectu illarum creaturarum, quae committuntur* etc.

en: The Vatican [edition reads] *respectu illarum creaturarum, quae committuntur* etc. [with respect to those creatures which are committed etc.].

la: Cod. aa *quia*. Aliquanto inferius post *facit* ex cod. supplevimus *ei*.

en: Codex aa [reads] *quia* [because]. A little below, after *facit*, we supplied *ei* [to him] from the codex. ---

translators_notes:
- Tier-2 promoted 2026-05-23 from 450 dpi Vol II column-band PDF crops at `/tmp/colcrop/vol2-p{280,281,282}-{L,R}-{0..2}.png`. IA djvu OCR for this q is cascade-fragmented in the marginal labels (*Ad oppositum.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Fundamenta.*, *Conclusio 1./2.*, *Ratio 1./2.*, *Aliter.*) and in the Respondeo two-column split; the PDF read is authoritative, per Vol II Override.
- **Incoming boundary (d11-a1-q2 → this chunk): CLEAN.** q2 captured p.280 footers ¹–⁵; this chunk takes p.280 footers ⁶–⁹ as its `[^1]–[^4]` (`Psalmi`, `secundo`, `Angelis`, `bonum` anchors).
- **Outgoing boundary (this chunk → d11-a2-q1): CLEAN.** q3 ends on p.282 after the SCHOLION; ARTICULUS II opens immediately after with "*De eis quae angelicae custodiae sunt annexa.* — Consequenter quaeritur de secundo articulo… Primo quaeritur, utrum Angelus propter nostram obstinationem subtrahat custodiae beneficium." The ARTICULUS opener folds into d11-a2-q1 per Vol II convention; that chunk takes p.282 footers ²–⁴ as its `[^1]–[^3]` (`gaudium²` in the divisio, plus the two obstinationem³/⁴ anchors in a2-q1). q3 captures only p.282 footer ¹ (`quae¹` in Ad 6 tail).
- Marginal labels preserved inline as italic per Vol II convention: *Ad oppositum.*, *Fundamenta.*, *Conclusio 1.* / *Conclusio 2.*, *Ratio 1.* / *Ratio 2.*, *Solutio oppositorum.*, *Aliter.*
- SCHOLION text contains no footnote markers.
- No `[?]` flags from this pass; q-content fully resolved against the 450 dpi crops.