Dist. 11, Art. 2, Q. 1
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-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article II.

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

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

### Question I.

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

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

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

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

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but this is not, except because he will be obstinate in evil: therefore it seems that the protection of custody is withdrawn from the obstinate by the Angels.

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

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

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is excommunicated and cast out from the assembly of the faithful, and the benefit of the prayers of the Church is withdrawn from him; therefore if the Angel is as great a zealot for justice as, or greater than, the prelate of the Church; and the prelate withdraws the benefit of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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### Conclusion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### DOCTRINE OF SACRED SCRIPTURE ON THE EFFECTS OF ANGELIC CUSTODY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### Scholion.

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

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

---