Dist. 11, Art. 1, Q. 3
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/2/d/11/q/bon-sent-II-d11-a1-q3
----------------------------------------
### 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: *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: *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*: 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*. 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: 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: 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. 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. *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, 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, 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 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.

---