Difference between revisions of "Directory:Logic Museum/Aquinas Summa-I-111-114"

Revision as of 10:29, 25 October 2009

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE - QUESTIONS CXI - CXIV

Question 111 How an angel acts on man by his natural power
Question 112 How an angel acts on man as a minister of God
Question 113 The guardianship of the good angels
Question 114 The assaults of the demons

Latin	Latin
IЄ q. 111 pr. Deinde considerandum est de actione Angelorum in homines. Et primo, quantum possint eos immutare sua virtute naturali; secundo, quomodo mittantur a Deo ad ministerium hominum; tertio, quomodo custodiant homines. Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum Angelus possit illuminare intellectum hominis. Secundo, utrum possit immutare affectum eius. Tertio, utrum possit immutare imaginationem eius. Quarto, utrum possit immutare sensum eius.	Question 111. The action of the angels on manCan an angel enlighten the human intellect? Can he change man's will? Can he change man's imagination? Can he change man's senses?
IЄ q. 111 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus non possit illuminare hominem. Homo enim illuminatur per fidem, unde Dionysius, in Eccles. Hier., illuminationem attribuit Baptismo, qui est fidei sacramentum. Sed fides immediate est a Deo; secundum illud ad Ephes. II, gratia estis salvati per fidem, et non ex vobis; Dei enim donum est. Ergo homo non illuminatur ab Angelo, sed immediate a Deo.	Objection 1. It would seem that an angel cannot enlighten man. For man is enlightened by faith; hence Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. iii) attributes enlightenment to baptism, as "the sacrament of faith." But faith is immediately from God, according to Ephesians 2:8: "By grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God." Therefore man is not enlightened by an angel; but immediately by God.
IЄ q. 111 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, super illud Rom. I, Deus illis manifestavit, dicit Glossa quod non solum ratio naturalis ad hoc profuit ut divina hominibus manifestarentur, sed etiam Deus illis revelavit per opus suum, scilicet per creaturam. Sed utrumque est a Deo immediate, scilicet ratio naturalis, et creatura. Ergo Deus immediate illuminat hominem.	Objection 2. Further, on the words, "God hath manifested it to them" (Romans 1:19), the gloss observes that "not only natural reason availed for the manifestation of Divine truths to men, but God also revealed them by His work," that is, by His creature. But both are immediately from God--that is, natural reason and the creature. Therefore God enlightens man immediately.
IЄ q. 111 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, quicumque illuminatur, cognoscit suam illuminationem. Sed homines non percipiunt se ab Angelis illuminari. Ergo non illuminantur ab eis.	Objection 3. Further, whoever is enlightened is conscious of being enlightened. But man is not conscious of being enlightened by angels. Therefore he is not enlightened by them.
IЄ q. 111 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod Dionysius probat, in IV cap. Cael. Hier., quod revelationes divinorum perveniunt ad homines mediantibus Angelis. Huiusmodi autem revelationes sunt illuminationes, ut supra dictum est. Ergo homines illuminantur per Angelos.	On the contrary, Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv) that the revelation of Divine things reaches men through the ministry of the angels. But such revelation is an enlightenment as we have stated (106, 1; 107, 2). Therefore men are enlightened by the angels.
IЄ q. 111 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, cum divinae providentiae ordo habeat ut actionibus superiorum inferiora subdantur, ut supra dictum est; sicut inferiores Angeli illuminantur per superiores, ita homines qui sunt Angelis inferiores, per eos illuminantur. Sed modus utriusque illuminationis quodammodo est similis, et quodammodo diversus. Dictum est enim supra quod illuminatio, quae est manifestatio divinae veritatis, secundum duo attenditur, scilicet secundum quod intellectus inferior confortatur per actionem intellectus superioris; et secundum quod proponuntur intellectui inferiori species intelligibiles quae sunt in superiori, ut capi possint ab inferiori. Et hoc quidem in Angelis fit, secundum quod superior Angelus veritatem universalem conceptam dividit secundum capacitatem inferioris Angeli, ut supra dictum est. Sed intellectus humanus non potest ipsam intelligibilem veritatem nudam capere, quia connaturale est ei ut intelligat per conversionem ad phantasmata, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo intelligibilem veritatem proponunt Angeli hominibus sub similitudinibus sensibilium; secundum illud quod dicit Dionysius, I cap. Cael. Hier., quod impossibile est aliter nobis lucere divinum radium, nisi varietate sacrorum velaminum circumvelatum. Ex alia vero parte, intellectus humanus, tanquam inferior, fortificatur per actionem intellectus angelici. Et secundum haec duo attenditur illuminatio qua homo illuminatur ab Angelo.	I answer that, Since the order of Divine Providence disposes that lower things be subject to the actions of higher, as explained above (109, 2); as the inferior angels are enlightened by the superior, so men, who are inferior to the angels, are enlightened by them. The modes of each of these kinds of enlightenment are in one way alike and in another way unlike. For, as was shown above (106, 1), the enlightenment which consists in making known Divine truth has two functions; namely, according as the inferior intellect is strengthened by the action of the superior intellect, and according as the intelligible species which are in the superior intellect are proposed to the inferior so as to be grasped thereby. This takes place in the angels when the superior angel divides his universal concept of the truth according to the capacity of the inferior angel, as explained above (106, 1). The human intellect, however, cannot grasp the universal truth itself unveiled; because its nature requires it to understand by turning to the phantasms, as above explained (84, 7). So the angels propose the intelligible truth to men under the similitudes of sensible things, according to what Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i), that, "It is impossible for the divine ray to shine on us, otherwise than shrouded by the variety of the sacred veils." On the other hand, the human intellect as the inferior, is strengthened by the action of the angelic intellect. And in these two ways man is enlightened by an angel.
IЄ q. 111 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ad fidem duo concurrunt. Primo quidem habitus intellectus, quo disponitur ad obediendum voluntati tendenti in divinam veritatem, intellectus enim assentit veritati fidei, non quasi convictus ratione, sed quasi imperatus a voluntate; nullus enim credit nisi volens, ut Augustinus dicit. Et quantum ad hoc, fides est a solo Deo. Secundo requiritur ad fidem, quod credibilia proponantur credenti. Et hoc quidem fit per hominem, secundum quod fides est ex auditu, ut dicitur Rom. X; sed per Angelos principaliter, per quos hominibus revelantur divina. Unde Angeli operantur aliquid ad illuminationem fidei. Et tamen homines illuminantur ab Angelis non solum de credendis, sed etiam de agendis.	Reply to Objection 1. Two dispositions concur in the virtue of faith; first, the habit of the intellect whereby it is disposed to obey the will tending to Divine truth. For the intellect assents to the truth of faith, not as convinced by the reason, but as commanded by the will; hence Augustine says, "No one believes except willingly." In this respect faith comes from God alone. Secondly, faith requires that what is to be believed be proposed to the believer; which is accomplished by man, according to Romans 10:17, "Faith cometh by hearing"; principally, however, by the angels, by whom Divine things are revealed to men. Hence the angels have some part in the enlightenment of faith. Moreover, men are enlightened by the angels not only concerning what is to be believed; but also as regards what is to be done.
IЄ q. 111 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio naturalis, quae est immediate a Deo, potest per Angelum confortari, ut dictum est. Et similiter ex speciebus a creaturis acceptis, tanto altior elicitur intelligibilis veritas, quanto intellectus humanus fuerit fortior. Et sic per Angelum adiuvatur homo, ut ex creaturis perfectius in divinam cognitionem deveniat.	Reply to Objection 2. Natural reason, which is immediately from God, can be strengthened by an angel, as we have said above. Again, the more the human intellect is strengthened, so much higher an intelligible truth can be elicited from the species derived from creatures. Thus man is assisted by an angel so that he may obtain from creatures a more perfect knowledge of God.
IЄ q. 111 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod operatio intellectualis, et illuminatio, dupliciter possunt considerari. Uno modo, ex parte rei intellectae, et sic quicumque intelligit vel illuminatur, cognoscit se intelligere vel illuminari; quia cognoscit rem sibi esse manifestam. Alio modo, ex parte principii, et sic non quicumque intelligit aliquam veritatem, cognoscit quid sit intellectus, qui est principium intellectualis operationis. Et similiter non quicumque illuminatur ab Angelo, cognoscit se ab Angelo illuminari.	Reply to Objection 3. Intellectual operation and enlightenment can be understood in two ways. First, on the part of the object understood; thus whoever understands or is enlightened, knows that he understands or is enlightened, because he knows that the object is made known to him. Secondly, on the part of the principle; and thus it does not follow that whoever understands a truth, knows what the intellect is, which is the principle of the intellectual operation. In like manner not everyone who is enlightened by an angel, knows that he is enlightened by him.
IЄ q. 111 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli possint immutare voluntatem hominis. Quia super illud Heb. I, qui facit Angelos suos spiritus, et ministros suos flammam ignis, dicit Glossa quod ignis sunt, dum spiritu fervent, et vitia nostra urunt. Sed hoc non esset, nisi voluntatem immutarent. Ergo Angeli possunt immutare voluntatem.	Objection 1. It would seem that the angels can change the will of man. For, upon the text, "Who maketh His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire" (Hebrews 1:7), the gloss notes that "they are fire, as being spiritually fervent, and as burning away our vices." This could not be, however, unless they changed the will. Therefore the angels can change the will.
IЄ q. 111 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, Beda dicit quod Diabolus non est immissor malarum cogitationum, sed incensor. Damascenus autem ulterius dicit quod etiam est immissor, dicit enim in II libro, quod omnis malitia et immundae passiones ex Daemonibus excogitatae sunt, et immittere homini sunt concessi. Et pari ratione, Angeli boni immittunt et incendunt bonas cogitationes. Sed hoc non possent facere, nisi immutarent voluntatem. Ergo immutant voluntatem.	Objection 2. Further, Bede says (Super Matth. xv, 11), that, "the devil does not send wicked thoughts, but kindles them." Damascene, however, says that he also sends them; for he remarks that "every malicious act and unclean passion is contrived by the demons and put into men" (De Fide Orth. ii, 4); in like manner also the good angels introduce and kindle good thoughts. But this could only be if they changed the will. Therefore the will is changed by them.
IЄ q. 111 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, Angelus, sicut est dictum, illuminat intellectum hominis mediantibus phantasmatibus. Sed sicut phantasia, quae deservit intellectui, potest immutari ab Angelo; ita et appetitus sensitivus qui deservit voluntati, quia et ipse etiam est vis utens organo corporali. Ergo sicut illuminat intellectum, ita potest immutare voluntatem.	Objection 3. Further, the angel, as above explained, enlightens the human intellect by means of the phantasms. But as the imagination which serves the intellect can be changed by an angel, so can the sensitive appetite which serves the will, because it also is a faculty using a corporeal organ. Therefore as the angel enlightens the mind, so can he change the will.
IЄ q. 111 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod immutare voluntatem est proprium Dei; secundum illud Prov. XXI, cor regis in manu domini; quocumque voluerit, vertet illud.	On the contrary, To change the will belongs to God alone, according to Proverbs 21:1: "The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord, whithersoever He will He shall turn it."
IЄ q. 111 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod voluntas potest immutari dupliciter. Uno modo, ab interiori. Et sic cum motus voluntatis non sit aliud quam inclinatio voluntatis in rem volitam, solius Dei est sic immutare voluntatem, qui dat naturae intellectuali virtutem talis inclinationis. Sicut enim inclinatio naturalis non est nisi a Deo qui dat naturam; ita inclinatio voluntaria non est nisi a Deo, qui causat voluntatem. Alio modo movetur voluntas ab exteriori. Et hoc in Angelo est quidem uno modo tantum, scilicet a bono apprehenso per intellectum. Unde secundum quod aliquis est causa quod aliquid apprehendatur ut bonum ad appetendum, secundum hoc movet voluntatem. Et sic etiam solus Deus efficaciter potest movere voluntatem; Angelus autem et homo per modum suadentis, ut supra dictum est. Sed praeter hunc modum, etiam aliter movetur in hominibus voluntas ab exteriori, scilicet ex passione existente circa appetitum sensitivum; sicut ex concupiscentia vel ira inclinatur voluntas ad aliquid volendum. Et sic etiam Angeli, inquantum possunt concitare huiusmodi passiones, possunt voluntatem movere. Non tamen ex necessitate, quia voluntas semper remanet libera ad consentiendum vel resistendum passioni.	I answer that, The will can be changed in two ways. First, from within; in which way, since the movement of the will is nothing but the inclination of the will to the thing willed, God alone can thus change the will, because He gives the power of such an inclination to the intellectual nature. For as the natural inclination is from God alone Who gives the nature, so the inclination of the will is from God alone, Who causes the will. Secondly, the will is moved from without. As regards an angel, this can be only in one way--by the good apprehended by the intellect. Hence in as far as anyone may be the cause why anything be apprehended as an appetible good, so far does he move the will. In this way also God alone can move the will efficaciously; but an angel and man move the will by way of persuasion, as above explained (106, 2). In addition to this mode the human will can be moved from without in another way; namely, by the passion residing in the sensitive appetite: thus by concupiscence or anger the will is inclined to will something. In this manner the angels, as being able to rouse these passions, can move the will, not however by necessity, for the will ever remains free to consent to, or to resist, the passion.
IЄ q. 111 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ministri Dei, vel homines vel Angeli, dicuntur urere vitia, et inflammare ad virtutes, per modum persuasionis.	Reply to Objection 1. Those who act as God's ministers, either men or angels, are said to burn away vices, and to incite to virtue by way of persuasion.
IЄ q. 111 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Daemones non possunt immittere cogitationes, interius eas causando, cum usus cogitativae virtutis subiaceat voluntati. Dicitur tamen Diabolus incensor cogitationum, inquantum incitat ad cogitandum, vel ad appetendum cogitata, per modum persuadentis, vel passionem concitantis. Et hoc ipsum incendere Damascenus vocat immittere, quia talis operatio interius fit. Sed bonae cogitationes attribuuntur altiori principio, scilicet Deo; licet Angelorum ministerio procurentur.	Reply to Objection 2. The demon cannot put thoughts in our minds by causing them from within, since the act of the cogitative faculty is subject to the will; nevertheless the devil is called the kindler of thoughts, inasmuch as he incites to thought, by the desire of the things thought of, by way of persuasion, or by rousing the passions. Damascene calls this kindling "a putting in" because such a work is accomplished within. But good thoughts are attributed to a higher principle, namely, God, though they may be procured by the ministry of the angels.
IЄ q. 111 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod intellectus humanus, secundum praesentem statum, non potest intelligere nisi convertendo se ad phantasmata; sed voluntas humana potest aliquid velle ex iudicio rationis, non sequendo passionem appetitus sensitivi. Unde non est simile.	Reply to Objection 3. The human intellect in its present state can understand only by turning to the phantasms; but the human will can will something following the judgment of reason rather than the passion of the sensitive appetite. Hence the comparison does not hold.
IЄ q. 111 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus non possit immutare imaginationem hominis. Phantasia enim, ut dicitur in libro de anima, est motus factus a sensu secundum actum. Sed si fieret per immutationem Angeli, non fieret a sensu secundum actum. Ergo est contra rationem phantasiae, quae est actus imaginativae virtutis, ut sit per immutationem Angeli.	Objection 1. It would seem that an angel cannot change man's imagination. For the phantasy, as is said De Anima iii, is "a motion caused by the sense in act." But if this motion were caused by an angel, it would not be caused by the sense in act. Therefore it is contrary to the nature of the phantasy, which is the act of the imaginative faculty, to be changed by an angel.
IЄ q. 111 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, formae quae sunt in imaginatione, cum sint spirituales, sunt nobiliores formis quae sunt in materia sensibili. Sed Angelus non potest imprimere formas in materia sensibili, ut dictum est. Ergo non potest imprimere formas in imaginatione. Et ita non potest eam immutare.	Objection 2. Further, since the forms in the imagination are spiritual, they are nobler than the forms existing in sensible matter. But an angel cannot impress forms upon sensible matter (110, 2). Therefore he cannot impress forms on the imagination, and so he cannot change it.
IЄ q. 111 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, secundum Augustinum, XII super Gen. ad Litt., commixtione alterius spiritus fieri potest ut ea quae ipse scit, per huiusmodi imagines ei cui miscetur ostendat, sive intelligenti, sive ut ab alio intellecta pandantur. Sed non videtur quod Angelus possit misceri imaginationi humanae; neque quod imaginatio possit capere intelligibilia, quae Angelus cognoscit. Ergo videtur quod Angelus non possit mutare imaginationem.	Objection 3. Further, Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 12): "One spirit by intermingling with another can communicate his knowledge to the other spirit by these images, so that the latter either understands it himself, or accepts it as understood by the other." But it does not seem that an angel can be mingled with the human imagination, nor that the imagination can receive the knowledge of an angel. Therefore it seems that an angel cannot change the imagination.
IЄ q. 111 a. 3 arg. 4 Praeterea, in visione imaginaria homo adhaeret similitudinibus rerum quasi ipsis rebus. Sed in hoc est quaedam deceptio. Cum ergo Angelus bonus non possit esse causa deceptionis, videtur quod non possit causare imaginariam visionem, imaginationem immutando.	Objection 4. Further, in the imaginative vision man cleaves to the similitudes of the things as to the things themselves. But in this there is deception. So as a good angel cannot be the cause of deception, it seems that he cannot cause the imaginative vision, by changing the imagination.
IЄ q. 111 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod ea quae apparent in somnis, videntur imaginaria visione. Sed Angeli revelant aliqua in somnis; ut patet Matth. I et II, de Angelo qui Ioseph in somnis apparuit. Ergo Angelus potest imaginationem movere.	On the contrary, Those things which are seen in dreams are seen by imaginative vision. But the angels reveal things in dreams, as appears from Matthew 1:20, 2:13-19 in regard to the angel who appeared to Joseph in dreams. Therefore an angel can move the imagination.
IЄ q. 111 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Angelus, tam bonus quam malus, virtute naturae suae potest movere imaginationem hominis. Quod quidem sic considerari potest. Dictum est enim supra quod natura corporalis obedit Angelo ad motum localem. Illa ergo quae ex motu locali aliquorum corporum possunt causari, subsunt virtuti naturali Angelorum. Manifestum est autem quod apparitiones imaginariae causantur interdum in nobis ex locali mutatione corporalium spirituum et humorum. Unde Aristoteles, in Lib. de Somn. et Vig., assignans causam apparitionis somniorum, dicit quod, cum animal dormit, descendente plurimo sanguine ad principium sensitivum, simul descendunt motus, idest impressiones relictae ex sensibilium motionibus, quae in spiritibus sensualibus conservantur, et movent principium sensitivum, ita quod fit quaedam apparitio, ac si tunc principium sensitivum a rebus ipsis exterioribus mutaretur. Et tanta potest esse commotio spirituum et humorum, quod huiusmodi apparitiones etiam vigilantibus fiant; sicut patet in phreneticis, et in aliis huiusmodi. Sicut igitur hoc fit per naturalem commotionem humorum; et quandoque etiam per voluntatem hominis, qui voluntarie imaginatur quod prius senserat, ita etiam hoc potest fieri virtute Angeli boni vel mali, quandoque quidem cum alienatione a corporeis sensibus, quandoque autem absque tali alienatione.	I answer that, Both a good and a bad angel by their own natural power can move the human imagination. This may be explained as follows. For it was said above (110, 3), that corporeal nature obeys the angel as regards local movement, so that whatever can be caused by the local movement of bodies is subject to the natural power of the angels. Now it is manifest that imaginative apparitions are sometimes caused in us by the local movement of animal spirits and humors. Hence Aristotle says (De Somn. et Vigil.) [De Insomniis iii.], when assigning the cause of visions in dreams, that "when an animal sleeps, the blood descends in abundance to the sensitive principle, and movements descend with it," that is, the impressions left from the movements are preserved in the animal spirits, "and move the sensitive principle"; so that a certain appearance ensues, as if the sensitive principle were being then changed by the external objects themselves. Indeed, the commotion of the spirits and humors may be so great that such appearances may even occur to those who are awake, as is seen in mad people, and the like. So, as this happens by a natural disturbance of the humors, and sometimes also by the will of man who voluntarily imagines what he previously experienced, so also the same may be done by the power of a good or a bad angel, sometimes with alienation from the bodily senses, sometimes without such alienation.
IЄ q. 111 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod primum principium phantasiae est a sensu secundum actum, non enim possumus imaginari quae nullo modo sensimus, vel secundum totum vel secundum partem; sicut caecus natus non potest imaginari colorem. Sed aliquando imaginatio informatur, ut actus phantastici motus consurgat, ab impressionibus interius conservatis, ut dictum est.	Reply to Objection 1. The first principle of the imagination is from the sense in act. For we cannot imagine what we have never perceived by the senses, either wholly or partly; as a man born blind cannot imagine color. Sometimes, however, the imagination is informed in such a way that the act of the imaginative movement arises from the impressions preserved within.
IЄ q. 111 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Angelus transmutat imaginationem, non quidem imprimendo aliquam formam imaginariam nullo modo per sensum prius acceptam (non enim posset facere quod caecus imaginaretur colores), sed hoc facit per motum localem spirituum et humorum, ut dictum est.	Reply to Objection 2. An angel changes the imagination, not indeed by the impression of an imaginative form in no way previously received from the senses (for he cannot make a man born blind imagine color), but by local movement of the spirits and humors, as above explained.
IЄ q. 111 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod commixtio illa spiritus angelici ad imaginationem humanam, non est per essentiam, sed per effectum quem praedicto modo in imaginatione facit; cui demonstrat quae ipse novit, non tamen eo modo quo ipse novit.	Reply to Objection 3. The commingling of the angelic spirit with the human imagination is not a mingling of essences, but by reason of an effect which he produces in the imagination in the way above stated; so that he shows man what he [the angel] knows, but not in the way he knows.
IЄ q. 111 a. 3 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod Angelus causans aliquam imaginariam visionem, quandoque quidem simul intellectum illuminat, ut cognoscat quid per huiusmodi similitudines significetur, et tunc nulla est deceptio. Quandoque vero per operationem Angeli solummodo similitudines rerum apparent in imaginatione, nec tamen tunc causatur deceptio ab Angelo, sed ex defectu intellectus eius cui talia apparent. Sicut nec Christus fuit causa deceptionis in hoc quod multa turbis in parabolis proposuit, quae non exposuit eis.	Reply to Objection 4. An angel causing an imaginative vision, sometimes enlightens the intellect at the same time, so that it knows what these images signify; and then there is not deception. But sometimes by the angelic operation the similitudes of things only appear in the imagination; but neither then is deception caused by the angel, but by the defect in the intellect to whom such things appear. Thus neither was Christ a cause of deception when He spoke many things to the people in parables, which He did not explain to them.
IЄ q. 111 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus non possit immutare sensum humanum. Operatio enim sensitiva est operatio vitae. Huiusmodi autem operatio non est a principio extrinseco. Non ergo operatio sensitiva potest causari ab Angelo.	Objection 1. It seems that an angel cannot change the human senses. For the sensitive operation is a vital operation. But such an operation does not come from an extrinsic principle. Therefore the sensitive operation cannot be caused by an angel.
IЄ q. 111 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, virtus sensitiva est nobilior quam nutritiva. Sed Angelus, ut videtur, non potest mutare virtutem nutritivam; sicut nec alias formas naturales. Ergo neque virtutem sensitivam immutare potest.	Objection 2. Further, the sensitive operation is nobler than the nutritive. But the angel cannot change the nutritive power, nor other natural forms. Therefore neither can he change the sensitive power.
IЄ q. 111 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, sensus naturaliter movetur a sensibili. Sed Angelus non potest immutare naturae ordinem, ut supra dictum est. Ergo Angelus non potest immutare sensum, sed semper sensus a sensibili immutatur.	Objection 3. Further, the senses are naturally moved by the sensible objects. But an angel cannot change the order of nature (110, 4). Therefore an angel cannot change the senses; but these are changed always by the sensible object.
IЄ q. 111 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Angeli qui subverterunt Sodomam, percusserunt Sodomitas caecitate (vel aorasia), ut ostium domus invenire non possent, ut dicitur Gen. XIX. Et simile legitur IV Reg. VI, de Syris quos Elisaeus duxit in Samariam.	On the contrary, The angels who overturned Sodom, "struck the people of Sodom with blindness or aorasia, so that they could not find the door" (Genesis 19:11). [It is worth noting that these are the only two passages in the Greek version where the word aorasia appears. It expresses, in fact, the effect produced on the people of Sodom--namely, dazzling (French version, "eblouissement"), which the Latin "caecitas" (blindness) does not necessarily imply.] The same is recorded of the Syrians whom Eliseus led into Samaria (2 Kings 6:18).
IЄ q. 111 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod sensus immutatur dupliciter. Uno modo, ab exteriori; sicut cum mutatur a sensibili. Alio modo, ab interiori, videmus enim quod, perturbatis spiritibus et humoribus immutatur sensus; lingua enim infirmi, quia plena est cholerico humore, omnia sentit ut amara; et simile contingit in aliis sensibus. Utroque autem modo Angelus potest immutare sensum hominis sua naturali virtute. Potest enim Angelus opponere exterius sensui sensibile aliquod, vel a natura formatum, vel aliquod de novo formando; sicut facit dum corpus assumit, ut supra dictum est. Similiter etiam potest interius commovere spiritus et humores, ut supra dictum est, ex quibus sensus diversimode immutentur.	I answer that, The senses may be changed in a twofold manner; from without, as when affected by the sensible object: and from within, for we see that the senses are changed when the spirits and humors are disturbed; as for example, a sick man's tongue, charged with choleric humor, tastes everything as bitter, and the like with the other senses. Now an angel, by his natural power, can work a change in the senses both ways. For an angel can offer the senses a sensible object from without, formed by nature or by the angel himself, as when he assumes a body, as we have said above (51, 2). Likewise he can move the spirits and humors from within, as above remarked, whereby the senses are changed in various ways.
IЄ q. 111 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod principium sensitivae operationis non potest esse absque principio interiori, quod est potentia sensitiva, sed illud interius principium potest multipliciter ab exteriori principio commoveri, ut dictum est.	Reply to Objection 1. The principle of the sensitive operation cannot be without the interior principle which is the sensitive power; but this interior principle can be moved in many ways by the exterior principle, as above explained.
IЄ q. 111 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod etiam per commotionem interiorem spirituum et humorum, potest Angelus aliquid operari ad immutandum actum potentiae nutritivae. Et similiter potentiae appetitivae, et sensitivae, et cuiuscumque potentiae corporali organo utentis.	Reply to Objection 2. By the interior movement of the spirits and humors an angel can do something towards changing the act of the nutritive power, and also of the appetitive and sensitive power, and of any other power using a corporeal organ.
IЄ q. 111 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod praeter ordinem totius creaturae Angelus facere non potest, sed praeter ordinem alicuius particularis naturae facere potest, cum tali ordini non subdatur. Et sic quodam singulari modo potest sensum immutare, praeter modum communem.	Reply to Objection 3. An angel can do nothing outside the entire order of creatures; but he can outside some particular order of nature, since he is not subject to that order; thus in some special way an angel can work a change in the senses outside the common mode of nature.
IЄ q. 112 pr. Deinde considerandum est de missione Angelorum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum aliqui Angeli mittantur in ministerium. Secundo, utrum omnes mittantur. Tertio, utrum illi qui mittuntur, assistant. Quarto, de quibus ordinibus mittantur.	Question 112. The mission of the angelsAre any angels sent on works of ministry? Are all sent? Do those who are sent, assist? From what orders are they sent?
IЄ q. 112 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli in ministerium non mittantur. Omnis enim missio est ad aliquem determinatum locum. Sed actiones intellectuales non determinant aliquem locum, quia intellectus abstrahit ab hic et nunc. Cum igitur actiones angelicae sint intellectuales, videtur quod Angeli ad suas actiones agendas non mittantur.	Objection 1. It would seem that the angels are not sent on works of ministry. For every mission is to some determinate place. But intellectual actions do not determine a place, for intellect abstracts from the "here" and "now." Since therefore the angelic actions are intellectual, it appears that the angels are not sent to perform their own actions.
IЄ q. 112 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, caelum Empyreum est locus pertinens ad dignitatem Angelorum. Si igitur ad nos mittantur in ministerium, videtur quod eorum dignitati aliquid depereat. Quod est inconveniens.	Objection 2. Further, the empyrean heaven is the place that beseems the angelic dignity. Therefore if they are sent to us in ministry, it seems that something of their dignity would be lost; which is unseemly.
IЄ q. 112 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, exterior occupatio impedit sapientiae contemplationem, unde dicitur Eccli. XXXVIII, qui minoratur actu, percipiet sapientiam. Si igitur Angeli aliqui mittuntur ad exteriora ministeria, videtur quod retardentur a contemplatione. Sed tota eorum beatitudo in contemplatione Dei consistit. Si ergo mitterentur, eorum beatitudo minueretur. Quod est inconveniens.	Objection 3. Further, external occupation hinders the contemplation of wisdom; hence it is said: "He that is less in action, shall receive wisdom" (Sirach 38:25). So if some angels are sent on external ministrations, they would seemingly be hindered from contemplation. But the whole of their beatitude consists in the contemplation of God. So if they were sent, their beatitude would be lessened; which is unfitting.
IЄ q. 112 a. 1 arg. 4 Praeterea, ministrare est inferioris, unde dicitur Lucae XXII, quis maior est, qui recumbit, an ille qui ministrat? Nonne qui recumbit? Sed Angeli sunt maiores nobis ordine naturae. Ergo non mittuntur in ministerium nostrum.	Objection 4. Further, to minister is the part of an inferior; hence it is written (Luke 22:27): "Which is the greater, he that sitteth at table, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at table?" But the angels are naturally greater than we are. Therefore they are not sent to administer to us.
IЄ q. 112 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Exod. XXIII, ecce ego mittam Angelum meum, qui praecedat te.	On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 23:20): "Behold I will send My angels who shall go before thee."
IЄ q. 112 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod ex supra dictis manifestum esse potest quod aliqui Angeli in ministerium mittuntur a Deo. Ut enim supra dictum est, cum de missione divinarum personarum ageretur, ille mitti dicitur, qui aliquo modo ab alio procedit, ut incipiat esse ubi prius non erat, vel ubi prius erat, per alium modum. Filius enim aut spiritus sanctus mitti dicitur, ut a patre procedens per originem; et incipit esse novo modo, idest per gratiam vel per naturam assumptam, ubi prius erat per deitatis praesentiam. Dei enim proprium est ubique esse, quia cum sit universale agens, eius virtus attingit omnia entia; unde est in omnibus rebus, ut supra dictum est. Virtus autem Angeli, cum sit particulare agens, non attingit totum universum; sed sic attingit unum, quod non attingit aliud. Et ideo ita est hic, quod non alibi. Manifestum est autem per supra dicta, quod creatura corporalis per Angelos administratur. Cum igitur aliquid est fiendum per aliquem Angelum circa aliquam creaturam corpoream, de novo applicatur Angelus illi corpori sua virtute; et sic Angelus de novo incipit ibi esse. Et hoc totum procedit ex imperio divino. Unde sequitur, secundum praemissa, quod Angelus a Deo mittatur. Sed actio quam Angelus missus exercet, procedit a Deo sicut a primo principio, cuius nutu et auctoritate Angeli operantur; et in Deum reducitur sicut in ultimum finem. Et hoc facit rationem ministri, nam minister est sicut instrumentum intelligens; instrumentum autem ab alio movetur, et eius actio ad aliud ordinatur. Unde actiones Angelorum ministeria vocantur; et propter hoc dicuntur in ministerium mitti.	I answer that, From what has been said above (108, 6), it may be shown that some angels are sent in ministry by God. For, as we have already stated (43, 1), in treating of the mission of the Divine Persons, he is said to be sent who in any way proceeds from another so as to begin to be where he was not, or to be in another way, where he already was. Thus the Son, or the Holy Ghost is said to be sent as proceeding from the Father by origin; and begins to be in a new way, by grace or by the nature assumed, where He was before by the presence of His Godhead; for it belongs to God to be present everywhere, because, since He is the universal agent, His power reaches to all being, and hence He exists in all things (8, 1). An angel's power, however, as a particular agent, does not reach to the whole universe, but reaches to one thing in such a way as not to reach another; and so he is "here" in such a manner as not to be "there." But it is clear from what was above stated (110, 1), that the corporeal creature is governed by the angels. Hence, whenever an angel has to perform any work concerning a corporeal creature, the angel applies himself anew to that body by his power; and in that way begins to be there afresh. Now all this takes place by Divine command. Hence it follows that an angel is sent by God. Yet the action performed by the angel who is sent, proceeds from God as from its first principle, at Whose nod and by Whose authority the angels work; and is reduced to God as to its last end. Now this is what is meant by a minister: for a minister is an intelligent instrument; while an instrument is moved by another, and its action is ordered to another. Hence angels' actions are called 'ministries'; and for this reason they are said to be sent in ministry.
IЄ q. 112 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod aliqua operatio dupliciter dicitur intellectualis. Uno modo, quasi in ipso intellectu consistens, ut contemplatio. Et talis operatio non determinat sibi locum, immo, ut Augustinus dicit IV de Trin., etiam nos, secundum quod aliquid aeternum mente sapimus, non in hoc mundo sumus. Alio modo dicitur aliqua actio intellectualis, quia est ab aliquo intellectu regulata et imperata. Et sic manifestum est quod operationes intellectuales interdum determinant sibi loca.	Reply to Objection 1. An operation can be intellectual in two ways. In one way, as dwelling in the intellect itself, as contemplation; such an operation does not demand to occupy a place; indeed, as Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 20): "Even we ourselves as mentally tasting something eternal, are not in this world." In another sense an action is said to be intellectual because it is regulated and commanded by some intellect; in that sense the intellectual operations evidently have sometimes a determinate place.
IЄ q. 112 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod caelum Empyreum pertinet ad dignitatem Angeli secundum congruentiam quandam, quia congruum est ut supremum corporum naturae quae est supra omnia corpora, attribuatur. Non tamen Angelus aliquid dignitatis accipit a caelo Empyreo. Et ideo quando actu non est in caelo Empyreo, nihil eius dignitati subtrahitur, sicut nec regi, quando non actu sedet in regali solio, quod congruit eius dignitati.	Reply to Objection 2. The empyrean heaven belongs to the angelic dignity by way of congruity; forasmuch as it is congruous that the higher body should be attributed to that nature which occupies a rank above bodies. Yet an angel does not derive his dignity from the empyrean heaven; so when he is not actually in the empyrean heaven, nothing of his dignity is lost, as neither does a king lessen his dignity when not actually sitting on his regal throne, which suits his dignity.
IЄ q. 112 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod in nobis exterior occupatio puritatem contemplationis impedit, quia actioni insistimus secundum sensitivas vires, quarum actiones cum intenduntur, retardantur actiones intellectivae virtutis. Sed Angelus per solam intellectualem operationem regulat suas actiones exteriores. Unde actiones exteriores in nullo impediunt eius contemplationem, quia duarum actionum quarum una est regula et ratio alterius, una non impedit, sed iuvat aliam. Unde Gregorius dicit, in II Moral., quod Angeli non sic foris exeunt, ut internae contemplationis gaudiis priventur.	Reply to Objection 3. In ourselves the purity of contemplation is obscured by exterior occupation; because we give ourselves to action through the sensitive faculties, the action of which when intense impedes the action of the intellectual powers. An angel, on the contrary, regulates his exterior actions by intellectual operation alone. Hence it follows that his external occupations in no respect impede his contemplation; because given two actions, one of which is the rule and the reason of the other, one does not hinder but helps the other. Wherefore Gregory says (Moral. ii) that "the angels do not go abroad in such a manner as to lose the delights of inward contemplation."
IЄ q. 112 a. 1 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod Angeli in suis actionibus exterioribus ministrant principaliter Deo, et secundario nobis. Non quia nos sumus superiores eis, simpliciter loquendo, sed quilibet homo vel Angelus, inquantum adhaerendo Deo fit unus spiritus cum Deo, est superior omni creatura. Unde apostolus, ad Philipp. II, dicit, superiores sibi invicem arbitrantes.	Reply to Objection 4. In their external actions the angels chiefly minister to God, and secondarily to us; not because we are superior to them, absolutely speaking, but because, since every man or angel by cleaving to God is made one spirit with God, he is thereby superior to every creature. Hence the Apostle says (Philippians 2:3): "Esteeming others better than themselves."
IЄ q. 112 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod omnes Angeli in ministerium mittantur. Dicit enim apostolus, ad Heb. I, omnes sunt administratorii spiritus, in ministerium missi.	Objection 1. It would seem that all the angels are sent in ministry. For the Apostle says (Hebrews 1:14): "All are ministering spirits, sent to minister" [Vulg. 'Are they not all . . . ?'].
IЄ q. 112 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, inter ordines supremus est ordo Seraphim, ut ex supra dictis patet. Sed Seraphim est missus ad purgandum labia prophetae, ut habetur Isaiae VI. Ergo multo magis inferiores Angeli mittuntur.	Objection 2. Further, among the orders, the highest is that of the Seraphim, as stated above (108, 6). But a Seraph was sent to purify the lips of the prophet (Isaiah 6:6-7). Therefore much more are the inferior orders sent.
IЄ q. 112 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, divinae personae in infinitum excedunt omnes ordines Angelorum. Sed divinae personae mittuntur, ut supra dictum est. Ergo multo magis quicumque supremi Angeli.	Objection 3. Further, the Divine Persons infinitely excel all the angelic orders. But the Divine Persons are sent. Therefore much more are even the highest angels sent.
IЄ q. 112 a. 2 arg. 4 Praeterea, si superiores Angeli non mittuntur ad exterius ministerium, hoc non est nisi quia superiores Angeli exequuntur divina ministeria per inferiores. Sed cum omnes Angeli sint inaequales, ut supra dictum est, quilibet Angelus habet inferiorem Angelum, praeter ultimum. Ergo unus Angelus solus ministraret in ministerium missus. Quod est contra id quod dicitur Daniel VII, millia millium ministrabant ei.	Objection 4. Further, if the superior angels are not sent to the external ministries, this can only be because the superior angels execute the Divine ministries by means of the inferior angels. But as all the angels are unequal, as stated above (50, 4), each angel has an angel inferior to himself except the last one. Therefore only the last angel would be sent in ministry; which contradicts the words, "Thousands of thousands ministered to Him" (Daniel 7:10).
IЄ q. 112 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit, referens sententiam Dionysii, superiora agmina usum exterioris ministerii nequaquam habent.	On the contrary, Gregory says (Hom. xxxiv in Evang.), quoting the statement of Dionysius (Coel. Hier. xiii), that "the higher ranks fulfil no exterior service."
IЄ q. 112 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex supra dictis patet, hoc habet ordo divinae providentiae, non solum in Angelis, sed etiam in toto universo, quod inferiora per superiora administrantur, sed ab hoc ordine in rebus corporalibus aliquando ex divina dispensatione receditur, propter altiorem ordinem, secundum scilicet quod expedit ad gratiae manifestationem. Quod enim caecus natus fuit illuminatus, quod Lazarus fuit suscitatus, immediate a Deo factum est, absque aliqua actione caelestium corporum. Sed et Angeli boni et mali possunt aliquid in istis corporibus operari praeter actionem caelestium corporum, condensando nubes in pluvias, et aliqua huiusmodi faciendo. Neque alicui debet esse dubium quin Deus immediate hominibus aliqua revelare posset, non mediantibus Angelis; et superiores Angeli, non mediantibus inferioribus. Et secundum hanc considerationem, quidam dixerunt quod, secundum communem legem, superiores non mittuntur, sed inferiores tantum; sed ex aliqua dispensatione divina, interdum etiam superiores mittuntur. Sed hoc non videtur rationabile. Quia ordo angelicus attenditur secundum dona gratiarum. Ordo autem gratiae non habet alium superiorem ordinem, propter quem praetermitti debeat, sicut praetermittitur ordo naturae propter ordinem gratiae. Considerandum est etiam quod ordo naturae in operationibus miraculorum praetermittitur, propter fidei confirmationem. Ad quam nihil valeret, si praetermitteretur ordo angelicus, quia hoc a nobis percipi non posset. Nihil etiam est ita magnum in ministeriis divinis, quod per inferiores ordines exerceri non possit. Unde Gregorius dicit quod qui summa annuntiant, Archangeli vocantur. Hinc est quod ad virginem Mariam Gabriel Archangelus mittitur. Quod tamen fuit summum inter omnia divina ministeria, ut ibidem subditur. Et ideo simpliciter dicendum est, cum Dionysio, quod superiores Angeli nunquam ad exterius ministerium mittuntur.	I answer that, As appears from what has been said above (106, 3; 110, 1), the order of Divine Providence has so disposed not only among the angels, but also in the whole universe, that inferior things are administered by the superior. But the Divine dispensation, however, this order is sometimes departed from as regards corporeal things, for the sake of a higher order, that is, according as it is suitable for the manifestation of grace. That the man born blind was enlightened, that Lazarus was raised from the dead, was accomplished immediately by God without the action of the heavenly bodies. Moreover both good and bad angels can work some effect in these bodies independently of the heavenly bodies, by the condensation of the clouds to rain, and by producing some such effects. Nor can anyone doubt that God can immediately reveal things to men without the help of the angels, and the superior angels without the inferior. From this standpoint some have said that according to the general law the superior angels are not sent, but only the inferior; yet that sometimes, by Divine dispensation, the superior angels also are sent. It may also be said that the Apostle wishes to prove that Christ is greater than the angels who were chosen as the messengers of the law; in order that He might show the excellence of the new over the old law. Hence there is no need to apply this to any other angels besides those who were sent to give the law. This, however, does not seem to be reasonable, because order among the angels is according to the gifts of grace. Now the order of grace has no order above itself for the sake of which it should be passed over; as the order of nature is passed over for the sake of grace. It must likewise be observed that the order of nature in the working of miracles is passed over for the confirmation of faith; whcih purpose would receive no additional support if the angelic order were passed over, since this could not be perceived by us. Furthermore, there is nothing in the divine ministries above the capacity of the inferior orders. Hence Gregory says that those who announce the highest things are called archangels. For this reason the archangel Gabriel was sent to the Virgin Mary; and yet, as he says further on, this was the greatest of all the divine ministries. Thus with Dionysius we must say, without any qualification, that the superior angels are never sent to the external ministry.
IЄ q. 112 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut in missionibus divinarum personarum aliqua est visibilis, quae attenditur secundum creaturam corpoream; aliqua invisibilis, quae fit secundum spiritualem effectum, ita in missionibus Angelorum aliqua dicitur exterior, quae scilicet est ad aliquod ministerium circa corporalia exhibendum, et secundum hanc missionem non omnes mittuntur; alia est interior, secundum intellectuales effectus, prout scilicet unus Angelus illuminat alium, et sic omnes Angeli mittuntur. Vel aliter dicendum quod apostolus inducit illud ad probandum quod Christus sit maior Angelis per quos data est lex; ut sic ostendat excellentiam novae legis ad veterem. Unde non oportet quod intelligatur nisi de Angelis ministerii, per quos data est lex.	Reply to Objection 1. As in the missions of the divine Persons there is a visible mission, in regard to the corporeal creature, and an invisible mission, in regard to a spiritual effect, so likewise in the angelic missions, there is an external mission, in respect of some administration of corporeal things (and on such a mission not all the angels are sent), and an interior mission, in respect of some intellectual effect, according as one angel illumines another (and in this way all the angels are sent). It may also be said that the Apostle wishes to prove that Christ is greater than the angels who were chosen as the messengers of the law, in order that He might show the excellence of the new over the old law. Hence there is no need to apply this to any other angels besides those who were sent to give the law.
IЄ q. 112 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum, secundum Dionysium, quod ille Angelus qui missus est ad purgandum labia prophetae, fuit de inferioribus Angelis; sed dictus est Seraphim, idest incendens, aequivoce, propter hoc quod venerat ad incendendum labia prophetae. Vel dicendum quod superiores Angeli communicant propria dona, a quibus denominantur, mediantibus inferioribus Angelis. Sic igitur unus de Seraphim dictus est purgasse incendio labia prophetae, non quia hoc ipse immediate fecerit, sed quia inferior Angelus virtute eius hoc fecit. Sicut Papa dicitur absolvere aliquem, etiam si per alium officium absolutionis impendat.	Reply to Objection 2. According to Dionysius (Coel. Hier. xiii), the angel who was sent to purify the prophet's lips was one of the inferior order; but was called a "Seraph," that is, "kindling " in an equivocal sense, because he came to "kindle" the lips of the prophet. It may also be said that the superior angels communicate their own proper gifts whereby they are denominated, through the ministry of the inferior angels. Thus one of the Seraphim is described as purifying by fire the prophet's lips, not as if he did so immediately, but because an inferior angel did so by his power; as the Pope is said to absolve a man when he gives absolution by means of someone else.
IЄ q. 112 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod divinae personae non mittuntur in ministerium, sed aequivoce mitti dicuntur; ut ex praedictis patet.	Reply to Objection 3. The Divine Persons are not sent in ministry, but are said to be sent in an equivocal sense, as appears from what has been said (43, 1).
IЄ q. 112 a. 2 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod in divinis ministeriis est multiplex gradus. Unde nihil prohibet etiam inaequales Angelos immediate ad ministeria mitti; ita tamen quod superiores mittantur ad altiora ministeria, inferiores vero ad inferiora.	Reply to Objection 4. A manifold grade exists in the Divine ministries. Hence there is nothing to prevent angels though unequal from being sent immediately in ministry, in such a manner however that the superior are sent to the higher ministries, and the lower to the inferior ministries.
IЄ q. 112 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod etiam Angeli qui mittuntur, assistant. Dicit enim Gregorius, in homilia, et mittuntur igitur Angeli, et assistunt, quia etsi circumscriptus est angelicus spiritus, summus tamen spiritus ipse, qui Deus est, circumscriptus non est.	Objection 1. It would seem that the angels who are sent also assist. For Gregory says (Hom. xxxiv in Evang.): "So the angels are sent, and assist; for, though the angelic spirit is limited, yet the supreme Spirit, God, is not limited."
IЄ q. 112 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, Angelus Tobiae in ministerium missus fuit. Sed tamen ipse dixit, ego sum Raphael Angelus, unus ex septem qui adstamus ante Deum, ut habetur Tobiae XII. Ergo Angeli qui mittuntur, assistunt.	Objection 2. Further, the angel was sent to administer to Tobias. Yet he said, "I am the angel Raphael, one of the seven who stand before the Lord" (Tobit 12:15). Therefore the angels who are sent, assist.
IЄ q. 112 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, quilibet Angelus beatus propinquior est Deo quam Satan. Sed Satan assistit Deo; secundum quod dicitur Iob I, cum assisterent filii Dei coram domino, affuit inter eos et Satan. Ergo multo magis Angeli qui mittuntur in ministerium, assistunt.	Objection 3. Further, every holy angel is nearer to God than Satan is. Yet Satan assisted God, according to Job 1:6: "When the sons of God came to stand before the Lord, Satan also was present among them." Therefore much more do the angels, who are sent to minister, assist.
IЄ q. 112 a. 3 arg. 4 Praeterea, si inferiores Angeli non assistunt, hoc non est nisi quia non immediate, sed per superiores Angelos divinas illuminationes recipiunt. Sed quilibet Angelus per superiorem divinas illuminationes suscipit, excepto eo qui est inter omnes supremus. Ergo solus supremus Angelus assisteret. Quod est contra illud quod habetur Dan. VII, decies millies centena millia assistebant ei. Ergo etiam illi qui ministrant, assistunt.	Objection 4. Further, if the inferior angels do not assist, the reason is because they receive the Divine enlightenment, not immediately, but through the superior angels. But every angel receives the Divine enlightenment from a superior, except the one who is highest of all. Therefore only the highest angel would assist; which is contrary to the text of Daniel 7:10: "Ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before Him." Therefore the angels who are sent also assist.
IЄ q. 112 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit, XVII Moral., super illud Iob, numquid est numerus militum eius? Assistunt, inquit, illae potestates, quae ad quaedam hominibus nuntianda non exeunt. Ergo illi qui in ministerium mittuntur, non assistunt.	On the contrary, Gregory says, on Job 25:3: "Is there any numbering of His soldiers?" (Moral. xvii): "Those powers assist, who do not go forth as messengers to men." Therefore those who are sent in ministry do not assist.
IЄ q. 112 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Angeli introducuntur assistentes et administrantes, ad similitudinem eorum qui alicui regi famulantur. Quorum aliqui semper ei assistunt, et eius praecepta immediate audiunt. Alii vero sunt, ad quos praecepta regalia per assistentes nuntiantur, sicut illi qui administrationi civitatum praeficiuntur, et hi dicuntur ministrantes, sed non assistentes. Considerandum est ergo quod omnes Angeli divinam essentiam immediate vident, et quantum ad hoc, omnes etiam qui ministrant, assistere dicuntur. Unde Gregorius dicit in II Moral., quod semper assistere, aut videre faciem patris possunt, qui ad ministerium exterius mittuntur pro nostra salute. Sed non omnes Angeli secreta divinorum mysteriorum in ipsa claritate divinae essentiae percipere possunt; sed soli superiores, per quos inferioribus denuntiantur. Et secundum hoc, soli superiores, qui sunt primae hierarchiae, assistere dicuntur, cuius proprium dicit esse Dionysius immediate a Deo illuminari.	I answer that, The angels are spoken of as "assisting" and "administering," after the likeness of those who attend upon a king; some of whom ever wait upon him, and hear his commands immediately; while others there are to whom the royal commands are conveyed by those who are in attendance--for instance, those who are placed at the head of the administration of various cities; these are said to administer, not to assist. We must therefore observe that all the angels gaze upon the Divine Essence immediately; in regard to which all, even those who minister, are said to assist. Hence Gregory says (Moral. ii) that "those who are sent on the external ministry of our salvation can always assist and see the face of the Father." Yet not all the angels can perceive the secrets of the Divine mysteries in the clearness itself of the Divine Essence; but only the superior angels who announce them to the inferior: and in that respect only the superior angels belonging to the highest hierarchy are said to assist, whose special prerogative it is to be enlightened immediately by God.
IЄ q. 112 a. 3 ad 1 Et per hoc patet solutio ad primum et secundum, quae procedunt de primo modo assistendi.	From this may be deduced the reply to the first and second objections, which are based on the first mode of assisting.
IЄ q. 112 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Satan non dicitur astitisse, sed inter assistentes affuisse describitur, quia, ut Gregorius dicit II Moral., etsi beatitudinem perdidit, naturam tamen Angelis similem non amisit.	Reply to Objection 3. Satan is not described as having assisted, but as present among the assistants; for, as Gregory says (Moral. ii), "though he has lost beatitude, still he has retained a nature like to the angels."
IЄ q. 112 a. 3 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod omnes assistentes aliqua immediate vident in claritate divinae essentiae; et ideo totius primae hierarchiae proprium esse dicitur immediate illuminari a Deo. Sed superiores eorum plura percipiunt quam inferiores, de quibus illuminant alios, sicut etiam inter eos qui assistunt regi, plura scit de secretis regis unus quam alius.	Reply to Objection 4. All the assistants see some things immediately in the glory of the Divine Essence; and so it may be said that it is the prerogative of the whole of the highest hierarchy to be immediately enlightened by God; while the higher ones among them see more than is seen by the inferior; some of whom enlighten others: as also among those who assist the king, one knows more of the king's secrets than another.
IЄ q. 112 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli secundae hierarchiae omnes mittantur. Angeli enim omnes vel assistunt vel ministrant; secundum quod habetur Dan. VII. Sed Angeli secundae hierarchiae non assistunt, illuminantur enim per Angelos primae hierarchiae, sicut dicit Dionysius VIII cap. Cael. Hier. Omnes ergo Angeli secundae hierarchiae in ministerium mittuntur.	Objection 1. It would seem that all the angels of the second hierarchy are sent. For all the angels either assist, or minister, according to Daniel 7:10. But the angels of the second hierarchy do not assist; for they are enlightened by the angels of the first hierarchy, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. viii). Therefore all the angels of the second hierarchy are sent in ministry.
IЄ q. 112 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, Gregorius dicit, XVII Moral., quod plures sunt qui ministrant, quam qui assistunt. Sed hoc non esset, si Angeli secundae hierarchiae in ministerium non mitterentur. Ergo omnes Angeli secundae hierarchiae in ministerium mittuntur.	Objection 2. Further, Gregory says (Moral. xvii) that "there are more who minister than who assist." This would not be the case if the angels of the second hierarchy were not sent in ministry. Therefore all the angels of the second hierarchy are sent to minister.
IЄ q. 112 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit, quod dominationes sunt maiores omni subiectione. Sed mitti in ministerium, ad subiectionem pertinet. Ergo dominationes in ministerium non mittuntur.	On the contrary, Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. viii) that the "Dominations are above all subjection." But to be sent implies subjection. Therefore the dominations are not sent to minister.
IЄ q. 112 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, mitti ad exterius ministerium proprie convenit Angelo, secundum quod ex divino imperio operatur circa aliquam creaturam corporalem; quod quidem pertinet ad executionem divini ministerii. Proprietates autem Angelorum ex eorum nominibus manifestantur, ut Dionysius dicit VII cap. Cael. Hier. Et ideo Angeli illorum ordinum ad exterius ministerium mittuntur, ex quorum nominibus aliqua executio datur intelligi. In nomine autem dominationum non importatur aliqua executio, sed sola dispositio et imperium de exequendis. Sed in nominibus inferiorum ordinum intelligitur aliqua executio, nam Angeli et Archangeli denominantur a denuntiando; virtutes et potestates dicuntur per respectum ad aliquem actum; principis etiam est, ut Gregorius dicit, inter alios operantes priorem existere. Unde ad hos quinque ordines pertinet in exterius ministerium mitti, non autem ad quatuor superiores.	I answer that, As above stated (1), to be sent to external ministry properly belongs to an angel according as he acts by Divine command in respect of any corporeal creature; which is part of the execution of the Divine ministry. Now the angelic properties are manifested by their names, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii); and therefore the angels of those orders are sent to external ministry whose names signify some kind of administration. But the name "dominations" does not signify any such administration, but only disposition and command in administering. On the other hand, the names of the inferior orders imply administration, for the "Angels" and "Archangels" are so called from "announcing"; the "Virtues" and "Powers" are so called in respect of some act; and it is right that the "Prince," according to what Gregory says (Hom. xxxiv in Evang.), "be first among the workers." Hence it belongs to these five orders to be sent to external ministry; not to the four superior orders.
IЄ q. 112 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod dominationes computantur quidem inter Angelos ministrantes, non sicut exequentes ministerium, sed sicut disponentes et mandantes quid per alios fieri debeat. Sicut architectores in artificiis nihil manu operantur, sed solum disponunt et praecipiunt quid alii debeant operari.	Reply to Objection 1. The Dominations are reckoned among the ministering angels, not as exercising but as disposing and commanding what is to be done by others; thus an architect does not put his hands to the production of his art, but only disposes and orders what others are to do.
IЄ q. 112 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod de numero assistentium et ministrantium duplex ratio haberi potest. Gregorius enim dicit plures esse ministrantes quam assistentes. Intelligit enim quod dicitur, millia millium ministrabant ei, non esse dictum multiplicative, sed partitive; ac si diceretur, millia de numero millium. Et sic ministrantium numerus ponitur indefinitus, ad significandum excessum; assistentium vero finitus, cum subditur, et decies millies centena millia assistebant ei. Et hoc procedit secundum rationem Platonicorum, qui dicebant quod quanto aliqua sunt uni primo principio propinquiora, tanto sunt minoris multitudinis, sicut quanto numerus est propinquior unitati, tanto est multitudine minor. Et haec opinio salvatur quantum ad numerum ordinum, dum sex ministrant, et tres assistunt. Sed Dionysius ponit, XIV cap. Cael. Hier., quod multitudo Angelorum transcendit omnem materialem multitudinem; ut scilicet, sicut corpora superiora transcendunt corpora inferiora magnitudine quasi in immensum, ita superiores naturae incorporeae transcendunt multitudine omnes naturas corporeas; quia quod est melius, est magis a Deo intentum et multiplicatum. Et secundum hoc, cum assistentes sint superiores ministrantibus, plures erunt assistentes quam ministrantes. Unde secundum hoc, millia millium legitur multiplicativae, ac si diceretur, millies millia. Et quia decies centum sunt mille, si diceretur, decies centena millia, daretur intelligi quod tot essent assistentes, quot ministrantes, sed quia dicitur, decies millies centena millia, multo plures dicuntur esse assistentes quam ministrantes. Nec tamen hoc pro tanto dicitur, quia tantus solum sit Angelorum numerus, sed multo maior, quia omnem materialem multitudinem excedit. Quod significatur per multiplicationem maximorum numerorum supra seipsos, scilicet denarii, centenarii et millenarii; ut Dionysius ibidem dicit.	Reply to Objection 2. A twofold reason may be given in assigning the number of the assisting and ministering angels. For Gregory says that those who minister are more numerous than those who assist; because he takes the words (Daniel 7:10) "thousands of thousands ministered to Him," not in a multiple but in a partitive sense, to mean "thousands out of thousands"; thus the number of those who minister is indefinite, and signifies excess; while the number of assistants is finite as in the words added, "and ten thousand times a hundred thousand assisted Him." This explanation rests on the opinion of the Platonists, who said that the nearer things are to the one first principle, the smaller they are in number; as the nearer a number is to unity, the lesser it is than multitude. This opinion is verified as regards the number of orders, as six administer and three assist. Dionysius, however, (Coel. Hier. xiv) declares that the multitude of angels surpasses all the multitude of material things; so that, as the superior bodies exceed the inferior in magnitude to an immeasurable degree, so the superior incorporeal natures surpass all corporeal natures in multitude; because whatever is better is more intended and more multiplied by God. Hence, as the assistants are superior to the ministers there will be more assistants than ministers. In this way, the words "thousands of thousands" are taken by way of multiplication, to signify "a thousand times a thousand." And because ten times a hundred is a thousand, if it were said "ten times a hundred thousand" it would mean that there are as many assistants as ministers: but since it is written "ten thousand times a hundred thousand," we are given to understand that the assistants are much more numerous than the ministers. Nor is this said to signify that this is the precise number of angels, but rather that it is much greater, in that it exceeds all material multitude. This is signified by the multiplication together of all the greatest numbers, namely ten, a hundred, and a thousand, as Dionysius remarks in the same passage.
IЄ q. 113 pr. Deinde considerandum est de custodia bonorum Angelorum, et de impugnatione malorum. Et circa primum quaeruntur octo. Primo, utrum homines ab Angelis custodiantur. Secundo, utrum singulis hominibus singuli Angeli ad custodiam deputentur. Tertio, utrum custodia pertineat solum ad ultimum ordinem Angelorum. Quarto, utrum omni homini conveniat habere Angelum custodem. Quinto, quando incipiat custodia Angeli circa hominem. Sexto, utrum Angelus semper custodiat hominem. Septimo, utrum doleat de perditione custoditi. Octavo, utrum inter Angelos sit pugna ratione custodiae.	Question 113. The guardianship of the good angelsAre men guarded by the angels? Is each man assigned a single guardian angel? Does the guardianship belong only to the lowest order of angels? Is it fitting for each man to have an angel guardian? When does an angel's guardianship of a man begin? Do the angel guardians always watch over men? Does the angel grieve over the loss of the one guarded? Does rivalry exist among the angels as regards their guardianship?
IЄ q. 113 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod homines non custodiantur ab Angelis. Custodes enim deputantur aliquibus vel quia nesciunt, vel quia non possunt custodire seipsos; sicut pueris et infirmis. Sed homo potest custodire seipsum per liberum arbitrium; et scit, per naturalem cognitionem legis naturalis. Ergo homo non custoditur ab Angelo.	Objection 1. It would seem that men are not guarded by the angels. For guardians are deputed to some because they either know not how, or are not able, to guard themselves, as children and the sick. But man is able to guard himself by his free-will; and knows how by his natural knowledge of natural law. Therefore man is not guarded by an angel.
IЄ q. 113 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, ubi adest fortior custodia, infirmior superfluere videtur. Sed homines custodiuntur a Deo; secundum illud Psalmi CXX, non dormitabit neque dormiet qui custodit Israel. Ergo non est necessarium quod homo custodiatur ab Angelo.	Objection 2. Further, a strong guard makes a weaker one superfluous. But men are guarded by God, according to Psalm 120:4: "He shall neither slumber nor sleep, that keepeth Israel." Therefore man does not need to be guarded by an angel.
IЄ q. 113 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, perditio custoditi redundat in negligentiam custodis, unde dicitur cuidam, III Reg. XX, custodi virum istum, qui si lapsus fuerit, erit anima tua pro anima eius. Sed multi homines quotidie pereunt, in peccatum cadentes, quibus Angeli subvenire possent vel visibiliter apparendo, vel miracula faciendo, vel aliquo simili modo. Essent ergo negligentes Angeli, si eorum custodiae homines essent commissi, quod patet esse falsum. Non igitur Angeli sunt hominum custodes.	Objection 3. Further, the loss of the guarded redounds to the negligence of the guardian; hence it was said to a certain one: "Keep this man; and if he shall slip away, thy life shall be for his life" (1 Kings 20:39). Now many perish daily through falling into sin; whom the angels could help by visible appearance, or by miracles, or in some such-like way. The angels would therefore be negligent if men are given to their guardianship. But that is clearly false. Therefore the angels are not the guardians of men.
IЄ q. 113 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalmo, Angelis suis mandavit de te, ut custodiant te in omnibus viis tuis.	On the contrary, It is written (Psalm 90:11): "He hath given His angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways."
IЄ q. 113 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, secundum rationem divinae providentiae, hoc in rebus omnibus invenitur, quod mobilia et variabilia per immobilia et invariabilia moventur et regulantur; sicut omnia corporalia per substantias spirituales immobiles, et corpora inferiora per corpora superiora, quae sunt invariabilia secundum substantiam. Sed et nos ipsi regulamur circa conclusiones in quibus possumus diversimode opinari, per principia quae invariabiliter tenemus. Manifestum est autem quod in rebus agendis cognitio et affectus hominis multipliciter variari et deficere possunt a bono. Et ideo necessarium fuit quod hominibus Angeli ad custodiam deputarentur, per quos regularentur et moverentur ad bonum.	I answer that, According to the plan of Divine Providence, we find that in all things the movable and variable are moved and regulated by the immovable and invariable; as all corporeal things by immovable spiritual substances, and the inferior bodies by the superior which are invariable in substance. We ourselves also are regulated as regards conclusions, about which we may have various opinions, by the principles which we hold in an invariable manner. It is moreover manifest that as regards things to be done human knowledge and affection can vary and fail from good in many ways; and so it was necessary that angels should be deputed for the guardianship of men, in order to regulate them and move them to good.
IЄ q. 113 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod per liberum arbitrium potest homo aliqualiter malum vitare, sed non sufficienter, quia infirmatur circa affectum boni, propter multiplices animae passiones. Similiter etiam universalis cognitio naturalis legis, quae homini naturaliter adest, aliqualiter dirigit hominem ad bonum, sed non sufficienter, quia in applicando universalia principia iuris ad particularia opera, contingit hominem multipliciter deficere. Unde dicitur Sap. IX, cogitationes mortalium timidae, et incertae providentiae nostrae. Et ideo necessaria fuit homini custodia Angelorum.	Reply to Objection 1. By free-will man can avoid evil to a certain degree, but not in any sufficient degree; forasmuch as he is weak in affection towards good on account of the manifold passions of the soul. Likewise universal natural knowledge of the law, which by nature belongs to man, to a certain degree directs man to good, but not in a sufficient degree; because in the application of the universal principles of law to particular actions man happens to be deficient in many ways. Hence it is written (Wisdom 9:14): "The thoughts of mortal men are fearful, and our counsels uncertain." Thus man needs to be guarded by the angels.
IЄ q. 113 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ad bene operandum duo requiruntur. Primo quidem, quod affectus inclinetur ad bonum, quod quidem fit in nobis per habitum virtutis moralis. Secundo autem, quod ratio inveniat congruas vias ad perficiendum bonum virtutis, quod quidem philosophus attribuit prudentiae. Quantum ergo ad primum, Deus immediate custodit hominem, infundendo ei gratiam et virtutes. Quantum autem ad secundum, Deus custodit hominem sicut universalis instructor, cuius instructio ad hominem provenit mediantibus Angelis, ut supra habitum est.	Reply to Objection 2. Two things are required for a good action; first, that the affection be inclined to good, which is effected in us by the habit of moral virtue. Secondly, that reason should discover the proper methods to make perfect the good of virtue; this the Philosopher (Ethic. vi) attributes to prudence. As regards the first, God guards man immediately by infusing into him grace and virtues; as regards the second, God guards man as his universal instructor, Whose precepts reach man by the medium of the angels, as above stated (111, 1).
IЄ q. 113 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut homines a naturali instinctu boni discedunt propter passionem peccati; ita etiam discedunt ab instigatione bonorum Angelorum, quae fit invisibiliter per hoc quod homines illuminant ad bene agendum. Unde quod homines pereunt, non est imputandum negligentiae Angelorum, sed malitiae hominum. Quod autem aliquando, praeter legem communem, hominibus visibiliter apparent, ex speciali Dei gratia est, sicut etiam quod praeter ordinem naturae miracula fiunt.	Reply to Objection 3. As men depart from the natural instinct of good by reason of a sinful passion, so also do they depart from the instigation of the good angels, which takes place invisibly when they enlighten man that he may do what is right. Hence that men perish is not to be imputed to the negligence of the angels but to the malice of men. That they sometimes appear to men visibly outside the ordinary course of nature comes from a special grace of God, as likewise that miracles occur outside the order of nature.
IЄ q. 113 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non singuli homines a singulis Angelis custodiantur. Angelus enim est virtuosior quam homo. Sed unus homo sufficit ad custodiam multorum hominum. Ergo multo magis unus Angelus multos homines potest custodire.	Objection 1. It would seem that each man is not guarded by an angel. For an angel is stronger than a man. But one man suffices to guard many men. Therefore much more can one angel guard many men.
IЄ q. 113 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, inferiora reducuntur in Deum a superioribus per media, ut Dionysius dicit. Sed cum omnes Angeli sint inaequales, ut supra dictum est, solus unus Angelus est inter quem et homines non est aliquis medius. Ergo unus Angelus solus est qui immediate custodit homines.	Objection 2. Further, the lower things are brought to God through the medium of the higher, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv, xiii). But as all the angels are unequal (50, 4), there is only one angel between whom and men there is no medium. Therefore there is only one angel who immediately keeps men.
IЄ q. 113 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, maiores Angeli maioribus officiis deputantur. Sed non est maius officium custodire unum hominem quam alium, cum omnes homines natura sint pares. Cum ergo omnium Angelorum sit unus maior alio, secundum Dionysium, videtur quod diversi homines non custodiantur a diversis Angelis.	Objection 3. Further, the greater angels are deputed to the greater offices. But it is not a greater office to keep one man more than another; since all men are naturally equal. Since therefore of all the angels one is greater than another, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. x), it seems that different men are not guarded by different angels.
IЄ q. 113 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod Hieronymus, exponens illud Matth. XVIII, Angeli eorum in caelis, dicit, magna est dignitas animarum, ut unaquaeque habeat, ab ortu nativitatis, in custodiam sui Angelum delegatum.	On the contrary, On the text, "Their angels in heaven," etc. (Matthew 8:10), Jerome says: "Great is the dignity of souls, for each one to have an angel deputed to guard it from its birth."
IЄ q. 113 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod singulis hominibus singuli Angeli ad custodiam deputantur. Cuius ratio est, quia Angelorum custodia est quaedam executio divinae providentiae circa homines. Providentia autem Dei aliter se habet ad homines, et ad alias corruptibiles creaturas, quia aliter se habent ad incorruptibilitatem. Homines enim non solum sunt incorruptibiles quantum ad communem speciem, sed etiam quantum ad proprias formas singulorum, quae sunt animae rationales, quod de aliis rebus corruptibilibus dici non potest. Manifestum est autem quod providentia Dei principaliter est circa illa quae perpetuo manent, circa ea vero quae transeunt, providentia Dei est inquantum ordinat ipsa ad res perpetuas. Sic igitur providentia Dei comparatur ad singulos homines, sicut comparatur ad singula genera vel species corruptibilium rerum. Sed secundum Gregorium, diversi ordines deputantur diversis rerum generibus; puta potestates ad arcendos Daemones, virtutes ad miracula facienda in rebus corporeis. Et probabile est quod diversis speciebus rerum diversi Angeli eiusdem ordinis praeficiantur. Unde etiam rationabile est ut diversis hominibus diversi Angeli ad custodiam deputentur.	I answer that, Each man has an angel guardian appointed to him. This rests upon the fact that the guardianship of angels belongs to the execution of Divine providence concerning men. But God's providence acts differently as regards men and as regards other corruptible creatures, for they are related differently to incorruptibility. For men are not only incorruptible in the common species, but also in the proper forms of each individual, which are the rational souls, which cannot be said of other incorruptible things. Now it is manifest that the providence of God is chiefly exercised towards what remains for ever; whereas as regards things which pass away, the providence of God acts so as to order their existence to the things which are perpetual. Thus the providence of God is related to each man as it is to every genus or species of things corruptible. But, according to Gregory (Hom. xxxiv in Evang.), the different orders are deputed to the different "genera" of things, for instance, the "Powers" to coerce the demons, the "Virtues" to work miracles in things corporeal; while it is probable that the different species are presided over by different angels of the same order. Hence it is also reasonable to suppose that different angels are appointed to the guardianship of different men.
IЄ q. 113 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod alicui homini adhibetur custos dupliciter. Uno modo, inquantum est homo singularis, et sic uni homini debetur unus custos, et interdum plures deputantur ad custodiam unius. Alio modo, inquantum est pars alicuius collegii, et sic toti collegio unus homo ad custodiam praeponitur, ad quem pertinet providere ea quae pertinent ad unum hominem in ordine ad totum collegium; sicut sunt ea quae exterius aguntur, de quibus alii aedificantur vel scandalizantur. Angelorum autem custodia deputatur hominibus etiam quantum ad invisibilia et occulta, quae pertinent ad singulorum salutem secundum seipsos. Unde singulis hominibus singuli Angeli deputantur ad custodiam.	Reply to Objection 1. A guardian may be assigned to a man for two reasons: first, inasmuch as a man is an individual, and thus to one man one guardian is due; and sometimes several are appointed to guard one. Secondly, inasmuch as a man is part of a community, and thus one man is appointed as guardian of a whole community; to whom it belongs to provide what concerns one man in his relation to the whole community, such as external works, which are sources of strength or weakness to others. But angel guardians are given to men also as regards invisible and occult things, concerning the salvation of each one in his own regard. Hence individual angels are appointed to guard individual men.
IЄ q. 113 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, Angeli primae hierarchiae omnes quantum ad aliqua illuminantur immediate a Deo, sed quaedam sunt de quibus illuminantur superiores tantum immediate a Deo, quae inferioribus revelant. Et idem etiam in inferioribus ordinibus considerandum est, nam aliquis infimus Angelus illuminatur quantum ad quaedam ab aliquo supremo, et quantum ad aliqua ab eo qui immediate sibi praefertur. Et sic etiam possibile est quod aliquis Angelus immediate illuminet hominem, qui tamen habet aliquos Angelos sub se, quos illuminat.	Reply to Objection 2. As above stated (112, 3, ad 4), all the angels of the first hierarchy are, as to some things, enlightened by God directly; but as to other things, only the superior are directly enlightened by God, and these reveal them to the inferior. And the same also applies to the inferior orders: for a lower angel is enlightened in some respects by one of the highest, and in other respects by the one immediately above him. Thus it is possible that some one angel enlightens a man immediately, and yet has other angels beneath him whom he enlightens.
IЄ q. 113 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, quamvis homines natura sint pares, tamen inaequalitas in eis invenitur, secundum quod ex divina providentia quidam ordinantur ad maius, et quidam ad minus; secundum illud quod dicitur Eccli. XXXIII, in multitudine disciplinae domini separavit eos, ex ipsis benedixit et exaltavit, ex ipsis maledixit et humiliavit. Et sic maius officium est custodire unum hominem quam alium.	Reply to Objection 3. Although men are equal in nature, still inequality exists among them, according as Divine Providence orders some to the greater, and others to the lesser things, according to Sirach 33:11-12: "With much knowledge the Lord hath divided them, and diversified their ways: some of them hath He blessed and exalted, and some of them hath He cursed and brought low." Thus it is a greater office to guard one man than another.
IЄ q. 113 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod custodire homines non pertineat solum ad infimum ordinem Angelorum. Dicit enim Chrysostomus quod hoc quod dicitur Matth. XVIII, Angeli eorum in caelo etc., intelligitur non de quibuscumque Angelis, sed de supereminentibus. Ergo supereminentes Angeli custodiunt homines.	Objection 1. It would seem that the guardianship of men does not belong only to the lowest order of the angels. For Chrysostom says that the text (Matthew 18:10), "Their angels in heaven," etc. is to be understood not of any angels but of the highest. Therefore the superior angels guard men.
IЄ q. 113 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, apostolus, ad Heb. I, dicit quod Angeli sunt in ministerium missi propter eos qui haereditatem capiunt salutis, et sic videtur quod missio Angelorum ad custodiam hominum ordinetur. Sed quinque ordines in exterius ministerium mittuntur, ut supra dictum est. Ergo omnes Angeli quinque ordinum custodiae hominum deputantur.	Objection 2. Further, the Apostle says that angels "are sent to minister for them who shall receive the inheritance of salvation" (Hebrews 1:14); and thus it seems that the mission of the angels is directed to the guardianship of men. But five orders are sent in external ministry (112, 4). Therefore all the angels of the five orders are deputed to the guardianship of men.
IЄ q. 113 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, ad custodiam hominum maxime videtur esse necessarium arcere Daemones, quod pertinet ad potestates, secundum Gregorium; et miracula facere, quod pertinet ad virtutes. Ergo illi etiam ordines deputantur ad custodiam, et non solum infimus.	Objection 3. Further, for the guardianship of men it seems especially necessary to coerce the demons, which belongs most of all to the Powers, according to Gregory (Hom. xxxiv in Evang.); and to work miracles, which belongs to the Virtues. Therefore these orders are also deputed to the work of guardianship, and not only the lowest order.
IЄ q. 113 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod in Psalmo custodia hominum attribuitur Angelis; quorum ordo est infimus, secundum Dionysium.	On the contrary, In the Psalm (90) the guardianship of men is attributed to the angels; who belong to the lowest order, according to Dionysius (Coel. Hier. v, ix).
IЄ q. 113 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, homini custodia dupliciter adhibetur. Uno modo custodia particularis, secundum quod singulis hominibus singuli Angeli ad custodiam deputantur. Et talis custodia pertinet ad infimum ordinem Angelorum, quorum, secundum Gregorium, est minima nuntiare; hoc autem videtur esse minimum in officiis Angelorum, procurare ea quae ad unius hominis tantum salutem pertinent. Alia vero est custodia universalis. Et haec multiplicatur secundum diversos ordines, nam quanto agens fuerit universalius, tanto est superius. Sic igitur custodia humanae multitudinis pertinet ad ordinem principatuum, vel forte ad Archangelos, qui dicuntur principes Angeli, unde et Michael, quem Archangelum dicimus, unus de principibus dicitur Dan. X. Ulterius autem super omnes naturas corporeas habent custodiam virtutes. Et ulterius etiam super Daemones habent custodiam potestates. Et ulterius etiam super bonos spiritus habent custodiam principatus, secundum Gregorium.	I answer that, As above stated (2), man is guarded in two ways; in one way by particular guardianship, according as to each man an angel is appointed to guard him; and such guardianship belongs to the lowest order of the angels, whose place it is, according to Gregory, to announce the "lesser things"; for it seems to be the least of the angelic offices to procure what concerns the salvation of only one man. The other kind of guardianship is universal, multiplied according to the different orders. For the more universal an agent is, the higher it is. Thus the guardianship of the human race belongs to the order of "Principalities," or perhaps to the "Archangels," whom we call the angel princes. Hence, Michael, whom we call an archangel, is also styled "one of the princes" (Daniel 10:13). Moreover all corporeal creatures are guarded by the "Virtues"; and likewise the demons by the "Powers," and the good spirits by the "Principalities," according to Gregory's opinion (Hom. xxxiv in Ev.).
IЄ q. 113 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod verbum Chrysostomi potest intelligi, ut loquatur de supremis in ordine infimo Angelorum, quia, ut Dionysius dicit, in quolibet ordine sunt primi, medii et ultimi. Est autem probabile quod maiores Angeli deputentur ad custodiam eorum qui sunt ad maiorem gradum gloriae a Deo electi.	Reply to Objection 1. Chrysostom can be taken to mean the highest in the lowest order of angels; for, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. x) in each order there are first, middle, and last. It is, however, probable that the greater angels are deputed to keep those chosen by God for the higher degree of glory.
IЄ q. 113 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod non omnes Angeli qui mittuntur, habent particularem custodiam super singulos homines; sed quidam ordines habent universalem custodiam, magis vel minus, ut dictum est.	Reply to Objection 2. Not all the angels who are sent have guardianship of individual men; but some orders have a universal guardianship, greater or less, as above explained.
IЄ q. 113 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod etiam inferiores Angeli exercent officia superiorum, inquantum aliquid de dono eorum participant, et se habent ad superiores sicut executores virtutis eorum. Et per hunc modum etiam Angeli infimi ordinis possunt et arcere Daemones, et miracula facere.	Reply to Objection 3. Even inferior angels exercise the office of the superior, as they share in their gifts, and they are executors of the superiors' power; and in this way all the angels of the lowest order can coerce the demons, and work miracles.
IЄ q. 113 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non omnibus hominibus Angeli ad custodiam deputentur. Dicitur enim de Christo, Philipp. II, quod est in similitudinem hominum factus, et habitu inventus ut homo. Si igitur omnibus hominibus Angeli ad custodiam deputantur, etiam Christus Angelum custodem habuisset. Sed hoc videtur inconveniens, cum Christus sit maior omnibus Angelis. Non ergo omnibus hominibus Angeli ad custodiam deputantur.	Objection 1. It would seem that angels are not appointed to the guardianship of all men. For it is written of Christ (Philippians 2:7) that "He was made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man." If therefore angels are appointed to the guardianship of all men, Christ also would have had an angel guardian. But this is unseemly, for Christ is greater than all the angels. Therefore angels are not appointed to the guardianship of all men.
IЄ q. 113 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, omnium hominum primus fuit Adam. Sed sibi non competebat habere Angelum custodem, ad minus in statu innocentiae, quia tunc nullis periculis angustiabatur. Ergo Angeli non praeficiuntur ad custodiam omnibus hominibus.	Objection 2. Further, Adam was the first of all men. But it was not fitting that he should have an angel guardian, at least in the state of innocence: for then he was not beset by any dangers. Therefore angels are not appointed to the guardianship of all men.
IЄ q. 113 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, hominibus Angeli ad custodiam deputantur, ut per eos manuducantur ad vitam aeternam, et incitentur ad bene operandum, et muniantur contra insultus Daemonum. Sed homines praesciti ad damnationem, nunquam perveniunt ad vitam aeternam. Infideles etiam, etsi interdum bona opera faciant, non tamen bene faciunt, quia non recta intentione faciunt, fides enim intentionem dirigit, ut Augustinus dicit. Antichristi etiam adventus erit secundum operationem Satanae, ut dicitur II ad Thessal. II. Non ergo omnibus hominibus Angeli ad custodiam deputantur.	Objection 3. Further, angels are appointed to the guardianship of men, that they may take them by the hand and guide them to eternal life, encourage them to good works, and protect them against the assaults of the demons. But men who are foreknown to damnation, never attain to eternal life. Infidels, also, though at times they perform good works, do not perform them well, for they have not a right intention: for "faith directs the intention" as Augustine says (Enarr. ii in Ps. 31). Moreover, the coming of Antichrist will be "according to the working of Satan," as it is written (2 Thessalonians 2:9). Therefore angels are not deputed to the guardianship of all men.
IЄ q. 113 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est auctoritas Hieronymi supra inducta, qui dicit quod unaquaeque anima ad sui custodiam habet Angelum deputatum.	On the contrary, is the authority of Jerome quoted above (2), for he says that "each soul has an angel appointed to guard it."
IЄ q. 113 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod homo in statu vitae istius constitutus, est quasi in quadam via, qua debet tendere ad patriam. In qua quidem via multa pericula homini imminent, tum ab interiori, tum ab exteriori; secundum illud Psalmi CXLI, in via hac qua ambulabam, absconderunt laqueum mihi. Et ideo sicut hominibus per viam non tutam ambulantibus dantur custodes, ita et cuilibet homini, quandiu viator est, custos Angelus deputatur. Quando autem iam ad terminum viae pervenerit, iam non habebit Angelum custodem; sed habebit in regno Angelum conregnantem, in Inferno Daemonem punientem.	I answer that, Man while in this state of life, is, as it were, on a road by which he should journey towards heaven. On this road man is threatened by many dangers both from within and from without, according to Psalm 159:4: "In this way wherein I walked, they have hidden a snare for me." And therefore as guardians are appointed for men who have to pass by an unsafe road, so an angel guardian is assigned to each man as long as he is a wayfarer. When, however, he arrives at the end of life he no longer has a guardian angel; but in the kingdom he will have an angel to reign with him, in hell a demon to punish him.
IЄ q. 113 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christus, secundum quod homo, immediate regulabatur a verbo Dei, unde non indigebat custodia Angelorum. Et iterum secundum animam erat comprehensor; sed ratione passibilitatis corporis, erat viator. Et secundum hoc, non debebatur ei Angelus custos, tanquam superior; sed Angelus minister, tanquam inferior. Unde dicitur Matth. IV, quod accesserunt Angeli et ministrabant ei.	Reply to Objection 1. Christ as man was guided immediately by the Word of God: wherefore He needed not be guarded by an angel. Again as regards His soul, He was a comprehensor, although in regard to His passible body, He was a wayfarer. In this latter respect it was right that He should have not a guardian angel as superior to Him, but a ministering angel as inferior to Him. Whence it is written (Matthew 4:11) that "angels came and ministered to Him."
IЄ q. 113 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod homo in statu innocentiae non patiebatur aliquod periculum ab interiori, quia interius erant omnia ordinata, ut supra dictum est, sed imminebat ei periculum ab exteriori, propter insidias Daemonum; ut rei probavit eventus. Et ideo indigebat custodia Angelorum.	Reply to Objection 2. In the state of innocence man was not threatened by any peril from within: because within him all was well ordered, as we have said above (95, 1,3). But peril threatened from without on account of the snares of the demons; as was proved by the event. For this reason he needed a guardian angel.
IЄ q. 113 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut praesciti et infideles, et etiam Antichristus, non privantur interiori auxilio naturalis rationis; ita etiam non privantur exteriori auxilio toti naturae humanae divinitus concesso, scilicet custodia Angelorum. Per quam etsi non iuventur quantum ad hoc quod vitam aeternam bonis operibus mereantur, iuvantur tamen quantum ad hoc, quod ab aliquibus malis retrahuntur, quibus et sibi ipsis et aliis nocere possunt. Nam et ipsi Daemones arcentur per bonos Angelos, ne noceant quantum volunt. Et similiter Antichristus non tantum nocebit, quantum vellet.	Reply to Objection 3. Just as the foreknown, the infidels, and even Anti-christ, are not deprived of the interior help of natural reason; so neither are they deprived of that exterior help granted by God to the whole human race--namely the guardianship of the angels. And although the help which they receive therefrom does not result in their deserving eternal life by good works, it does nevertheless conduce to their being protected from certain evils which would hurt both themselves and others. For even the demons are held off by the good angels, lest they hurt as much as they would. In like manner Antichrist will not do as much harm as he would wish.
IЄ q. 113 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus non deputetur homini ad custodiam a sua nativitate. Angeli enim mittuntur in ministerium, propter eos qui haereditatem capiunt salutis, ut apostolus, ad Heb. dicit. Sed homines incipiunt haereditatem capere salutis, quando baptizantur. Ergo Angelus deputatur homini ad custodiam a tempore Baptismi, et non a tempore nativitatis.	Objection 1. It would seem that an angel is not appointed to guard a man from his birth. For angels are "sent to minister for them who shall receive the inheritance of salvation," as the Apostle says (Hebrews 1:14). But men begin to receive the inheritance of salvation, when they are baptized. Therefore an angel is appointed to guard a man from the time of his baptism, not of his birth.
IЄ q. 113 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, homines ab Angelis custodiuntur, inquantum ab eis illuminantur per modum doctrinae. Sed pueri mox nati non sunt capaces doctrinae, quia non habent usum rationis. Ergo pueris mox natis non deputantur Angeli custodes.	Objection 2. Further, men are guarded by angels in as far as angels enlighten and instruct them. But children are not capable of instruction as soon as they are born, for they have not the use of reason. Therefore angels are not appointed to guard children as soon as they are born.
IЄ q. 113 a. 5 arg. 3 Praeterea, pueri in materno utero existentes habent animam rationalem aliquo tempore, sicut et post nativitatem ex utero. Sed cum sunt in materno utero, non deputantur eis Angeli ad custodiam, ut videtur, quia neque etiam ministri Ecclesiae eos sacramentis imbuunt. Non ergo statim a nativitate hominibus Angeli ad custodiam deputantur.	Objection 3. Further, a child has a rational soul for some time before birth, just as well as after. But it does not appear that an angel is appointed to guard a child before its birth, for they are not then admitted to the sacraments of the Church. Therefore angels are not appointed to guard men from the moment of their birth.
IЄ q. 113 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod Hieronymus dicit, quod unaquaeque anima, ab ortu nativitatis, habet in custodiam sui Angelum deputatum.	On the contrary, Jerome says (vide A, 4) that "each soul has an angel appointed to guard it from its birth."
IЄ q. 113 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Origenes dicit super Matthaeum, super hoc est duplex opinio. Quidam enim dixerunt quod Angelus ad custodiam homini deputatur a tempore Baptismi, alii vero quod a tempore nativitatis. Et hanc opinionem Hieronymus approbat; et rationabiliter. Beneficia enim quae dantur homini divinitus ex eo quod est Christianus, incipiunt a tempore Baptismi; sicut perceptio Eucharistiae, et alia huiusmodi. Sed ea quae providentur homini a Deo, inquantum habet naturam rationalem, ex tunc ei exhibentur, ex quo nascendo talem naturam accipit. Et tale beneficium est custodia Angelorum, ut ex praemissis patet. Unde statim a nativitate habet homo Angelum ad sui custodiam deputatum.	I answer that, as Origen observes (Tract. v, super Matt.) there are two opinions on this matter. For some have held that the angel guardian is appointed at the time of baptism, others, that he is appointed at the time of birth. The latter opinion Jerome approves (vide A, 4), and with reason. For those benefits which are conferred by God on man as a Christian, begin with his baptism; such as receiving the Eucharist, and the like. But those which are conferred by God on man as a rational being, are bestowed on him at his birth, for then it is that he receives that nature. Among the latter benefits we must count the guardianship of angels, as we have said above (1,4). Wherefore from the very moment of his birth man has an angel guardian appointed to him.
IЄ q. 113 a. 5 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Angeli mittuntur in ministerium, efficaciter quidem propter eos solos qui haereditatem capiunt salutis, si consideretur ultimus effectus custodiae, qui est perceptio haereditatis. Nihilominus tamen et aliis ministerium Angelorum non subtrahitur, quamvis in eis hanc efficaciam non habeat, quod perducantur ad salutem. Efficax tamen est circa eos Angelorum ministerium, inquantum a multis malis retrahuntur.	Reply to Objection 1. Angels are sent to minister, and that efficaciously indeed, for those who shall receive the inheritance of salvation, if we consider the ultimate effect of their guardianship, which is the realizing of that inheritance. But for all that, the angelic ministrations are not withdrawn for others although they are not so efficacious as to bring them to salvation: efficacious, nevertheless, they are, inasmuch as they ward off many evils.
IЄ q. 113 a. 5 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod officium custodiae ordinatur quidem ad illuminationem doctrinae, sicut ad ultimum et principalem effectum. Nihilominus tamen multos alios effectus habet, qui pueris competunt, scilicet arcere Daemones, et alia nocumenta tam corporalia quam spiritualia prohibere.	Reply to Objection 2. Guardianship is ordained to enlightenment by instruction, as to its ultimate and principal effect. Nevertheless it has many other effects consistent with childhood; for instance to ward off the demons, and to prevent both bodily and spiritual harm.
IЄ q. 113 a. 5 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod puer quandiu est in materno utero, non totaliter est a matre separatus, sed per quandam colligationem est quodammodo adhuc aliquid eius, sicut et fructus pendens in arbore, est aliquid arboris. Et ideo probabiliter dici potest quod Angelus qui est in custodia matris, custodiat prolem in matris utero existentem. Sed in nativitate, quando separatur a matre, Angelus ei ad custodiam deputatur, ut Hieronymus dicit.	Reply to Objection 3. As long as the child is in the mother's womb it is not entirely separate, but by reason of a certain intimate tie, is still part of her: just as the fruit while hanging on the tree is part of the tree. And therefore it can be said with some degree of probability, that the angel who guards the mother guards the child while in the womb. But at its birth, when it becomes separate from the mother, an angel guardian is appointed to it; as Jerome, above quoted, says.
IЄ q. 113 a. 6 arg. 1 Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angelus custos quandoque deserat hominem cuius custodiae deputatur. Dicitur enim Ierem. li, ex persona Angelorum, curavimus Babylonem, et non est curata, derelinquamus ergo eam. Et Isaiae V, auferam sepem eius, et erit in conculcationem; Glossa, idest Angelorum custodiam.	Objection 1. It would seem that the angel guardian sometimes forsakes the man whom he is appointed to guard. For it is said (Jeremiah 51:9) in the person of the angels: "We would have cured Babylon, but she is not healed: let us forsake her." And (Isaiah 5:5) it is written: "I will take away the hedge"--that is, "the guardianship of the angels" [gloss]--"and it shall be wasted."
IЄ q. 113 a. 6 arg. 2 Praeterea, principalius custodit Deus quam Angelus. Sed Deus aliquando hominem derelinquit; secundum illud Psalmi XXI, Deus, Deus meus, respice in me, quare me dereliquisti? Ergo multo magis Angelus custos hominem derelinquit.	Objection 2. Further, God's guardianship excels that of the angels. But God forsakes man at times, according to Psalm 21:2: "O God, my God, look upon me: why hast Thou forsaken me?" Much rather therefore does an angel guardian forsake man.
IЄ q. 113 a. 6 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut dicit Damascenus, Angeli, cum sunt hic nobiscum, non sunt in caelo. Sed aliquando sunt in caelo. Ergo aliquando nos derelinquunt.	Objection 3. Further, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 3), "When the angels are here with us, they are not in heaven." But sometimes they are in heaven. Therefore sometimes they forsake us.
IЄ q. 113 a. 6 s. c. Sed contra, Daemones nos semper impugnant; secundum illud I Petri V, adversarius vester Diabolus tanquam leo rugiens circuit, quaerens quem devoret. Ergo multo magis boni Angeli semper nos custodiunt.	On the contrary, The demons are ever assailing us, according to 1 Peter 5:8: "Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about, seeking whom he may devour." Much more therefore do the good angels ever guard us.
IЄ q. 113 a. 6 co. Respondeo dicendum quod custodia Angelorum, ut ex supra dictis patet, est quaedam executio divinae providentiae circa homines facta. Manifestum est autem quod nec homo, nec res aliqua, totaliter divinae providentiae subtrahitur, inquantum enim aliquid participat de esse, intantum subditur universali providentiae entium. Sed intantum Deus, secundum ordinem suae providentiae, dicitur hominem derelinquere, inquantum permittit hominem pati aliquem defectum vel poenae vel culpae. Similiter etiam dicendum est quod Angelus custos nunquam totaliter dimittit hominem, sed ad aliquid interdum eum dimittit; prout scilicet non impedit quin subdatur alicui tribulationi, vel etiam quin cadat in peccatum, secundum ordinem divinorum iudiciorum. Et secundum hoc Babylon et domus Israel ab Angelis derelictae dicuntur, quia Angeli earum custodes non impediverunt quin tribulationibus subderentur.	I answer that, As appears above (2), the guardianship of the angels is an effect of Divine providence in regard to man. Now it is evident that neither man, nor anything at all, is entirely withdrawn from the providence of God: for in as far as a thing participates being, so far is it subject to the providence that extends over all being. God indeed is said to forsake man, according to the ordering of His providence, but only in so far as He allows man to suffer some defect of punishment or of fault. In like manner it must be said that the angel guardian never forsakes a man entirely, but sometimes he leaves him in some particular, for instance by not preventing him from being subject to some trouble, or even from falling into sin, according to the ordering of Divine judgments. In this sense Babylon and the House of Israel are said to have been forsaken by the angels, because their angel guardians did not prevent them from being subject to tribulation.
IЄ q. 113 a. 6 ad 1 Et per hoc patet solutio ad primum et secundum.	From this the answers are clear to the first and second objections.
IЄ q. 113 a. 6 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Angelus, etsi interdum derelinquat hominem loco, non tamen derelinquit eum quantum ad effectum custodiae, quia etiam cum est in caelo, cognoscit quid circa hominem agatur; nec indiget mora temporis ad motum localem, sed statim potest adesse.	Reply to Objection 3. Although an angel may forsake a man sometimes locally, he does not for that reason forsake him as to the effect of his guardianship: for even when he is in heaven he knows what is happening to man; nor does he need time for his local motion, for he can be with man in an instant.
IЄ q. 113 a. 7 arg. 1 Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Angeli doleant de malis eorum quos custodiunt. Dicitur enim Isaiae XXXIII, Angeli pacis amare flebunt. Sed fletus est signum doloris et tristitiae. Ergo Angeli tristantur de malis hominum quos custodiunt.	Objection 1. It would seem that angels grieve for the ills of those whom they guard. For it is written (Isaiah 33:7): "The angels of peace shall weep bitterly." But weeping is a sign of grief and sorrow. Therefore angels grieve for the ills of those whom they guard.
IЄ q. 113 a. 7 arg. 2 Praeterea, tristitia est, ut Augustinus dicit, de his quae nobis nolentibus accidunt. Sed perditio hominis custoditi est contra voluntatem Angeli custodis. Ergo tristantur Angeli de perditione hominum.	Objection 2. Further, according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 15), "sorrow is for those things that happen against our will." But the loss of the man whom he has guarded is against the guardian angel's will. Therefore angels grieve for the loss of men.
IЄ q. 113 a. 7 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut gaudio contrariatur tristitia, ita poenitentiae contrariatur peccatum. Sed Angeli gaudent de peccatore poenitentiam agente, ut habetur Lucae XV. Ergo tristantur de iusto in peccatum cadente.	Objection 3. Further, as sorrow is contrary to joy, so penance is contrary to sin. But angels rejoice about one sinner doing penance, as we are told, Luke 15:7. Therefore they grieve for the just man who falls into sin.
IЄ q. 113 a. 7 arg. 4 Praeterea, super illud Num. XVIII; quidquid offerunt primitiarum etc., dicit Glossa Origenis; trahuntur Angeli in iudicium, utrum ex ipsorum negligentia, an hominum ignavia lapsi sint. Sed quilibet rationabiliter dolet de malis propter quae in iudicium tractus est. Ergo Angeli dolent de peccatis hominum.	Objection 4. Further, on Numbers 18:12: "Whatsoever first-fruits they offer," etc. the gloss of Origen says: "The angels are brought to judgment as to whether men have fallen through their negligence or through their own fault." But it is reasonable for anyone to grieve for the ills which have brought him to judgment. Therefore angels grieve for men's sins.
IЄ q. 113 a. 7 s. c. Sed contra, ubi est tristitia et dolor, non est perfecta felicitas, unde dicitur Apoc. XXI, mors ultra non erit, neque luctus, neque clamor, neque ullus dolor. Sed Angeli sunt perfecte beati. Ergo de nullo dolent.	On the contrary, Where there is grief and sorrow, there is not perfect happiness: wherefore it is written (Apocalypse 21:4): "Death shall be no more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow." But the angels are perfectly happy. Therefore they have no cause for grief.
IЄ q. 113 a. 7 co. Respondeo dicendum quod Angeli non dolent neque de peccatis, neque de poenis hominum. Tristitia enim et dolor, secundum Augustinum, non est nisi de his quae contrariantur voluntati. Nihil autem accidit in mundo quod sit contrarium voluntati Angelorum et aliorum beatorum, quia voluntas eorum totaliter inhaeret ordini divinae iustitiae; nihil autem fit in mundo, nisi quod per divinam iustitiam fit aut permittitur. Et ideo, simpliciter loquendo, nihil fit in mundo contra voluntatem beatorum. Ut enim philosophus dicit in III Ethic. illud dicitur simpliciter voluntarium, quod aliquis vult in particulari, secundum quod agitur, consideratis scilicet omnibus quae circumstant, quamvis in universali consideratum non esset voluntarium, sicut nauta non vult proiectionem mercium in mare, absolute et universaliter considerando, sed imminente periculo salutis hoc vult. Unde magis est hoc voluntarium quam involuntarium, ut ibidem dicitur. Sic igitur Angeli peccata et poenas hominum, universaliter et absolute loquendo, non volunt, volunt tamen quod circa hoc ordo divinae iustitiae servetur, secundum quem quidam poenis subduntur, et peccare permittuntur.	I answer that, Angels do not grieve, either for sins or for the pains inflicted on men. For grief and sorrow, according to Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 15) are for those things which occur against our will. But nothing happens in the world contrary to the will of the angels and the other blessed, because they will cleaves entirely to the ordering of Divine justice; while nothing happens in the world save what is effected or permitted by Divine justice. Therefore simply speaking, nothing occurs in the world against the will of the blessed. For as the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 1) that is called simply voluntary, which a man wills in a particular case, and at a particular time, having considered all the circumstances; although universally speaking, such a thing would not be voluntary: thus the sailor does not will the casting of his cargo into the sea, considered universally and absolutely, but on account of the threatened danger of his life, he wills it. Wherefore this is voluntary rather than involuntary, as stated in the same passage. Therefore universally and absolutely speaking the angels do not will sin and the pains inflicted on its account: but they do will the fulfilment of the ordering of Divine justice in this matter, in respect of which some are subjected to pains and are allowed to fall into sin.
IЄ q. 113 a. 7 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod verbum illud Isaiae potest intelligi de Angelis, idest nuntiis, Ezechiae, qui fleverunt propter verba Rabsacis; de quibus habetur Isaiae XXXVII. Et hoc secundum litteralem sensum. Secundum vero allegoricum, Angeli pacis sunt apostoli et alii praedicatores, qui flent pro peccatis hominum. Si vero secundum sensum anagogicum exponatur de Angelis beatis, tunc metaphorica erit locutio, ad designandum quod Angeli volunt in universali hominum salutem. Sic enim Deo et Angelis huiusmodi passiones attribuuntur.	Reply to Objection 1. These words of Isaias may be understood of the angels, i.e. the messengers, of Ezechias, who wept on account of the words of Rabsaces, as related Isaiah 37:2 seqq.: this would be the literal sense. According to the allegorical sense the "angels of peace" are the apostles and preachers who weep for men's sins. If according to the anagogical sense this passage be expounded of the blessed angels, then the expression is metaphorical, and signifies that universally speaking the angels will the salvation of mankind: for in this sense we attribute passions to God and the angels.
IЄ q. 113 a. 7 ad 2 Ad secundum patet solutio per ea quae dicta sunt.	The reply to the second objection appears from what has been said.
IЄ q. 113 a. 7 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod tam in poenitentia hominum, quam in peccato, manet una ratio gaudii Angelis, scilicet impletio ordinis divinae providentiae.	Reply to Objection 3. Both in man's repentance and in man's sin there is one reason for the angel's joy, namely the fulfilment of the ordering of the Divine Providence.
IЄ q. 113 a. 7 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod Angeli ducuntur in iudicium pro peccatis hominum, non quasi rei, sed quasi testes, ad convincendum homines de eorum ignavia.	Reply to Objection 4. The angels are brought into judgment for the sins of men, not as guilty, but as witnesses to convict man of weakness.
IЄ q. 113 a. 8 arg. 1 Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inter Angelos non possit esse pugna seu discordia. Dicitur enim Iob XXV, qui facit concordiam in sublimibus. Sed pugna opponitur concordiae. Ergo in sublimibus Angelis non est pugna.	Objection 1. It would seem that there cannot be strife or discord among the angels. For it is written (Job 25:2): "Who maketh peace in His high places." But strife is opposed to peace. Therefore among the high angels there is no strife.
IЄ q. 113 a. 8 arg. 2 Praeterea, ubi est perfecta caritas et iusta praelatio, non potest esse pugna. Sed hoc totum est in Angelis. Ergo in Angelis non est pugna.	Objection 2. Further, where there is perfect charity and just authority there can be no strife. But all this exists among the angels. Therefore there is no strife among the angels.
IЄ q. 113 a. 8 arg. 3 Praeterea, si Angeli dicuntur pugnare pro eis quos custodiunt, necesse est quod unus Angelus foveat unam partem, et alius aliam. Sed si una pars habet iustitiam, e contra alia pars habet iniustitiam. Ergo sequitur quod Angelus bonus sit fautor iniustitiae, quod est inconveniens. Ergo inter bonos Angelos non est pugna.	Objection 3. Further, if we say that angels strive for those whom they guard, one angel must needs take one side, and another angel the opposite side. But if one side is in the right the other side is in the wrong. It will follow therefore, that a good angel is a compounder of wrong; which is unseemly. Therefore there is no strife among good angels.
IЄ q. 113 a. 8 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Dan. X, ex persona Gabrielis, princeps regni Persarum restitit mihi viginti et uno diebus. Hic autem princeps Persarum erat Angelus regno Persarum in custodiam deputatus. Ergo unus bonus Angelus resistit alii, et sic inter eos est pugna.	On the contrary, It is written (Daniel 10:13): "The prince of the kingdom of the Persians resisted me one and twenty days." But this prince of the Persians was the angel deputed to the guardianship of the kingdom of the Persians. Therefore one good angel resists the others; and thus there is strife among them.
IЄ q. 113 a. 8 co. Respondeo dicendum quod ista quaestio movetur occasione horum verborum Danielis. Quae quidem Hieronymus exponit, dicens principem regni Persarum esse Angelum qui se opposuit liberationi populi Israelitici, pro quo Daniel orabat, Gabriele preces eius Deo praesentante. Haec autem resistentia potuit fieri, quia princeps aliquis Daemonum Iudaeos in Persidem ductos ad peccatum induxerat, per quod impedimentum praestabatur orationi Danielis, pro eodem populo deprecantis. Sed secundum Gregorium, XVII Moral., princeps regni Persarum bonus Angelus fuit, custodiae regni illius deputatus. Ad videndum igitur qualiter unus Angelus alteri resistere dicitur, considerandum est quod divina iudicia circa diversa regna et diversos homines, per Angelos exercentur. In suis autem actionibus Angeli secundum divinam sententiam regulantur. Contingit autem quandoque quod in diversis regnis, vel in diversis hominibus, contraria merita vel demerita inveniuntur, ut unus alteri subdatur aut praesit. Quid autem super hoc ordo divinae sapientiae habeat, cognoscere non possunt nisi Deo revelante, unde necesse habent super his sapientiam Dei consulere. Sic igitur inquantum de contrariis meritis et sibi repugnantibus, divinam consulunt voluntatem, resistere sibi invicem dicuntur, non quia sint eorum contrariae voluntates, cum in hoc omnes concordent, quod Dei sententia impleatur; sed quia ea de quibus consulunt, sunt repugnantia.	I answer that, The raising of this question is occasioned by this passage of Daniel. Jerome explains it by saying that the prince of the kingdom of the Persians is the angel who opposed the setting free of the people of Israel, for whom Daniel was praying, his prayers being offered to God by Gabriel. And this resistance of his may have been caused by some prince of the demons having led the Jewish captives in Persia into sin; which sin was an impediment to the efficacy of the prayer which Daniel put up for that same people. But according to Gregory (Moral. xvii), the prince of the kingdom of Persia was a good angel appointed to the guardianship of that kingdom. To see therefore how one angel can be said to resist another, we must note that the Divine judgments in regard to various kingdoms and various men are executed by the angels. Now in their actions, the angels are ruled by the Divine decree. But it happens at times in various kingdoms or various men there are contrary merits or demerits, so that one of them is subject to or placed over another. As to what is the ordering of Divine wisdom on such matters, the angels cannot know it unless God reveal it to them: and so they need to consult Divine wisdom thereupon. Wherefore forasmuch as they consult the Divine will concerning various contrary and opposing merits, they are said to resist one another: not that their wills are in opposition, since they are all of one mind as to the fulfilment of the Divine decree; but that the things about which they seek knowledge are in opposition.
IЄ q. 113 a. 8 ad arg. Et per hoc patet solutio ad obiecta.	From this the answers to the objections are clear.
IЄ q. 114 pr. Deinde considerandum est de impugnatione Daemonum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quinque. Primo, utrum homines a Daemonibus impugnentur. Secundo, utrum tentare sit proprium Diaboli. Tertio, utrum omnia peccata hominum ex impugnatione sive tentatione Daemonum proveniant. Quarto, utrum possint vera miracula facere ad seducendum. Quinto, utrum Daemones qui ab hominibus superantur, ab impugnatione hominum arceantur.	Question 114. The assaults of the demonsAre men assailed by the demons? Is proper to the devil to tempt? Are all the sins of men to be set down to the assaults or temptations of the demons? Can they work real miracles for the purpose of leading men astray? Are the demons who are overcome by men, hindered from making further assaults?
IЄ q. 114 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod homines non impugnentur a Daemonibus. Angeli enim deputantur ad hominum custodiam, missi a Deo. Sed Daemones non mittuntur a Deo, cum Daemonum intentio sit perdere animas, Dei autem salvare. Ergo Daemones non deputantur ad hominum impugnationem.	Objection 1. It would seem that men are not assailed by the demons. For angels are sent by God to guard man. But demons are not sent by God: for the demons' intention is the loss of souls; whereas God's is the salvation of souls. Therefore demons are not deputed to assail man.
IЄ q. 114 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, non est aequa conditio pugnae, ut infirmus contra fortem, ignarus contra astutum exponatur ad bellum. Sed homines sunt infirmi et ignari; Daemones autem potentes et astuti. Non est ergo permittendum a Deo, qui est omnis iustitiae auctor, ut homines a Daemonibus impugnentur.	Objection 2. Further, it is not a fair fight, for the weak to be set against the strong, and the ignorant against the astute. But men are weak and ignorant, whereas the demons are strong and astute. It is not therefore to be permitted by God, the author of all justice, that men should be assailed by demons.
IЄ q. 114 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, ad exercitium hominum sufficit impugnatio carnis et mundi. Sed Deus permittit electos suos impugnari propter eorum exercitium. Ergo non videtur necessarium quod a Daemonibus impugnentur.	Objection 3. Further, the assaults of the flesh and the world are enough for man's exercise. But God permits His elect to be assailed that they may be exercised. Therefore there is no need for them to be assailed by the demons.
IЄ q. 114 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Ephes. VI, quod non est nobis colluctatio adversus carnem et sanguinem, sed adversus principes et potestates, adversus mundi rectores tenebrarum harum, contra spiritualia nequitiae in caelestibus.	On the contrary, The Apostle says (Ephesians 6:12): "Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against Principalities and Powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places."
IЄ q. 114 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod circa impugnationem Daemonum duo est considerare, scilicet ipsam impugnationem, et impugnationis ordinem. Impugnatio quidem ipsa ex Daemonum malitia procedit, qui propter invidiam profectum hominum impedire nituntur; et propter superbiam divinae potestatis similitudinem usurpant, deputando sibi ministros determinatos ad hominum impugnationem, sicut et Angeli Deo ministrant in determinatis officiis ad hominum salutem. Sed ordo impugnationis ipsius est a Deo, qui ordinate novit malis uti, ad bona ea ordinando. Sed ex parte Angelorum, tam ipsa custodia quam ordo custodiae reducitur ad Deum, sicut ad primum auctorem.	I answer that, Two things may be considered in the assault of the demons--the assault itself, and the ordering thereof. The assault itself is due to the malice of the demons, who through envy endeavor to hinder man's progress; and through pride usurp a semblance of Divine power, by deputing certain ministers to assail man, as the angels of God in their various offices minister to man's salvation. But the ordering of the assault is from God, Who knows how to make orderly use of evil by ordering it to good. On the other hand, in regard to the angels, both their guardianship and the ordering thereof are to be referred to God as their first author.
IЄ q. 114 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod mali Angeli impugnant homines dupliciter. Uno modo, instigando ad peccatum. Et sic non mittuntur a Deo ad impugnandum, sed aliquando permittuntur, secundum Dei iusta iudicia. Aliquando autem impugnant homines puniendo. Et sic mittuntur a Deo; sicut missus est spiritus mendax ad puniendum Achab regem Israel, ut dicitur III Reg. ult. Poena enim refertur in Deum, sicut in primum auctorem. Et tamen Daemones ad puniendum missi, alia intentione puniunt, quam mittantur, nam ipsi puniunt ex odio vel invidia; mittuntur autem a Deo propter eius iustitiam.	Reply to Objection 1. The wicked angels assail men in two ways. Firstly by instigating them to sin; and thus they are not sent by God to assail us, but are sometimes permitted to do so according to God's just judgments. But sometimes their assault is a punishment to man: and thus they are sent by God; as the lying spirit was sent to punish Achab, King of Israel, as is related in 1 Kings 22:20. For punishment is referred to God as its first author. Nevertheless the demons who are sent to punish, do so with an intention other than that for which they are sent; for they punish from hatred or envy; whereas they are sent by God on account of His justice.
IЄ q. 114 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod ad hoc quod non sit inaequalis pugnae conditio, fit ex parte hominis recompensatio, principaliter quidem per auxilium divinae gratiae; secundario autem per custodiam Angelorum. Unde IV Reg., Elisaeus dixit ad ministrum suum, noli timere, plures enim nobiscum sunt, quam cum illis.	Reply to Objection 2. In order that the conditions of the fight be not unequal, there is as regards man the promised recompense, to be gained principally through the grace of God, secondarily through the guardianship of the angels. Wherefore (2 Kings 6:16), Eliseus said to his servant: "Fear not, for there are more with us than with them."
IЄ q. 114 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod infirmitati humanae sufficeret ad exercitium impugnatio quae est a carne et mundo, sed malitiae Daemonum non sufficit, quae utroque utitur ad hominum impugnationem. Sed tamen ex divina ordinatione hoc provenit in gloriam electorum.	Reply to Objection 3. The assault of the flesh and the world would suffice for the exercise of human weakness: but it does not suffice for the demon's malice, which makes use of both the above in assailing men. But by the Divine ordinance this tends to the glory of the elect.
IЄ q. 114 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod tentare non sit proprium Diaboli. Dicitur enim Deus tentare; secundum illud Gen. XXII, tentavit Deus Abraham. Tentat etiam caro, et mundus. Et etiam homo dicitur tentare Deum, et hominem. Ergo non est proprium Daemonis tentare.	Objection 1. It would seem that to tempt is not proper to the devil. For God is said to tempt, according to Genesis 22:1, "God tempted Abraham." Moreover man is tempted by the flesh and the world. Again, man is said to tempt God, and to tempt man. Therefore it is not proper to the devil to tempt.
IЄ q. 114 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, tentare est ignorantis. Sed Daemones sciunt quid circa homines agatur. Ergo Daemones non tentant.	Objection 2. Further, to tempt is a sign of ignorance. But the demons know what happens among men. Therefore the demons do not tempt.
IЄ q. 114 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, tentatio est via in peccatum. Peccatum autem in voluntate consistit. Cum ergo Daemones non possint voluntatem hominis immutare, ut per supra dicta patet; videtur quod ad eos non pertineat tentare.	Objection 3. Further, temptation is the road to sin. Now sin dwells in the will. Since therefore the demons cannot change man's will, as appears from what has been said above (111, 2), it seems that it is not in their province to tempt.
IЄ q. 114 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur I ad Thessal. III, ne forte tentaverit vos is qui tentat; Glossa, idest Diabolus, cuius officium est tentare.	On the contrary, It is written (1 Thessalonians 3:5): "Lest perhaps he that tempteth should have tempted you": to which the gloss adds, "that is, the devil, whose office it is to tempt."
IЄ q. 114 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod tentare est proprie experimentum sumere de aliquo. Experimentum autem sumitur de aliquo, ut sciatur aliquid circa ipsum, et ideo proximus finis cuiuslibet tentantis est scientia. Sed quandoque ulterius ex scientia quaeritur aliquis alius finis, vel bonus vel malus, bonus quidem, sicut cum aliquis vult scire qualis aliquis sit, vel quantum ad scientiam vel quantum ad virtutem, ut eum promoveat; malus autem, quando hoc scire vult, ut eum decipiat vel subvertat. Et per hunc modum potest accipi quomodo tentare diversis diversimode attribuatur. Homo enim tentare dicitur, quandoque quidem ut sciat tantum, et propter hoc, tentare Deum dicitur esse peccatum; quia homo, quasi incertus, experiri praesumit Dei virtutem. Quandoque vero tentat ut iuvet, quandoque vero, ut noceat. Diabolus autem semper tentat ut noceat, in peccatum praecipitando. Et secundum hoc, dicitur proprium officium eius tentare, nam etsi homo aliquando sic tentet, hoc agit inquantum est minister Diaboli. Deus autem tentare dicitur ut sciat, eo modo loquendi quo dicitur scire quod facit alios scire. Unde dicitur Deut. XII, tentat vos dominus Deus vester, ut palam fiat utrum diligatis eum. Caro autem et mundus dicuntur tentare instrumentaliter, seu materialiter, inquantum scilicet potest cognosci qualis sit homo, ex hoc quod sequitur vel repugnat concupiscentiis carnis, et ex hoc quod contemnit prospera mundi et adversa; quibus etiam Diabolus utitur ad tentandum.	I answer that, To tempt is, properly speaking, to make trial of something. Now we make trial of something in order to know something about it: hence the immediate end of every tempter is knowledge. But sometimes another end, either good or bad, is sought to be acquired through that knowledge; a good end, when, for instance, one desires to know of someone, what sort of a man he is as to knowledge, or virtue, with a view to his promotion; a bad end, when that knowledge is sought with the purpose of deceiving or ruining him. From this we can gather how various beings are said to tempt in various ways. For man is said to tempt, sometimes indeed merely for the sake of knowing something; and for this reason it is a sin to tempt God; for man, being uncertain as it were, presumes to make an experiment of God's power. Sometimes too he tempts in order to help, sometimes in order to hurt. The devil, however, always tempts in order to hurt by urging man into sin. In this sense it is said to be his proper office to tempt: for thought at times man tempts thus, he does this as minister of the devil. God is said to tempt that He may know, in the same sense as that is said to know which makes others to know. Hence it is written (Deuteronomy 13:3): "The Lord your God trieth you, that it may appear whether you love him." The flesh and the world are said to tempt as the instruments or matter of temptations; inasmuch as one can know what sort of man someone is, according as he follows or resists the desires of the flesh, and according as he despises worldly advantages and adversity: of which things the devil also makes use in tempting.
IЄ q. 114 a. 2 ad 1 Et sic patet solutio ad primum.	Thus the reply to the first objection is clear.
IЄ q. 114 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod Daemones sciunt ea quae exterius aguntur circa homines, sed interiorem hominis conditionem solus Deus novit, qui est spirituum ponderator, ex qua aliqui sunt magis proni ad unum vitium quam ad aliud. Et ideo Diabolus tentat explorando interiorem conditionem hominis, ut de illo vitio tentet, ad quod homo magis pronus est.	Reply to Objection 2. The demons know what happens outwardly among men; but the inward disposition of man God alone knows, Who is the "weigher of spirits" (Proverbs 16:2). It is this disposition that makes man more prone to one vice than to another: hence the devil tempts, in order to explore this inward disposition of man, so that he may tempt him to that vice to which he is most prone.
IЄ q. 114 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod Daemon, etsi non possit immutare voluntatem, potest tamen, ut supra dictum est, aliqualiter immutare inferiores hominis vires; ex quibus etsi non cogitur voluntas, tamen inclinatur.	Reply to Objection 3. Although a demon cannot change the will, yet, as stated above (111, 3), he can change the inferior powers of man, in a certain degree: by which powers, though the will cannot be forced, it can nevertheless be inclined.
IЄ q. 114 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod omnia peccata procedant ex tentatione Diaboli. Dicit enim Dionysius, IV cap. de Div. Nom., quod multitudo Daemonum est causa omnium malorum et sibi et aliis. Et Damascenus dicit quod omnis malitia et omnis immunditia a Diabolo excogitatae sunt.	Objection 1. It would seem that all sins are due to the temptation of the devil. For Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that "the multitude of demons is the cause of all evils, both to themselves and to others." And Damascene says (De Fide Orth. ii, 4) that "all malice and all uncleanness have been devised by the devil."
IЄ q. 114 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, de quolibet peccatore dici posset quod dominus de Iudaeis dicit, Ioan. VIII, vos ex patre Diabolo estis. Hoc autem est inquantum ipsi ex Diaboli suggestione peccabant. Omne ergo peccatum est ex suggestione Diaboli.	Objection 2. Further, of every sinner can be said what the Lord said of the Jews (John 8:44): "You are of your father the devil." But this was in as far as they sinned through the devil's instigation. Therefore every sin is due to the devil's instigation.
IЄ q. 114 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut Angeli deputantur ad custodiam hominum, ita Daemones ad impugnationem. Sed omnia bona quae facimus, ex suggestione bonorum Angelorum procedunt, quia divina ad nos mediantibus Angelis perferuntur. Ergo et omnia mala quae facimus, proveniunt ex suggestione Diaboli.	Objection 3. Further, as angels are deputed to guard men, so demons are deputed to assail men. But every good thing we do is due to the suggestion of the good angels: because the Divine gifts are borne to us by the angels. Therefore all the evil we do, is due to the instigation of the devil.
IЄ q. 114 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur in libro de Eccles. Dogmat., non omnes cogitationes nostrae malae a Diabolo excitantur, sed aliquoties ex nostri arbitrii motu emergunt.	On the contrary, It is written (De Eccl. Dogmat. xlix): "Not all our evil thoughts are stirred up by the devil, but sometimes they arise from the movement of our free-will."
IЄ q. 114 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod causa alicuius potest dici aliquid dupliciter, uno modo, directe, alio modo, indirecte. Indirecte quidem, sicut cum aliquod agens causans aliquam dispositionem ad aliquem effectum, dicitur esse occasionaliter et indirecte causa illius effectus; sicut si dicatur quod ille qui siccat ligna, est causa combustionis eorum. Et hoc modo dicendum est quod Diabolus est causa omnium peccatorum nostrorum, quia ipse instigavit primum hominem ad peccandum, ex cuius peccato consecuta est in toto genere humano quaedam pronitas ad omnia peccata. Et per hunc modum intelligenda sunt verba Damasceni et Dionysii. Directe autem dicitur esse aliquid causa alicuius, quod operatur directe ad illud. Et hoc modo Diabolus non est causa omnis peccati non enim omnia peccata committuntur Diabolo instigante, sed quaedam ex libertate arbitrii et carnis corruptione. Quia, ut Origenes dicit, etiam si Diabolus non esset, homines haberent appetitum ciborum et venereorum et huiusmodi; circa quae multa inordinatio contingit, nisi per rationem talis appetitus refraenetur; et maxime, supposita corruptione naturae. Refraenare autem et ordinare huiusmodi appetitum, subiacet libero arbitrio. Sic ergo non est necessarium omnia peccata ex instinctu Diaboli provenire. Si qua tamen ex instinctu eius proveniunt, ad ea complenda eo blandimento decipiuntur homines nunc, quo primi parentes, ut Isidorus dicit.	I answer that, One thing can be the cause of another in two ways; directly and indirectly. Indirectly as when an agent is the cause of a disposition to a certain effect, it is said to be the occasional and indirect cause of that effect: for instance, we might say that he who dries the wood is the cause of the wood burning. In this way we must admit that the devil is the cause of all our sins; because he it was who instigated the first man to sin, from whose sin there resulted a proneness to sin in the whole human race: and in this sense we must take the words of Damascene and Dionysius. But a thing is said to be the direct cause of something, when its action tends directly thereunto. And in this way the devil is not the cause of every sin: for all sins are not committed at the devil's instigation, but some are due to the free-will and the corruption of the flesh. For, as Origen says (Peri Archon iii), even if there were no devil, men would have the desire for food and love and such like pleasures; with regard to which many disorders may arise unless those desires are curbed by reason, especially if we presuppose the corruption of our natures. Now it is in the power of the free-will to curb this appetite and keep it in order. Consequently there is no need for all sins to be due to the instigation of the devil. But those sins which are due thereto man perpetrates "through being deceived by the same blandishments as were our first parents," as Isidore says (De Summo Bono ii).
IЄ q. 114 a. 3 ad 1 Et per hoc patet responsio ad primum.	Thus the answer to the first objection is clear.
IЄ q. 114 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, si qua peccata absque instinctu Diaboli perpetrantur, per ea tamen fiunt homines filii Diaboli, inquantum ipsum primo peccantem imitantur.	Reply to Objection 2. When man commits sin without being thereto instigated by the devil, he nevertheless becomes a child of the devil thereby, in so far as he imitates him who was the first to sin.
IЄ q. 114 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod homo potest per seipsum ruere in peccatum, sed ad meritum proficere non potest nisi auxilio divino, quod homini exhibetur mediante ministerio Angelorum. Et ideo ad omnia bona nostra cooperantur Angeli, non tamen omnia nostra peccata procedunt ex Daemonum suggestione. Quamvis nullum genus peccati sit, quod non interdum ex Daemonum suggestione proveniat.	Reply to Objection 3. Man can of his own accord fall into sin: but he cannot advance in merit without the Divine assistance, which is borne to man by the ministry of the angels. For this reason the angels take part in all our good works: whereas all our sins are not due to the demons' instigation. Nevertheless there is no kind of sin which is not sometimes due to the demons' suggestion.
IЄ q. 114 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Daemones non possint homines seducere per aliqua miracula vera. Operatio enim Daemonum maxime vigebit in operibus Antichristi. Sed sicut apostolus dicit II ad Thessal. II, eius adventus est secundum operationem Satanae, in omni virtute et signis et prodigiis mendacibus. Ergo multo magis alio tempore per Daemones non fiunt nisi signa mendacia.	Objection 1. It would seem that the demons cannot lead men astray by means of real miracles. For the activity of the demons will show itself especially in the works of Antichrist. But as the Apostle says (2 Thessalonians 2:9), his "coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders." Much more therefore at other times do the demons perform lying wonders.
IЄ q. 114 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, vera miracula per aliquam corporum immutationem fiunt. Sed Daemones non possunt immutare corpus in aliam naturam, dicit enim Augustinus, XVIII de Civ. Dei, nec corpus quidem humanum ulla ratione crediderim Daemonum arte vel potestate in membra bestialia posse converti. Ergo Daemones vera miracula facere non possunt.	Objection 2. Further, true miracles are wrought by some corporeal change. But demons are unable to change the nature of a body; for Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xviii, 18): "I cannot believe that the human body can receive the limbs of a beast by means of a demon's art or power." Therefore the demons cannot work real miracles.
IЄ q. 114 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, argumentum efficaciam non habet, quod se habet ad opposita. Si ergo miracula vera possunt fieri a Daemonibus ad falsitatem persuadendam, non erunt efficacia ad veritatem fidei confirmandam. Quod est inconveniens, cum dicatur Marci ult., domino cooperante, et sermonem confirmante sequentibus signis.	Objection 3. Further, an argument is useless which may prove both ways. If therefore real miracles can be wrought by demons, to persuade one of what is false, they will be useless to confirm the teaching of the faith. This is unfitting; for it is written (Mark 16:20): "The Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed."
IЄ q. 114 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, libro octoginta trium quaest., quod magicis artibus fiunt miracula plerumque similia illis miraculis quae fiunt per servos Dei.	On the contrary, Augustine says (83; [Lib. xxi, Sent. sent 4, among the supposititious works of St. Augustine): "Often by means of the magic art miracles are wrought like those which are wrought by the servants of God."
IЄ q. 114 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex supra dictis patet, si miraculum proprie accipiatur, Daemones miracula facere non possunt, nec aliqua creatura, sed solus Deus, quia miraculum proprie dicitur quod fit praeter ordinem totius naturae creatae, sub quo ordine continetur omnis virtus creaturae. Dicitur tamen quandoque miraculum large, quod excedit humanam facultatem et considerationem. Et sic Daemones possunt facere miracula, quae scilicet homines mirantur, inquantum eorum facultatem et cognitionem excedunt. Nam et unus homo, inquantum facit aliquid quod est supra facultatem et cognitionem alterius, ducit alium in admirationem sui operis, ut quodammodo miraculum videatur operari. Sciendum est tamen quod, quamvis huiusmodi opera Daemonum, quae nobis miracula videntur, ad veram rationem miraculi non pertingant; sunt tamen quandoque verae res. Sicut magi Pharaonis per virtutem Daemonum veros serpentes et ranas fecerunt. Et quando ignis de caelo cecidit et familiam Iob cum gregibus pecorum uno impetu consumpsit, et turbo domum deiiciens filios eius occidit, quae fuerunt opera Satanae, phantasmata non fuerunt, ut Augustinus dicit, XX de Civ. Dei.	I answer that, As is clear from what has been said above (110, 4), if we take a miracle in the strict sense, the demons cannot work miracles, nor can any creature, but God alone: since in the strict sense a miracle is something done outside the order of the entire created nature, under which order every power of a creature is contained. But sometimes miracle may be taken in a wide sense, for whatever exceeds the human power and experience. And thus demons can work miracles, that is, things which rouse man's astonishment, by reason of their being beyond his power and outside his sphere of knowledge. For even a man by doing what is beyond the power and knowledge of another, leads him to marvel at what he has done, so that in a way he seems to that man to have worked a miracle. It is to be noted, however, that although these works of demons which appear marvelous to us are not real miracles, they are sometimes nevertheless something real. Thus the magicians of Pharaoh by the demons' power produced real serpents and frogs. And "when fire came down from heaven and at one blow consumed Job's servants and sheep; when the storm struck down his house and with it his children--these were the work of Satan, not phantoms"; as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xx, 19).
IЄ q. 114 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit ibidem, Antichristi opera possunt dici esse signa mendacii, vel quia mortales sensus per phantasmata decepturus est, ut quod non facit, videatur facere, vel quia, si sint vera prodigia, ad mendacium tamen pertrahent credituros.	Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says in the same place, the works of Antichrist may be called lying wonders, "either because he will deceive men's senses by means of phantoms, so that he will not really do what he will seem to do; or because, if he work real prodigies, they will lead those into falsehood who believe in him."
IЄ q. 114 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, materia corporalis non obedit Angelis bonis seu malis ad nutum, ut Daemones sua virtute possint transmutare materiam de forma in formam, sed possunt adhibere quaedam semina quae in elementis mundi inveniuntur, ad huiusmodi effectus complendos, ut Augustinus dicit III de Trin. Et ideo dicendum est quod omnes transmutationes corporalium rerum quae possunt fieri per aliquas virtutes naturales, ad quas pertinent praedicta semina, possunt fieri per operationem Daemonum, huiusmodi seminibus adhibitis; sicut cum aliquae res transmutantur in serpentes vel ranas, quae per putrefactionem generari possunt. Illae vero transmutationes corporalium rerum quae non possunt virtute naturae fieri, nullo modo operatione Daemonum, secundum rei veritatem, perfici possunt; sicut quod corpus humanum mutetur in corpus bestiale, aut quod corpus hominis mortuum reviviscat. Et si aliquando aliquid tale operatione Daemonum fieri videatur, hoc non est secundum rei veritatem, sed secundum apparentiam tantum. Quod quidem potest dupliciter contingere. Uno modo, ab interiori; secundum quod Daemon potest mutare phantasiam hominis, et etiam sensus corporeos, ut aliquid videatur aliter quam sit, sicut supra dictum est. Et hoc etiam interdum fieri dicitur virtute aliquarum rerum corporalium. Alio modo, ab exteriori. Cum enim ipse possit formare corpus ex aere cuiuscumque formae et figurae, ut illud assumens in eo visibiliter appareat; potest eadem ratione circumponere cuicumque rei corporeae quamcumque formam corpoream, ut in eius specie videatur. Et hoc est quod Augustinus dicit XVIII de Civ. Dei, quod phantasticum hominis, quod etiam cogitando sive somniando per rerum innumerabilium genera variatur, velut corporatum in alicuius animalis effigie, sensibus apparet alienis. Quod non est sic intelligendum, quod ipsa vis phantastica hominis, aut species eius, eadem numero incorporata alterius sensibus ostendatur, sed quia Daemon qui in phantasia unius hominis format aliquam speciem, ipse etiam potest similem speciem alterius sensibus offerre.	Reply to Objection 2. As we have said above (110, 2), corporeal matter does not obey either good or bad angels at their will, so that demons be able by their power to transmute matter from one form to another; but they can employ certain seeds that exist in the elements of the world, in order to produce these effects, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 8,9). Therefore it must be admitted that all the transformation of corporeal things which can be produced by certain natural powers, to which we must assign the seeds above mentioned, can alike be produced by the operation of the demons, by the employment of these seeds; such as the transformation of certain things into serpents or frogs, which can be produced by putrefaction. On the contrary, those transformations which cannot be produced by the power of nature, cannot in reality be effected by the operation of the demons; for instance, that the human body be changed into the body of a beast, or that the body of a dead man return to life. And if at times something of this sort seems to be effected by the operation of demons, it is not real but a mere semblance of reality. Now this may happen in two ways. Firstly, from within; in this way a demon can work on man's imagination and even on his corporeal senses, so that something seems otherwise that it is, as explained above (111, 3,4). It is said indeed that this can be done sometimes by the power of certain bodies. Secondly, from without: for just as he can from the air form a body of any form and shape, and assume it so as to appear in it visibly: so, in the same way he can clothe any corporeal thing with any corporeal form, so as to appear therein. This is what Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xviii, 18): "Man's imagination, which whether thinking or dreaming, takes the forms of an innumerable number of things, appears to other men's senses, as it were embodied in the semblance of some animal." This not to be understood as though the imagination itself or the images formed therein were identified with that which appears embodied to the senses of another man: but that the demon, who forms an image in a man's imagination, can offer the same picture to another man's senses.
IЄ q. 114 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit in libro octoginta trium quaest., cum talia faciunt magi qualia sancti, diverso fine et diverso iure fiunt. Illi enim faciunt, quaerentes gloriam suam, isti, quaerentes gloriam Dei. Et illi faciunt per quaedam privata commercia; isti autem publica administratione, et iussu Dei, cui cuncta creatura subiecta est.	Reply to Objection 3. As Augustine says (QQ. 83, qu. 79): "When magicians do what holy men do, they do it for a different end and by a different right. The former do it for their own glory; the latter, for the glory of God: the former, by certain private compacts; the latter by the evident assistance and command of God, to Whom every creature is subject."
IЄ q. 114 a. 5 arg. 1 Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Daemon qui superatur ab aliquo, non propter hoc ab impugnatione arceatur. Christus enim efficacissime suum tentatorem vicit. Sed tamen postea eum impugnavit, ad occisionem eius Iudaeos incitando. Ergo non est verum quod Diabolus victus ab impugnatione cesset.	Objection 1. It would seem that a demon who is overcome by a man, is not for that reason hindered from any further assault. For Christ overcame the tempter most effectively. Yet afterwards the demon assailed Him by instigating the Jews to kill Him. Therefore it is not true that the devil when conquered ceases his assaults.
IЄ q. 114 a. 5 arg. 2 Praeterea, infligere poenam ei qui in pugna succumbit, est incitare ad acrius impugnandum. Hoc autem non pertinet ad Dei misericordiam. Ergo Daemones superati non arcentur.	Objection 2. Further, to inflict punishment on one who has been worsted in a fight, is to incite him to a sharper attack. But this is not befitting God's mercy. Therefore the conquered demons are not prevented from further assaults.
IЄ q. 114 a. 5 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. IV, tunc reliquit eum Diabolus, scilicet Christum superantem.	On the contrary, It is written (Matthew 4:11): "Then the devil left Him," i.e. Christ Who overcame.
IЄ q. 114 a. 5 co. Respondeo dicendum quod quidam dicunt quod Daemon superatus nullum hominum potest de cetero tentare, nec de eodem nec de alio peccato. Quidam autem dicunt quod potest alios tentare, sed non eundem. Et hoc probabilius dicitur, si tamen intelligatur usque ad aliquod tempus, unde et Lucae IV dicitur quod, consummata omni tentatione, Diabolus recessit a Christo usque ad tempus. Et huius ratio est duplex. Una est ex parte divinae clementiae, quia, ut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., non tandiu homines Diabolus tentat, quandiu vult, sed quandiu Deus permittit; quia etsi permittat paulisper tentare, tamen repellit, propter infirmam naturam. Alia ratio sumitur ex astutia Diaboli, unde Ambrosius dicit, super Lucam, quod Diabolus instare formidat, quia frequentius refugit triumphari. Quod tamen aliquando Diabolus redeat ad eum quem dimisit, patet per illud quod dicitur Matth. XII, revertar in domum meam, unde exivi.	I answer that, Some say that when once a demon has been overcome he can no more tempt any man at all, neither to the same nor to any other sin. And others say that he can tempt others, but not the same man. This seems more probable as long as we understand it to be so for a certain definite time: wherefore (Luke 4:13) it is written: "All temptation being ended, the devil departed from Him for a time." There are two reasons for this. One is on the part of God's clemency; for as Chrysostom says (Super Matt. Hom. v) [In the Opus Imperfectum, among his supposititious works], "the devil does not tempt man for just as long as he likes, but for as long as God allows; for although He allows him to tempt for a short time, He orders him off on account of our weakness." The other reason is taken from the astuteness of the devil. As to this, Ambrose says on Luke 4:13: "The devil is afraid of persisting, because he shrinks from frequent defeat." That the devil does nevertheless sometimes return to the assault, is apparent from Matthew 12:44: "I will return into my house from whence I came out."
IЄ q. 114 a. 5 ad arg. Et per hoc patet solutio ad obiecta.	From what has been said, the objections can easily be solved.

Difference between revisions of "Directory:Logic Museum/Aquinas Summa-I-111-114"

Revision as of 10:29, 25 October 2009

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

Navigation

semantic

Site statistics

Tools

Search