Dist. 11, Art. 1, Q. 3
Book II: On the Creation of Things · Distinction 11
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 Psalmi1: 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 secundo2: 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 Angelis3: 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 bonum4. 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.
5. Item, ad dignitatem spectat animae humanae, quod committatur tam nobili custodiae, sicut angelicae5: 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 intelligi6: 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 confirmatum7. 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 ministerium8. 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 Augustinus9, 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 creaturarum10, 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.
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, quae11 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.
---
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 Psalm1: 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-two2: 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 Angels3: 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 good4. 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 angelic5: 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 understood6: 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 grace7. 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 ministry8. 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 says9, 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 creatures10, 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 she11 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.
---
- Psalm. 90, 11. — Glossam vide apud Augustinum in hunc locum, serm. 2.Psalm 90, 11. — For the Gloss see Augustine on this passage, sermon 2.
- 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.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].
- Hebr. 2, 9: Eum autem, qui modico quam Angeli minoratus est, videmus Iesum, propter passionem mortis etc.Hebrews 2, 9: But we see Jesus, who was made a little less than the Angels, on account of the passion of death etc.
- Eccli. 33, 15. — Sequens textus est Matth. 4, 1.Ecclesiasticus 33, 15. — The following text is Matthew 4, 1.
- Secundum Hieronymum, cuius verba vide hic in lit. Magistri, c. 1.According to Jerome, whose words see here in the Littera Magistri, c. 1.
- Coloss. 2, 9: Quia in ipso inhabitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter.Colossians 2, 9: For in him dwells all the fullness of divinity bodily.
- Ioan. 1, 14: Verbum caro factum est… plenum gratiae et veritatis.John 1, 14: The Word was made flesh… full of grace and truth.
- Matth. 4, 11: Et ecce Angeli accesserunt et ministrabant ei.Matthew 4, 11: And behold, the Angels came and ministered to him.
- 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.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.
- Vat. respectu illarum creaturarum, quae committuntur etc.The Vatican [edition reads] respectu illarum creaturarum, quae committuntur etc. [with respect to those creatures which are committed etc.].
- Cod. aa quia. Aliquanto inferius post facit ex cod. supplevimus ei.Codex aa [reads] quia [because]. A little below, after facit, we supplied ei [to him] from the codex. ---