|
Objection 1: It would seem that it is more meritorious to love
one's neighbor than to love God. For the more meritorious thing
would seem to be what the Apostle preferred. Now the Apostle
preferred the love of our neighbor to the love of God, according to
Rm. 9:3: "I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ for my
brethren." Therefore it is more meritorious to love one's neighbor
than to love God.
Objection 2: Further, in a certain sense it seems to be less
meritorious to love one's friend, as stated above (Article 7).
Now God is our chief friend, since "He hath first loved us" (1
Jn. 4:10). Therefore it seems less meritorious to love God.
Objection 3: Further, whatever is more difficult seems to be more
virtuous and meritorious since "virtue is about that which is difficult
and good" (Ethic. ii, 3). Now it is easier to love God than to
love one's neighbor, both because all things love God naturally, and
because there is nothing unlovable in God, and this cannot be said of
one's neighbor. Therefore it is more meritorious to love one's
neighbor than to love God.
On the contrary, That on account of which a thing is such, is yet
more so. Now the love of one's neighbor is not meritorious, except
by reason of his being loved for God's sake. Therefore the love of
God is more meritorious than the love of our neighbor.
I answer that, This comparison may be taken in two ways. First, by
considering both loves separately: and then, without doubt, the love
of God is the more meritorious, because a reward is due to it for its
own sake, since the ultimate reward is the enjoyment of God, to Whom
the movement of the Divine love tends: hence a reward is promised to
him that loves God (Jn. 14:21): "He that loveth Me, shall
be loved of My Father, and I will . . . manifest Myself to
him." Secondly, the comparison may be understood to be between the
love of God alone on the one side, and the love of one's neighbor for
God's sake, on the other. In this way love of our neighbor includes
love of God, while love of God does not include love of our
neighbor. Hence the comparison will be between perfect love of God,
extending also to our neighbor, and inadequate and imperfect love of
God, for "this commandment we have from God, that he, who loveth
God, love also his brother" (1 Jn. 4:21).
Reply to Objection 1: According to one gloss, the Apostle did not
desire this, viz. to be severed from Christ for his brethren, when
he was in a state of grace, but had formerly desired it when he was in
a state of unbelief, so that we should not imitate him in this
respect.
We may also reply, with Chrysostom (De Compunct. i, 8)
[Hom. xvi in Ep. ad Rom.] that this does not prove the Apostle
to have loved his neighbor more than God, but that he loved God more
than himself. For he wished to be deprived for a time of the Divine
fruition which pertains to love of one self, in order that God might
be honored in his neighbor, which pertains to the love of God.
Reply to Objection 2: A man's love for his friends is sometimes
less meritorious in so far as he loves them for their sake, so as to
fall short of the true reason for the friendship of charity, which is
God. Hence that God be loved for His own sake does not diminish the
merit, but is the entire reason for merit.
Reply to Objection 3: The "good" has, more than the
"difficult," to do with the reason of merit and virtue. Therefore
it does not follow that whatever is more difficult is more meritorious,
but only what is more difficult, and at the same time better.
|
|